LES MISERABLES Film Official Reviews — Page 7

All That Jazz and Chicago are the kind of "gutsy" that Rolling Stone appears to be referring to here- high-art, somewhat experimental films.

It's not that Les Mis is a good movie that is "gutsy," nor the level of performances. It's the "gutsy" use of highly experimental film style and techniques- live singing, Tom Hooper's famously-idiosyncratic shooting methods, and the dramatic reinvention of a pop-operetta score as "spoken dialogue, sung."

I was thinking, because they recorded the live vocals with a boom microphone, which had to be quite close to their faces, could that be the reason for the many close-ups?
A wider shot would mean a much bigger distance from boom to face.

I also don't buy that the musical has seen a dramatic reinvention in this so-called dialogue-singing innovation.

Why do people just repeat things without first thinking about whether or not they believe them, and why?

I know the powers that be have been cheering their stunning insight and ingenious innovations that are redefining the whole genre forever, but I'm willing to forgive them since they have a multi-million dollar film to pimp and business to tend to.

But, really, does anyone REALLY believe anything groundbreaking in terms of how the performances are approached by the actors is being introduced to the world via the film version of Les Mis?

Speak-singing is hardly new and they don't do it here in a mystically special way. They speak sing at times, yes. They also act at the same time. And sing, they also sing on top of that. I admit, it's impressive.

But not new or groundbreaking and it doesn't somehow cause it to magically divorce itself from its theatrical roots.

This film celebrates the theatre, theatrical techniques, live performance, all things that live theatre has already mastered and can do in its sleep. I don't see the rationale in deeming it more special because it's on film, and especially, that it somehow is no longer theatre.

It IS theatre...adapted.

---

I had a good cry at the end.
Negatives-Russell Crowe-Good God-that wasn't singing, Amanda,looks pretty-too shrill and wobbly voice,;Samantha looked too much like straight out of American Idol[sounded good]Hugh had his moments but never realised his part only has one good song;those close ups--couldn't look.Master of the House--dreadful--so much business going on detracted from the song-the STAR-Eddie Redmayne saved the show-award him something.
To sum up--why bother,leave these things on stage where they belong oh and Aron Tevit I thought--finally, someone who can actually sing

I find it interesting that the SWEENEY TODD film had far more positive reviews than LES MIS currently has. But Sweeney only received 4 Oscar nominations. LES MIS seems to be a more "lovable" and heartwarming piece - so I can see it getting more Oscar love.

For all the above the title box office names in this, for all the talk of Anne Hathaway's revelatory version of "I Dreamed A Dream" (which was everything it should be...and then some), I will have to say that the two that impressed me THE MOST and ALMOST WALKED AWAY with this film were: Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks. Beautiful performances from both!

I've talked to a number of people who've had my impression: I liked the movie, but also see the logic and sound reasoning around every objection raised in the reviews. As far as movie-making goes, it's an acceptable adaptation, with distinctive performances; yet it's also a long slog of a film, unrelenting and even monotonous at times. That lovely early moment with the the wind blowing a single object -- and us -- toward a new location and the future is a rare bit of cinematic sleight of hand that isn't employed later. We get a lot of business and claustrophobia when the story calls out for some breathing room around its set pieces. For me, at about the hour and forty-five point, the pile-on of death told through tearful songs starts to wear us down. We're captive because we're emotionally engaged, and the music is still coming at us, all familiar, sometimes soaring, yet sometimes repetitive in extreme. If the film had more visual variety, some still and quiet moments that matched a couple of early ones (how I'd love another honest exterior, with real sky framing something small and therefore more precious to us in the audience), if it stopped jumping and pushing and reminding us of its relentlessness, we might feel less oppressed by the sheer weight of it all. At nearly two hours and forty minutes, without a break (the intermission in the theater more appreciated, now), it's a heavy excursion, no matter how melodic and heart-tugging. And I'm long a fan of the stage show, having seen it at the Barbicon 3 weeks into the very first London run.

---