Les Misérables: So, what did you think?- Page 15

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/12 at 11:17pm

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/29/12 at 11:27pm

With all the newbies that joined to hawk their "clever" vids on Les Mis, this is the only one that I found even remotely amusing.

Thanks for posting it, PJ!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 10:35am

I actually liked how boyish Aaron Tveit's Enjolras was. Usually he's hard for me to connect with emotionally, but Tveit gave him some vulnerability and I was able to see him as a person in addition to an idealist.

I also found Eponine extraneous during the movie, and this is the first time I have ever felt that way about the character. I finally realized why most film adaptations of Les Mis to date have cut out the character entirely. But I also know that Tom Hooper would have received death threats had he cut Eponine or any of her songs.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 10:41am

I think our take has a lot to do with maturity. I think the younger you are, the more you connect with Eponine. What girl (and I can only assume many boys) can't connect with the fantasy boyfriend -- the daydreams that run in thier heads of the ideal boy falling for them.

The film is my teen daughter's first exposure to the SHOW of Les Mis. She knew and loved much of the score, but hadn't had the opportunity to actually see it. She's totally smitten with Eponine, now.

Perspective.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 11:27am

Yeah, I was a huge Eponine fangirl when I was 13 and I was FURIOUS that the Liam Neeson film adaptation cut her character out.

[That Groovy Guy]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 2:15pm

The majority of the film was in Extreme close-up; so extreme that they often didn't fit their whole head in the shot. I would think that this may have saved money on sets (which seemed almost entirely CGI) and costumes (which often looked like "costumes" and very bad ones at that). Due to these closeups, one of my foremost observations in the film was the state of every characters teeth, making me wonder just exactly what kind of makeup (?) or effects they put on them to look so yellow and dirty. (I also noted that one character had horribly gapped teeth throughout the film but after his death he had perfectly spaced teeth. Perhaps they have good orthodontists in heaven?)

Jackman was pretty good. Crowe was good but showed no depth in character which made me think that people unfamiliar with the story would wonder why he was after Valjean for so long and why he did what he did on the bridge. (I also thought it was completely out of character for Javert to give his medal to Gavroche.) Hathaway was excellent although I thought her performance was heavily marred - I would even go so far as to almost say "desecrated" - by the horrendous horrendous cinematography. Barks was great but her performance suffered greatly due to the camera work as well. I didn't really care for Redmayne until "Empty Chairs" in which I thought he was fantastic. I liked Seyfried even though I was afraid that I wasn't going to. Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter were ok but while the cartoonishness of their characters works on stage it doesn't work as well on film.

I really liked some aspects of the film but in all, the horrific, constant and extreme close-ups really destroyed the film for me.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 3:35pm

Thank you for the capsule review, Pal Joey!

Or as the teenager seated in front of me said to her girlfriends, "I KNEW it was going to be, like, sad and boring! My friend TOLD me!"

(Just to be clear, the above was not the opinion in my house.)

[Plum]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 3:36pm

The teeth were prostheses, Groovy Guy. There was a nicely gross behind-the-scenes video about the makeup on the movie a little while back.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 3:44pm

I found the prosthetic teeth refreshing, however gross. I think it's distracting when film and TV actors are covered in dirt and fake blood, but have shiny, bleached teeth.

The same goes for plastic surgery, as a rule.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 4:46pm

sets (which seemed almost entirely CGI)

Not really. The tavern & city streets were purpose built. there is a featurette on the art direction that shows some of it. Obviously the ship salvage scene was CGI ( and wrong to boot) as well as the water works b4 Javert's end but really a lot less than many other films.

[HoldThatThought]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:03pm

PJ - funny review! I wonder how long it'll be before someone does a parody using those characters instead of the the ones from the show.

I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. I'm not a big fan of Les Mis, so I didn't have huge expectations when I went to see this. And you can laugh at this, but I think the actor I enjoyed the most was the boy who played Gavroche - Daniel Huttlestone. He looked like he was having fun and was probably the least "miserable" of all of them. I thought he added a bit of spark to the scenes he was in.

I also appreciated how the music was mixed. I know some people here didn't care for it, but what I thought worked well was that you could hear the lyrics clearly enough to really understand the story. If I were listening to just the soundtrack, I'd probably prefer it differently. But I've only seen this show once before on tour back in the '80's, and did not recall the story so well. So for people who are new to the show, I think this mix is a good thing.

[Amalia Balash]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:22pm

I saw Les Miz this afternoon with a friend whose first comment was that given all the effort that went into getting the yellow teeth and layers of dirt right, it was jarring that all the actresses' eyebrows were perfect. I hadn't noticed, but when I look at pictures I think she was right.

I enjoyed the film, but didn't cry as much as I expected to. But once I started, as with the stage version, I pretty much didn't stop. I thought Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were hysterical as the Thenardiers. Marius and Cosette were useless as usual. I've been an Eponine fangirl since I saw the original Royal Shakespeare Company production way back when and, as always, I loved her and couldn't see what she saw in Marius. I liked Aaron Tveit as Enjolras. Jackman and Crowe remained Jackman and Crowe to me throughout the movie, which took me out of scenes at odd times. Colm Wilkinson and Frances Ruffelle made me smile with good memories.

Overall, I'm more likely to pay to see the stage musical again than the film musical, but I felt like I got my money's worth.

[Wishing Only Wounds]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:24pm

I noticed the eyebrows too! Specifically on Barks, who had a very interesting/very groomed eyebrow(s) style.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:30pm

some comments from an actress who was in the Canadian production:
WHA HAPPENED?

2. WHY did Russell Crowe lose any acting talent he had when he suddenly started (and I use this term loosely) singing. When he was standing on the Bridge doing his final number I heard someone behind me say, "For the love of god, just jump". Agreed. Poopie, indeed.

3. Why everyone so sad all the time...the stage show has so much joy and humour! Why all so filled angst! I mean, I know "miserables" is in the title...but, who 'bout playing them opposites? Huh? How about it?

4. WHY there gotta be a close up shot of EVERY ballad...why...and why is everyone is balling and snotting...it was the filmic version of "Park and Bark"...the very thing that straight theatre makes fun of when talking about us "musical theatre types"...
* Disclaimer: Anne Hathaway rocked the **** out of her close up/ one shot/ ballad...everyone else seemed like they were copying...and not as well.

5. New song for Val Jean...I am gonna say it, and you all are gonna judge me...it was a weird song about love with a child's head in his lap...I said it!! You thought it...come on!! You know you did!!!

6. Why Sasha/Borat gotta do asides...why the score not enough? Why Helena/Mrs. Lovett so unintelligible? And why they both sing so slow? And pause so much? Why?
They were in a whole different movie. WEIRD!?!?!? And they way they filmed Master of the House made me a bit sickie in the tum tum.
(Also, I would like to add here that they weren't nearly terrifying enough. I had the pleasure and honour of watching Graham Campbell and Janelle Hutchinson as the duo and they were about as scary as you could get...there was no question in your mind that they murdered people and beat the hell outta Cosette...and they still made you laugh...artists.)

It just seemed...long...and don't get me wrong...sometimes when I was in it it seemed long...very long.
There were some things that I loved.
I had a little cry about some of my fave parts...I forgot that Colm was playing the Bishop!!
Awesome.
The ship at the beginning was killer...Hugh Jackman was wonderful, I thought...not all have liked him...but I sure did...and I loved Anne Hathaway!

Poor George had to sit with me...I think I sang along quietly with almost everything that they DIDN'T change the lyrics to!!

So, this all made me think.
WE ALL have a bit of ownership over this show...if we have seen it a lot or been a part of it...it is an amazing show.
AND it will NEVER be the way we want it to be, I guess...
YOU BE THE JUDGE!!! GO AND SEE IT!
There are a lot of awesome things to see and hear!
For me, I just wish it coulda been better.
Sigh.
(And then the wine began to wear off....maybe I shouldn't publish this.....

*George would like me to add that he thought the students were good. Noted.
from Sharron Matthews blog ( George is her husband)

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:38pm

"Obviously the ship salvage scene was CGI ( and wrong to boot)"

Can you elaborate please on how it was wrong? Just curious.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 5:58pm

In the opening scene, the prisoners are seen towing a damaged ship into an empty drydock using ropes. Drydocks are flooded to the top when ships are entering and leaving, then the entrance is closed with a caisson and the water pumped out. The dock should have been full of water and the prisoners lined up on either side of the upper level.

I checked this w some of my old captain buddies frm my sailing days and this is historically correct-( and if there were no electicity in a drydock COULD be modern day too- the principal is the same)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 6:16pm

^^^^I have to admit I wondered how the keel of the ship was supposed to clear the bottom of the dry dock in three feet of water.

But then they left the ship with just the bow in the dock, didn't they?

So maybe the keel got in the way after all, LOL.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 6:35pm

"3. Why everyone so sad all the time...the stage show has so much joy and humour! Why all so filled angst! I mean, I know "miserables" is in the title...but, who 'bout playing them opposites? Huh? How about it?"

Haven't seen the film yet, but I can already tell that I'm likely not gonna dig the extreme seriousness ALL the time. It won't be a big deal, and who knows? I might not mind it, depending how it plays out.

But Ms. Matthews couldn't be more correct. The stage version had this perfect balance, with lightheartedness at exactly the time you needed it.

I've been a hardcore fan since childhood and have been a part of most every fandom of this show there was/is. And one thing I will say to everyone who assumes we 'Mis' fanatics love the show for its weepy-ness, that we feel GRAND emotions, and we're just generally always harping on and on about how sad this is, how tragic that is...I will let you know now that's the one topic curiously absent from even the most dedicated of fandoms. We simply don't discuss it. There is talk of the brick, the staging, the orchestrations, the cuts, the production history, the actors, the cast albums, the story, our collections, but never do we spend any amount of time discussing how we're awash in emotion-filled emotions of the most earnest kind and all that baloney.

That's stuff the general public likes to assume, so they focus on it thinking they're getting the most out of their Les Mis experience. The last reason I'd ever say I like this show is because it makes me sob for three hours. What a waste.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:16pm

Believe it or not, I really wanted to like it. I really did. I wanted to be transported by it. And I just plain wasn't.

I found the storytelling to be clumsy in the extreme -- it felt less like the film version of a Broadway musical, and more like the film version of a Broadway cast album. It just lurched along from Big Song to Big Song to Big Song to Big Song, in a way that just got annoying, I felt that big chunks of something was being left out, little things like plot exposition and character development. The alleged romance between Marius and Cosette comes off particularly hilariously as a result -- they're planning on getting married when they've only spent 7 minutes in each other's company.

I certainly appreciated Hooper's decision to keep the camera in close and intimate, rather than resorting to RobMarshallian Editing Room Hijinks. He lets me watch the actors actually sing, and they're actually singing, which turns out to be a mixed blessing, as it turns out. All too often it felt like too many of the actors were more concerned with the basic mechanics of Hitting Their Next High Note than what was actually going on with their characters. Jackman is particularly guilty of this, especially during his terribly uncomfortable rendition of Bring Him Home -- his eyes are wandering all over the place, and he's wandering all over the place rather than concentrating on the matter at hand, that prayer he's supposed to be sending heavenward about the welfare of the young man nearby.

The only amusing moment in Baron Cohen's performance was his inability to remember Cosette's name, and it got rather less amusing with time as I found myself unable to remember her name also. His really terribly blatant pickpocketing during Master Of The House got on my nerves, too.

The less said about Russell Crowe's somnambulent performance the better. I'd give a lot to know what was going on in Tom Hooper's head as he had to let Crowe get away with such dreadful singing and acting. Seriously, was that the best that they got out of him?

Updated On: 12/30/12 at 07:16 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:29pm

"...With a microphone there to catch the last gurgles, and Technicolor to photograph the red, swollen tongues!" Norma Desmond, SUNSET BOULEVARD

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:38pm

It just lurched along from Big Song to Big Song to Big Song to Big Song, in a way that just got annoying, I felt that big chunks of something was being left out, little things like plot exposition and character development. The alleged romance between Marius and Cosette comes off particularly hilariously as a result -- they're planning on getting married when they've only spent 7 minutes in each other's company.

All true. But how is any of that different from the stage version?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:44pm

"The less said about Russell Crowe's somnambulent performance the better. I'd give a lot to know what was going on in Tom Hooper's head as he had to let Crowe get away with such dreadful singing and acting. Seriously, was that the best that they got out of him?"

That is the one thing I'm concerned with most, that how such an important character could be so ineffective? Like I said, I haven't seen it, but everyone who has has said the same thing; that Javert in this film version is not threatening, the element of the chase isn't suspenseful, that Javert is much too emo and not the HARD, unforgiving, relentless man he is.

There's a reason why every single adaptation of the novel, even the films before the musical was even thought of, felt the need to cast an actor boasting those typical features that we've all known him to have. And it's thanks to Hugo's vivid description.

But they've been obsessed with "humanizing" him as of late, and they go about it the most obvious way. So what does that leave for his suicide? There is no "cracking" of his mind, no contrast, no dramatic moment where his unbending principals turn against him. It's just a long, steady walk down a plank the whole film, it seems, and at the end, he runs out of plank. That's the end of him, I guess. *shrug*

That's how I felt when I saw the 25th ann. tour, which also sought to "humanize" him. The actor playing him was EXCELLENT, which made me sad because the approach was so misguided. I literally ended up forgetting about Javert.

I sincerely hope I end up getting a huge surprise and actually love Crowe in the part. But people in my family, whom I REALLY trust, have already confirmed that Crowe's Javert is just so stiff and emo.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:47pm

"All true. But how is any of that different from the stage version?"

Because with the stage version you get a 15 minute pee break and a trip to the bar!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:53pm

"All true. But how is any of that different from the stage version?"

It didn't seem as vexing an issue when I saw the play, all the way back in 1987. The storytelling onstage didn't feel as incomplete as it did in the film, with its jump-cut of Valjean suddenly atop a mountain in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/30/12 at 7:58pm

I was actually wondering if the Les Mis film should have had an intermission like old musical movies used to have.