#26
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:11pm
Actually The Reader was and Milk I was so upset that Slumdog won best picture
LES MISERABLES Film Official Reviews — Page 2
#27
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:11pm
PARENTAL GUIDANCE will sweep the awards this season. Everybody knows it.
#28
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:14pm
"Mixed Reviews do not necessarily knock it out of OSCAR contention."
True 'nuff. Ask TITANIC.
True 'nuff. Ask TITANIC.
#29
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:20pm
"Mixed Reviews do not necessarily knock it out of OSCAR contention."
NINE had absolutely dreadful reviews and it was nominated for how many awards?
NINE had absolutely dreadful reviews and it was nominated for how many awards?
#30
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:23pm
Dear God, I'm hoping LES MIS isn't as horrifically atrocious as NINE was.
#31
Posted: 12/6/12 at 9:00pm
Eh, we're now entering the hype backlash time for Les Mis. Then there'll be backlash to the backlash. Etc.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#32
Posted: 12/6/12 at 10:11pm
I don't think reviews have everything to do with getting an Oscar for Best Picture, CRASH is a really good example; however, I do believe that for movie musicals reviews are very important. At this point, I honestly don't think it will win at all.
I will defend THE MASTER though. Easily one of the most incredibly acted films I have ever seen and just a wonderful work of art in every way. I think its reputation will live on.
Kad, I couldn't agree more. It's crazy how quickly it is for a movie to get raves and then immediately get backlash before it even opens! I agree with your comment on the Oscar thread that it has a lot to do with the internet.
I will defend THE MASTER though. Easily one of the most incredibly acted films I have ever seen and just a wonderful work of art in every way. I think its reputation will live on.
Kad, I couldn't agree more. It's crazy how quickly it is for a movie to get raves and then immediately get backlash before it even opens! I agree with your comment on the Oscar thread that it has a lot to do with the internet.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#33
Posted: 12/6/12 at 10:32pm
"Eh, we're now entering the hype backlash time for Les Mis. Then there'll be backlash to the backlash. Etc."
I haven't seen the film yet but I knew the backlash was predictable.
I haven't seen the film yet but I knew the backlash was predictable.
#34
Posted: 12/6/12 at 10:35pm
True 'nuff. Ask TITANIC.
Yeah, but Titanic became a box office and cultural phenomenon. They weren't going to deny Titanic anything after the bucketload of money it made and the impact it had. Les Miz would need to do equal business to be in serious contention for the biggie categories.
Yeah, but Titanic became a box office and cultural phenomenon. They weren't going to deny Titanic anything after the bucketload of money it made and the impact it had. Les Miz would need to do equal business to be in serious contention for the biggie categories.
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Updated On: 12/6/12 at 10:35 PM
#35
Posted: 12/7/12 at 2:21am
^ We don't know yet what LM will do at the box office. It may well be a blockbuster, too. It certainly appeals to the same people that made Titanic a phenomenon.
#36
Posted: 12/7/12 at 5:54am
That Hollywood Reporter review is actually full of compliments. Even the singing abilities of all the actors are praised. Also the "live technique" is praised.
The negative points are a matter of taste in this case.
"director Tom Hooper has turned the theatrical extravaganza into something that is far less about the rigors of existence in early 19th century France than it is about actors emoting mightily and singing their guts out"
I'm really glad about this. This is a big part of the success of the musical and why I love it so much. The film is extremely raw and authentic already. There is absolutely no point at all in trying to go even further with that.
"Although not terrible, the music soon begins to slur together to the point where you’d be willing to pay the ticket price all over again just to hear a nice, pithy dialogue exchange between Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe rather than another noble song that sounds a lot like one you just heard a few minutes earlier"
Again, a matter of taste. I love the fact that it's sung through, but if you don't understand this artform, or if you're longing for normal dialogues, then you shouldn't go to a musical. When I watch a normal film, I'm always longing for music but to put that in a review would make no sense, that's just naive. I guess you just have to understand the emotion through music and singing. If you cannot do that I suppose it all sounds like a blur for you.
The negative points are a matter of taste in this case.
"director Tom Hooper has turned the theatrical extravaganza into something that is far less about the rigors of existence in early 19th century France than it is about actors emoting mightily and singing their guts out"
I'm really glad about this. This is a big part of the success of the musical and why I love it so much. The film is extremely raw and authentic already. There is absolutely no point at all in trying to go even further with that.
"Although not terrible, the music soon begins to slur together to the point where you’d be willing to pay the ticket price all over again just to hear a nice, pithy dialogue exchange between Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe rather than another noble song that sounds a lot like one you just heard a few minutes earlier"
Again, a matter of taste. I love the fact that it's sung through, but if you don't understand this artform, or if you're longing for normal dialogues, then you shouldn't go to a musical. When I watch a normal film, I'm always longing for music but to put that in a review would make no sense, that's just naive. I guess you just have to understand the emotion through music and singing. If you cannot do that I suppose it all sounds like a blur for you.
Updated On: 12/7/12 at 05:54 AM
#37
Posted: 12/7/12 at 6:18am
Whichever way its awards fortunes unfold will certainly be interesting to watch.
At the industry screenings it received very enthusiastic responses. The awards gurus (Gold Derby, EW, etc.) had their Oscar reporters canvass the audience and by all accounts Les Miz was considered a lock for a best pic nomination (the links with those reports are in the Oscar thread over on the OT board if anyone is interested) along with Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, and Argo.
If Les Miz is a commercial success it will probably maintain its awards momentum.
As I recall Nine was immediately pegged as a disaster from the very beginning. The early industry screenings' word of mouth was so toxic that by the second week of screenings the theaters were almost empty. Even the Weinsteins, who never give up, realized how bad it was and reduced the number of screens it was to play on once it went wide.
Best picture aside I think Hathaway is a definite contender for a nomination as are the tech elements.
At the industry screenings it received very enthusiastic responses. The awards gurus (Gold Derby, EW, etc.) had their Oscar reporters canvass the audience and by all accounts Les Miz was considered a lock for a best pic nomination (the links with those reports are in the Oscar thread over on the OT board if anyone is interested) along with Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, and Argo.
If Les Miz is a commercial success it will probably maintain its awards momentum.
As I recall Nine was immediately pegged as a disaster from the very beginning. The early industry screenings' word of mouth was so toxic that by the second week of screenings the theaters were almost empty. Even the Weinsteins, who never give up, realized how bad it was and reduced the number of screens it was to play on once it went wide.
Best picture aside I think Hathaway is a definite contender for a nomination as are the tech elements.
....but the world goes 'round
#38
Posted: 12/7/12 at 6:47am
I loved Lincoln, but I thought Sally Field was the weak link in an otherwise extraordinary movie. Her performance was exactly what I would expect of her playing that role, an 1860s version of M'Lynn.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
#39
Posted: 12/7/12 at 9:44am
If THE MASTER wins best picture, I'd never trust the Oscar voting process again. That was, by far, the worst movie I have ever seen. And I've seen some clunkers. Painful to watch. Absolutely dreadful.
Not sure about Les Miz's chance at winning BP, but it will certainly get a few. I hope it is great--and will see it regardless of reviews--but it is a musical musical. Little dialogue. And even with stunning visuals, performances, there are many who can only handle so much singing in a movie. I'd venture to guess most men that don't already love live theater.
Not sure about Les Miz's chance at winning BP, but it will certainly get a few. I hope it is great--and will see it regardless of reviews--but it is a musical musical. Little dialogue. And even with stunning visuals, performances, there are many who can only handle so much singing in a movie. I'd venture to guess most men that don't already love live theater.
There's more than corn in Indiana.
#40
Posted: 12/7/12 at 10:00am
My problem with "The Master" is that it is about a bond between these two characters and whether that bond survives.
I didn't believe that bond, didn't understand what it was based on (spiritually, sexually, emotionally?) saw no evidence of it and certainly didn't care whether it survived or not.
Phoenix's grandstanding in this empty context is not just impressive acting, it's "IMPRESSIVE ACTING!" Hoffman is asked to counter this with control and restraint and gives a far more effective performance. Exactly what Adams is doing here is as failingly oblique as her costars.
But, hey, if it's me, if I just didn't get it, if it's something more than a pretentious shell, then I'm perfectly willing to hear why I failed to grasp something of real value.
Mihai Malaimare, Jr.'s cinematography is quite good. And the production elements are strong. But a grand movie - whether it's a traditional epic or a challenging modern one - has to offer something more than mere opulence.
Madbrian, I disagree with you strongly about Field's Mary. I was expecting the kind of predictable performance you describe but I saw something very different, surprisingly specific and well-focused, fiercely intelligent, hearty without being the least bit trite, and very memorable. She and Day-Lewis played their scenes together beautifully. And her big scene with Jones is great fun grounded in real heartbreak and pluck.
I didn't believe that bond, didn't understand what it was based on (spiritually, sexually, emotionally?) saw no evidence of it and certainly didn't care whether it survived or not.
Phoenix's grandstanding in this empty context is not just impressive acting, it's "IMPRESSIVE ACTING!" Hoffman is asked to counter this with control and restraint and gives a far more effective performance. Exactly what Adams is doing here is as failingly oblique as her costars.
But, hey, if it's me, if I just didn't get it, if it's something more than a pretentious shell, then I'm perfectly willing to hear why I failed to grasp something of real value.
Mihai Malaimare, Jr.'s cinematography is quite good. And the production elements are strong. But a grand movie - whether it's a traditional epic or a challenging modern one - has to offer something more than mere opulence.
Madbrian, I disagree with you strongly about Field's Mary. I was expecting the kind of predictable performance you describe but I saw something very different, surprisingly specific and well-focused, fiercely intelligent, hearty without being the least bit trite, and very memorable. She and Day-Lewis played their scenes together beautifully. And her big scene with Jones is great fun grounded in real heartbreak and pluck.
Updated On: 12/7/12 at 10:00 AM
#41
Posted: 12/7/12 at 10:03am
Is Les Miserables - the movie this year's West Side Story or Cabaret?
Probably not... but it's thankfully not this year's Rent, Phantom, or Nine either
Probably not... but it's thankfully not this year's Rent, Phantom, or Nine either
Slotted spoons don't hold much soup
Updated On: 12/7/12 at 10:03 AM
#42
Posted: 12/7/12 at 11:47am
Jordan C. u are probably the funniest member here...i actually think ROAD TRIP will win Babs her second Oscar for acting...LOL...but seriously Seth Rogan and Babs look to have great screen chemistry...
#43
Posted: 12/7/12 at 12:01pm
Many pundits are predicting that its very possible that THE MASTER could get shut out of Best Picture nominees altogether.
It will NOT win Best Picture. At this point, the momentum is clearly leaning towards ARGO (which is a fantastic film and equal critic/audience-pleaser; doesn't hurt) and ZERO DARK THIRTY (which has yet to get a bad review from major critics but will be a tough commercial sell). But LES MIZ still absolutely has a shot at this stage.
It will NOT win Best Picture. At this point, the momentum is clearly leaning towards ARGO (which is a fantastic film and equal critic/audience-pleaser; doesn't hurt) and ZERO DARK THIRTY (which has yet to get a bad review from major critics but will be a tough commercial sell). But LES MIZ still absolutely has a shot at this stage.
Updated On: 12/7/12 at 12:01 PM
#44
Posted: 12/7/12 at 12:26pm
I read these boards quite often, but have never posted a comment.
I've seen the film and think it's very good. Highlights for me: Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Sacha Baron Cohen and Aaron Tveit. I also think Flight will get a Best Picture nomination along with Denzel for Best Actor.
BTW, WICKEDROCKS, I always appreciate your reviews.
I've seen the film and think it's very good. Highlights for me: Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Sacha Baron Cohen and Aaron Tveit. I also think Flight will get a Best Picture nomination along with Denzel for Best Actor.
BTW, WICKEDROCKS, I always appreciate your reviews.
#45
Posted: 12/7/12 at 12:35pm
Backlash for Les Mis was inevitable because of the ridiculous publicizing of the responses to the first screenings. People don't like being told to expect a masterpiece and then get something that's merely good.
The Master was divisive amongst Academy members and audiences. The fact it lost momentum so quickly is a bad sign. It may manage a nomination. ...May.
I think the big three of the year are Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty. I still think Affleck's got his Best Director award in the bag due to his career comeback as a successful director (Spielberg is Spielberg, and Hooper and Bigelow are both very recent recipients), but I'm not sure if Argo will take the prize. I feel like some people may react negatively to Argo's final and fictional chase sequence.
The Master was divisive amongst Academy members and audiences. The fact it lost momentum so quickly is a bad sign. It may manage a nomination. ...May.
I think the big three of the year are Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty. I still think Affleck's got his Best Director award in the bag due to his career comeback as a successful director (Spielberg is Spielberg, and Hooper and Bigelow are both very recent recipients), but I'm not sure if Argo will take the prize. I feel like some people may react negatively to Argo's final and fictional chase sequence.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#46
Posted: 12/7/12 at 12:47pm
Life Pi is wonderful, not sure it's a favorite by anyone but it's a great film. I think Les Mis has a good chance at winning quite a few.
The Master is a disaster, I cannot believe I paid and "sat" through that.
The Master is a disaster, I cannot believe I paid and "sat" through that.
#47
Posted: 12/7/12 at 12:50pm
100% in agreement with henrik on THE MASTER. The movie is gloriously appointed, beautifully shot (wide screen, circa the 50s), scored, and to a point, stunningly acted. But it's built on sustained sort of creative self-indulgence -- with a complete disconnect from audience expectation, or satisfaction. These two men and their tumultuous (ultimately non-) relationship are offered up without any seeming awareness of what might make this story meaningful for those of us held hostage for almost 2 1/2 hours. The lack of genuine catharsis of any kind -- it all comes to very little -- makes the journey, or rather for us, ride, taxing, intellectually exhausting and emotionally unfullfilling. And the patently improvisational style to many scenes, which feature repetitive acting-class exercises in actor vs. act (the jail cell sequence exhibit A; fire and music vs. fire and music, and a lot of property smashing) never build, never have the shape required by drama. Yet is framed as if created with precision -- a stylistic paradox, so much messiness and odd formality at the same time.
To be fair, I stayed invested for over an hour, mesmerized in part by the admittedly riveting work by the two stars. But finally, their "work" shows, and not in a good way. We become more aware of actors demonstrating their craft than illuminating character, story, ideas. There is no real story. Events pile up, lavishly doctored with period detailing and texture, yet the bigger picture isn't really much of a picture, finally. I wanted to be swept away, or at least deeply disturbed -- bothered by what happens or does not. I would've been happy to be shaken, irritated, angered. But ultimately, I felt next to nothing. It feels bloated and empty, "artistic" in the sense of artists huffing and puffing to show their street cred.
To be fair, I stayed invested for over an hour, mesmerized in part by the admittedly riveting work by the two stars. But finally, their "work" shows, and not in a good way. We become more aware of actors demonstrating their craft than illuminating character, story, ideas. There is no real story. Events pile up, lavishly doctored with period detailing and texture, yet the bigger picture isn't really much of a picture, finally. I wanted to be swept away, or at least deeply disturbed -- bothered by what happens or does not. I would've been happy to be shaken, irritated, angered. But ultimately, I felt next to nothing. It feels bloated and empty, "artistic" in the sense of artists huffing and puffing to show their street cred.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 12/7/12 at 12:50 PM
#48
Posted: 12/7/12 at 1:42pm
Every negative review I've read so far seems to be bashing the stage show itself. I didn't realize Les Miz was so hated.
#49
Posted: 12/7/12 at 4:44pm
Well, it's cheeseball. I think it's mostly good cheese, myself, but that's probably colored by the fact that I first saw the show when I was ten or so. :) Other people are put off by that enormous pop earnestness - and people who are suspicious of musicals in the first place are going to be especially put off by one like Les Mis. It has no irony.
#50
Posted: 12/7/12 at 5:41pm
I was at early Academy screenings of PHANTOM, NINE and DREAMGIRLS and they all played like gang busters to standing ovations and ecstatic buzz. I seem to remember one of the popular Oscar pundits declaring after the PHANTOM screening that the Best Picture Oscar Race was all wrapped up.
How does this happen? Well, for starters, when they happen, movie musicals are often the most anticipated films of any season they appear in. That anticipation usually heavily plays into the film's favor for the early screenings, which are usually for audiences highly familiar with the stage productions and who go in with a bit of a less than objective eye (the frequent Q&As with the cast doesn't hurt either!) and let's face it, watching movie musicals in this day and age feels like an event - they are big and loud and exciting to watch - and even the worst of the past decade have had some individual moments that have been thrilling and heart palpating cinematic. It's not hard to see why audiences, in the moment, react the way they do, even if the total is less than the sum of its parts...
And with the exception of CHICAGO, all of the stage to screen movie musicals in recent years have been based on theatrical material that has been heavily scrutinized by film critics (most of the negative reviews of NINE complained heavily about the movie's music and lyrics, which of course are mostly hold overs from the stage production). I think CHICAGO's innate cynicism helped ward off the general snarkiness a lot of critics have towards the medium.
And yes, LES MISERABLES on stage has routinely received mixed-negativexs reviews: from the London premiere at the RSC right up to the recent Broadway revivals. It has always been a musical that wears its sentimentalism on its sleeve.
If the movie is is a hit, it will be (critics be damned) because it scores with general film going audiences in the same way that turned the stage show into such a global phenom.
How does this happen? Well, for starters, when they happen, movie musicals are often the most anticipated films of any season they appear in. That anticipation usually heavily plays into the film's favor for the early screenings, which are usually for audiences highly familiar with the stage productions and who go in with a bit of a less than objective eye (the frequent Q&As with the cast doesn't hurt either!) and let's face it, watching movie musicals in this day and age feels like an event - they are big and loud and exciting to watch - and even the worst of the past decade have had some individual moments that have been thrilling and heart palpating cinematic. It's not hard to see why audiences, in the moment, react the way they do, even if the total is less than the sum of its parts...
And with the exception of CHICAGO, all of the stage to screen movie musicals in recent years have been based on theatrical material that has been heavily scrutinized by film critics (most of the negative reviews of NINE complained heavily about the movie's music and lyrics, which of course are mostly hold overs from the stage production). I think CHICAGO's innate cynicism helped ward off the general snarkiness a lot of critics have towards the medium.
And yes, LES MISERABLES on stage has routinely received mixed-negativexs reviews: from the London premiere at the RSC right up to the recent Broadway revivals. It has always been a musical that wears its sentimentalism on its sleeve.
If the movie is is a hit, it will be (critics be damned) because it scores with general film going audiences in the same way that turned the stage show into such a global phenom.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95