Les Misérables

425

425

Starblind
Last night I went to see the new Les Misérables film not really knowing what to expect. I am unfortunately not familiar with the work of Victor Hugo (after seeing this I plan to remedy that), nor was I sure how I would feel about seeing a film presented almost entirely as a musical.

When the film started, I was not immediately impressed. In fact, I was close to concluding that due to it being a musical, it was simply not my type of film.

The next two and a half hours would prove me wrong. Les Misérables is quite possibly the best film released in 2012. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is simply amazing, as are Anne Hathaway as Fantine and Russell Crowe as Javert. The film had me in tears multiple times by the time it ended (I am perfectly secure in my masculinity as I admit this). I'm not averse to crying, but it takes an exceptional bit of art to do it. Only one bit of music outside of film has made me do it (Paschendale), and this was actually the first film to ever make me cry (Aaron Sorkin's writing for television in The West Wing and The Newsroom are the only other things that emotionally powerful for me).

Anyway, I wanted to know if anyone else had seen this yet, and if not, to recommend it to anyone who loves Romantic art, and to those who don't. It is an exceptionally beautiful film. Even if you are unsure about the musical aspect of it, as I was, I still very strongly recommend seeing it. (And men, I'm sure if you have wives or girlfriends, it would make them especially happy if you took them to Les Misérables willingly).
 
Having seen the musical many years ago, wild horses could not drag me to see this godforsaken movie. I've read a number of reviews, which have been mixed at best, and from what I can tell, they took the musical and then decided to have the actors sing live in extreme closeup. No thanks. This review, from the Hollywood Reporter, rings very true to me, particularly in light of 425's praise: "there are large, emotionally susceptible segments of the population ready to swallow this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's good."
 
Just saw the trailer in the cinema before The Hobbit started and my reaction was more like:
Sorry, I don't like musicals, though I admit that I see you say you didn't think much of the genre either, and still liked it!
 
Cornfed Hick said:
This review, from the Hollywood Reporter, rings very true to me, particularly in light of 425's praise: "there are large, emotionally susceptible segments of the population ready to swallow this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's good."
Click to expand...

My response would be: "There are large segments of the population who believe that all art should be Naturalist and that anything portraying heroic images of any variety, let alone those of Hugo's pure Romanticism, is tripe; but that does not mean that they are right." Those are the exact same type of people who would criticize Shakespeare on the basis that "people do not actually speak in iambic pentameter."

In fact, I did say in my post that I am NOT emotionally susceptible when it comes to film, but that this was an exception.


@Forostar: I believe that puts us at odds, since I have never enjoyed anything by Tolkien. I stumbled through The Hobbit and all three Lord of the Rings novels, since they are so widely praised, but I found that the man's writing takes a long time to not get very far and rambles in a way that I cannot follow. A few months ago I decided to give Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien a chance by watching The Fellowship of the Ring. I felt the same about the film as I felt about the novel: that it could have been half the length, and it didn't go anywhere particularly entertaining in the first place. Therefore, upon news of a two, and then three part film adaptation of The Hobbit, I felt... Well, less like Lord Vader and more of just a "facepalm". I can respect Tolkien's influence on the fantasy genre, and have enjoyed a few works of that genre (though I prefer science fiction). I can also respect that some people (like you) do enjoy his narrative style and his stories. But I do not enjoy his works.
 
I quite fancy Les Mis, but I might wait for the DVD, too busy on weekends at the moment
 
Now, if Les Mis had scenes like this, from the latest Texas Chainsaw Massacre redux, I might shell out my cash for tickets.
alexandra-daddario-texas-chainsaw-3d-01-1630x690.jpg
 
I saw this earlier in the week (my daughter wanted to go, so I blame her :) ). I thought it was pretty good all around, Helena Bonham Carter/Sasha Baron Cohen were really good as were Jackman and Crowe. On the bad side, I did not care for Ann Hathaway at all in this nor whoever played Marius ... I thought he acted and sang just fine, but WTF was the deal with his hair ... normally I would not care what anyone's hair looked like (especially a male), but it was very distracting and took the movie out of the period
 
^
It is almost worth it, I am generally the last person in the universe that would notice something like that -- it is not hard to miss. He looked like he was going to audition for Glee right after the movie ended
 
I sort of wanted to see it anyway. I love costume drama and periodesque musicals. I want to see the stage production of War Horse when it goes on tour this year
 
It is not really a bad movie IMO, the things I mentioned were pretty bad for me, but there were good moments. I have no desire to see it again, but am fine with having seen it.
 
Finally seen this film. It does what the label says, I ended up blubbing too, and I do not cry at films!
Impressive CGI, and I liked a lot of the period dress they used. Hugh Jackman was amazing, even if he did look scarily like my landlord.
I wasn't expecting quite as much singing, it was pretty much singing from start to finish, little to no ordinary dialogue.
Marius' hair didn't impress me as much as Sacha Baron Cohen's, but his freckles were interesting. ;)
 
My wife rented and watched it. I came in the room for about 5 minutes, then left. What I saw was borderline unwatchable. Of course, I saw the musical in college and despised it then, too, so my reaction was not unexpected. Still, the movie seemed worse, and the camera work seemed deliberately off-putting.

Also watched Beasts of the Southern Wild this weekend. Or tried to. Fell asleep. Twice. It's very artfully done, but painfully boring. Reminded me of a Terence Malick film. Inscrutable.

Argo was entertaining enough, but not Best Picture-worthy. Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook and Django Unchained seemed more Best Picture-worthy. So did Moonrise Kingdom, but that didn't even get nominated. The best movie of the year was Zero Dark Thirty.
 
I saw Lincoln last weekend and found it oddly uncompelling. It was a well-acted and technically well-made film, but the story never managed to build up any real tension.
 
mckindog said:
Because you knew the end? :innocent:
Click to expand...

Not really. That's true of all historical films; the question is whether you can turn it into a story with some dramatic tension. For me, Lincoln didn't quite succeed at this. Most of it, especially the parts about Lincoln's family, felt rather perfunctory. I think a key problem was a lack of compelling character interactions; scenes were often dominated by a single actor (usually Daniel Day-Lewis or Tommy Lee Jones), which resulted in a lack of a sense of conflict throughout the story. I would have liked a few more debates and arguments, and a more fleshed out portrayal of Lincoln's political opponents.

If this criticism sounds vague - well, it is. I thought it was a good movie, but as I said, oddly uncompelling.
 
Let me start this off by saying that Victor Hugo's book is a masterpiece. During a long school day in which I somehow ended up stuck in the library with no work to do, I started reading it and as I got more and more sucked in, found myself finishing the entire book. It's very poetic and shows extreme amounts of heroism and courageousness in it's lead character, not to mention one hell of a menacing side villain (who is represented more comedically in the musical). I also LOVE the stage musical (specifically the tenth anniversary performances). Songs like Philip Quast's performances of "Stars" and Javert's closing song which takes place post "the confrontation song" (it would spoil it by revealing the title) are among my favourite vocal performances ever for their sheer passion and power. Of course there's camp-ness to it (particularly "Lovely Ladies" and the outrageously funny "Master of the House") but the emotional weight to the Hugo story is prominent here, particularly in Javert's character who is expanded from a one-note villain who's blinded by the law to a man conflicted by serving the law and protecting a possibly innocent man. This is hinted at briefly in the book but it comes to like Quast's portrayal of him, one of my favourite villains of all time, sheerly for his passion. I've seen it live earlier this year and had an incredible time. So i'm a huge Les Mis fan, but the film? I wasn't impressed. Oh don't get me wrong I loved it the first time I saw it in theatres. But aside from being fan service, it's nothing special. The cinematography is generally awful (far too many close-ups) and the flaws that the proceeding versions are amped to the nth degree. Still I like the performances. "I Dreamed a Dream" has never been better.

425 said:
Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is simply amazing, as are Anne Hathaway as Fantine and Russell Crowe as Javert.
Click to expand...

Huge Jackman gave a very passionate performance indeed and I can't rave enough on Hathaway as stated, but I despised Crowe. He of course will never reach Javert's quality but judging on his own, he was enormously stoic and unable to emote. No one in this movies sings particularly pretty, it's the passion that comes through. But he has no passion. A appalling insult to my favourite character from the play.

Cornfed Hick said:
Having seen the musical many years ago, wild horses could not drag me to see this godforsaken movie. I've read a number of reviews, which have been mixed at best, and from what I can tell, they took the musical and then decided to have the actors sing live in extreme closeup. No thanks. This review, from the Hollywood Reporter, rings very true to me, particularly in light of 425's praise: "there are large, emotionally susceptible segments of the population ready to swallow this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's good."
Click to expand...

The live aspects works surprisingly well actually. Give it a go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top