Les Misérables: So, what did you think? — Page 2

My favorite reviews are "I didn't like it. I mean, I didn't hate it but it wasn't very good. I'm seeing again tonight and again tomorrow and then over the weekend but it wasn't my kind of movie"

My Oh My, the sold-out audience I watched with was just fine - quiet, rapt, and without a single electronic interruption. Go ahead and watch in the next few days.

My Oh My- Thanks! Yeah, I noticed the percussion quickly, too, probably because that's what I play. Also there was a complete absence of the iconic keyboards, which I've never loved, so I didn't miss them at first...but then after 2.5 hours of hearing 70% strings, I did. You're pretty much right about Hooper wanting to avoid seeming "stagey"- Barks' "but he never saw me THERE" and Redmayne's "oh my friends, my FRIENDS" are pretty much the only huge belting moments left in the show, other than big ensemble numbers. It also seemed like everyone was instructed not to a) sing too loudly and b) hold notes to their full length.

And I have to echo what Plum said- although there was certainly a lot of sniffling.

Hugh Grant??? lol

---

Don't drop your pearls folks, human error!

---

I thought Hathaway was the film's biggest asset while simultaneously being the film's biggest problem.

She's simply too good. Those first 45 minutes of the film are so intense, raw and exciting that the jump to Paris (and the love story side of the film) pales in comparison and comes off as a little silly. Felt a bit like two different films.

Hooper really brought it together by the end though. I am definitely a fan of the film and have only a few minor quibbles (many of which are these ridiculous camerawork choices, which I also found distracting in "The King's Speech").

All of the big solos are stunning. I actually quite liked Crowe. I thought his vocals were a nice relief from the sometimes painfully shrill singing done by Jackman, who I thought was excellent in a dog of a role.

I will say that the Thenardiers never registered as even mildly sinister, which I think is unfortunate.

---

My showing also was quiet & rapt tho there was one cell phone that went off.

Anyone else bothered/shocked by something technical and seemingly small: the image ratio? (1.85:1)

I couldn't believe the narrowness of the image when it began, and we were staring at that GWTW-sized square (and I saw it on a very big screen). I believe many of the problems people have with the preponderance of close-ups are in part due to the decision to shoot the film in a traditional ratio. The absence of sweeping panoramic vistas doubles the sense of claustrophobia. We don't get a really vivid establishing shot (one with moving human beings) until the second act, the exterior sequence following "One Day More" with the military parade and students (singing "Do You Hear the People Sing," moved until later, yes?) also the first genuine daylight in the film. The absence of a real sky and real light, coupled with this slivered view of the story, contributes to the artifice, which crescendos during "Stars," (which looks like something cut from MOULIN ROUGE).

This narrow ratio makes the characters sit literally in our faces, often cut-off mid-forehead (an annoying choice). We long for neutral space around these singing heads, shrouded in studio lit chiaroscuro, and there's precious little room. And so this boxed in feeling doesn't help the overall cause. If the goal is to present a minimalist epic, we get the minimalism with too little epic in design, alas. No dig at the art direction, which is solid (if again, artificial in places; the central portion of Paris kept reminding me of the sets for VICTOR/VICTORIA).

A small thing, but with a running time of nearly 2 hours and 40 minutes, a contributing factor. And while we're on the subject of irritating technical issues: Hugh's final deathbed makes-up, which looked like Wolverine aged to age 70, was ghastly. It took me out of the sequence, despite the actor giving solid work (as he does throughout).

One more thought: Is Anne Hathaway's work over-rated? No. Well, not yet. Poll people three weeks from now. I think we're already weary of hearing how the movie dips after her number (didn't happen for me, but I get it). She is remarkable, and Hooper shoots the number brilliantly. But I expect a backlash to the performance's praise. Hugh carries this movie, and Eddie is his partner. They do yeoman's work, and as much as I appreciate Hathaways's impact, she's on screen about 15 minutes.

---

Updated On: 12/25/12 at 08:58 PM

Also saw it at 10 PM last night. I loved it. I was skeptical, but I really, really enjoyed it. The standouts for me were Eddie Redmayne, Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks, Daniel Huttlestone, and to my surprise, Hugh Jackman.

Thinking more about it, I think the direction hurt Russell Crowe's performance, more so than him just being "weak." He has a loud, rough voice, and the instant closeups and quick lead in to songs did nothing for his voice. I don't know, maybe I'm being too nice.

Did anyone else laugh during (SPOILER if you know nothing about Les Mis) Javert's suicide with the very audible "cracking" of the spine? My friend and I lost it.

I also saw it in IMAX. If you have the chance, go in IMAX. I'm not a big fan of it, in general, but the sound was amazing.

---

Updated On: 12/25/12 at 09:09 PM

Auggie27, I'm confused by your referring to the 1:85:1 ratio as "narrow." You wish it had been in 2:35:1 which is much more narrow. Also, we're not looking at the Gone With the Wind-sized square. That was made in 1:37:1 and shown in the square 1:33:1.

None of that means you shouldn't be disappointed with what you got. Hooper seems to think the solos are akin to Shakespearean monologues, which are also usually shot in close-up.

For my taste, the film wobbles more when it pulls back than when in close-up. It hasn't been made like a traditional epic (perhaps due to the very fast sched to get the pic ready for this Christmas). Hooper doesn't seem to have the eye for that, coming off of TV. Whenever the solos are shot with wider framing, it looks more like Oliver! and, for better and worse, that's not what they're going for here.

2.35:1 ratio (also known as "Cinemascope") is not narrower than 1.85:1 (also known as "Academy flat.")

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060423235253/tovid/images/b/bd/Aspect_ratios.png

---

Updated On: 12/25/12 at 09:40 PM

Thank you, chrisampm2, for correcting me. I read the ratio in a review, but it didn't seem right to me. The film looks smaller in width than any film of comparable scope in recent memory. If the ratio is wrong, I apologize.

But I much appreciate what you said about the tighter close-ups providing the more successful material. If I adjust my thinking, I absolutely agree. The OLIVER-ization is where Hooper fails, because the vaster canvases do look somewhat thrown together for the big screen, done on the quick/slash/cheap. I take your point.

It's when we pull back that the slender image fails to help us suspend disbelief. I simply didn't feel in Paris often enough (and stand by my statement about VICTOR/VICTORIA in the central Parisian design.)

But speaking of OLIVER-ization: I'm watching the Albert Finney SCROOGE as I type this (an OLIVER rip-off in tone and style), shot in Panavision, and though studio-built in its studied artifice, the film is more pleasing and oddly enough creates more genuine feeling in its faked approximation of time and place.

Someone please find out: what is the damned ratio?

---

Updated On: 12/25/12 at 09:45 PM