Jump to content


* * * * * 2 votes

Les Mis Movie


  • Please log in to reply
808 replies to this topic

#751 poster J

poster J

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1017 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostD, on 15 January 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Hardly a ringing endorsement . . .

I said 'far'.  And it was more a statement of fact than anything else.  I thought he was wonderful, but appreciate others may not think the same, my point was I don't think it can be denied he sang better than Crowe, regardless of what anyone thinks of his acting.

#752 D'James

D'James

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:50 PM

View Postposter J, on 15 January 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:



I said 'far'.  And it was more a statement of fact than anything else.  I thought he was wonderful, but appreciate others may not think the same, my point was I don't think it can be denied he sang better than Crowe, regardless of what anyone thinks of his acting.

Haha. Sorry I missed the 'far'. I didn't like his voice much or his mouth, plus I just think he didn't look right. To quote my friends 'he was the most English looking person ever.'

#753 Stage Hand

Stage Hand

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:56 PM

i thougbt Aaron, Sam and Anne had the best vocals. Crowe's voice never sounded comfortable but i enjoyed the confrontation svene

#754 luce66

luce66

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

I enjoyed the film, particularly the first hour or so and as many have said, Sam, Anne and Hugh (acting rather than voice) really stood out. I wasn't as blown away by the whole thing as many others seem to have been. Perhaps I'm just so familiar with the show and the songs, it doesn't impact me in the same way now. I'm not sure. But I think it was a very good screen adaptation, it's in your face for 2 and a half hours with no letting up!

I didn't like the new song, just didn't do anything for me. Liked Eddie, Amanda was ok. Russel Crowe wasn't as bad as I thought (had VERY low expectations) but his performance didn't do anything for me. The others were fine. All in all I enjoyed it very much, despite being a little disappointed, I'm not sure exactly why. But I'll definitely be going back to see it.

Btw in the adverts before the film did anyone see a segment about the premiere in London? One of the producers was interviewed and said something along the lines of "these are Hollywood actors playing these roles, they're going to be acted so well not just being really well sung like on stage' I'm paraphrasing but I thought that was so insulting!

#755 MrBarnaby

MrBarnaby

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:49 PM

It also made me remember just how boring the show is. I guess I'm just not a Les Mis fan.

#756 Doogie Hoser

Doogie Hoser

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:47 AM

I saw it for a second time tonight and I liked it much better.  Now I saw it on an IMAX screen and the sound was much, much improved, the orchestra didn't sound so buried.

My principal criticisms, upon second viewing:

Russell Crowe.  He has a nice voice, it's just the wrong voice for Javert, IMHO.

The cinematography.  I grew to yearn for those epic close ups, because it seemed like the only time the camera was stable.  The rest of the time it seemed shaky, jolting, meandering.  It didn't do the story any favours.

The editing.  They seemed to be unable to hold a shot to let the impact establish.  Everything seemed nicked a few seconds too soon.

I would have cut Stars.  Russell Crowe only did an adequate job of it and it was already established that Javert was never going to give up on pursuing Valjean.  It was redundant and the performance wasn't strong enough to warrant it.  As heretical as it sounds, I also would have cut Bring Him Home.  Hugh Jackman again was just adequate at it.  I think one of the problems was they tried to shorten the length from the musical without making any clear effort to reduce the number of stories they were trying to tell.  So you got a little bit of everything, generally nicked down.  The movie didn't feel as rushed to me as it did the first time I saw it, but it still felt somewhat rushed.

Again, I can't stress enough how much a decent sound system improved the experience and IMAX delivers that.

Stand outs for me:

Eponine, still.  

Eddie Redmayne.  If Anne Hathaway earned an Oscar nomination for her bit, Eddie Redmayne surely deserved one for his Marius.  That Empty Chairs was just a fantastic piece of work.

The treatment of LaMarque's funeral as the spark of the uprising.  It just flowed beautifully and was a wonderful idea.

The Thenardiers.  As hilarious as they could have been given the mangled reduction of their numbers and the horrible editing.

#757 djp

djp

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostDoogie Hoser, on 20 January 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

I saw it for a second time tonight and I liked it much better.  Now I saw it on an IMAX screen and the sound was much, much improved, the orchestra didn't sound so buried.

My principal criticisms, upon second viewing:

Russell Crowe.  He has a nice voice, it's just the wrong voice for Javert, IMHO.

The cinematography.  I grew to yearn for those epic close ups, because it seemed like the only time the camera was stable.  The rest of the time it seemed shaky, jolting, meandering.  It didn't do the story any favours.

The editing.  They seemed to be unable to hold a shot to let the impact establish.  Everything seemed nicked a few seconds too soon.

I would have cut Stars.  Russell Crowe only did an adequate job of it and it was already established that Javert was never going to give up on pursuing Valjean.  It was redundant and the performance wasn't strong enough to warrant it.  As heretical as it sounds, I also would have cut Bring Him Home.  Hugh Jackman again was just adequate at it.  I think one of the problems was they tried to shorten the length from the musical without making any clear effort to reduce the number of stories they were trying to tell.  So you got a little bit of everything, generally nicked down.  The movie didn't feel as rushed to me as it did the first time I saw it, but it still felt somewhat rushed.

Again, I can't stress enough how much a decent sound system improved the experience and IMAX delivers that.

Stand outs for me:

Eponine, still.  

Eddie Redmayne.  If Anne Hathaway earned an Oscar nomination for her bit, Eddie Redmayne surely deserved one for his Marius.  That Empty Chairs was just a fantastic piece of work.

The treatment of LaMarque's funeral as the spark of the uprising.  It just flowed beautifully and was a wonderful idea.

The Thenardiers.  As hilarious as they could have been given the mangled reduction of their numbers and the horrible editing.

I think the timing problem is there because they decided to fill in the implicit bits of the story with new scenes, and the new song. There's also an attempt to put back in some of the book story on top of what was put in the stage show. You then have to cut the ensemble songs to  bits, and truncate some of the big numbers,  or you end up considerably longer than the stage show - with no interval. It may be that you have to dumb things down to that extent. Its debateable though how many  people won't get that the grown up girl with Valjean in Paris is the same little girl that they saw a minute before leaving the inn with Valjean,  without multiple scenes showing them arriving in Paris - or that we need extra scenes to explain that Javert is looking for Valjean when all he has to do is say that he's been looking for him once. Some people claim in newspaper comments that they hey still couldn't understand what was going on, so perhaps the more dumbed down  the better.....

#758 tommo2k

tommo2k

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:08 AM

I actually thought "Stars" was the only song where Russell Crowe sounded OK!

#759 poster J

poster J

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1017 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:33 AM

Stars was better than the Solliloquy, but that's not saying much.  Bring Him Home I think was necessary, but the direction of it was all wrong - there was no indication at all that it was a prayer, which is the whole point of it.  And it could have been done reflectively - the reprise in the Finale was.

I've seen it twice now and my criticisms were the same as well - Russell Crowe, the direction and Bring Him Home.  And standouts still Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks and Anne Hathaway - all nomination-worthy performances in my mind, although obviously they weren't all going to get them.  I liked Aaron Tveit better on 2nd viewing, but still think he wasn't a powerful enough leader.  And I was just as impressed by all the West End guys on the barricade 2nd time round as I had been the first time.


Have to say, I hope if the cast do end up performing a medley of solos at the Oscars (it's either that or a couple of ensemble bits like One Day More and Do You Hear the People Sing), that Crowe doesn't sing, or else just does a short bit from Stars.  I presume Jackman will have to do Suddenly as it's the nominated song, and then there'd be bits of Empty Chairs (or A Heart Full of Love/In My Life if Amanda Seyfried is included), On My Own and I Dreamed a Dream.

#760 Doogie Hoser

Doogie Hoser

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

I did love the orchestrations of Stars. Javert's suicides, where the music does shift to reflect the turmoil in his mind leading him to suicide, felt like three short songs glued together to me.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users