Popular Post Pahoran Posted January 10, 2013 Popular Post Posted January 10, 2013 First, three warnings:1) This is a long film, over 2½ hours of it. Be prepared to go the distance.2) If you have a heart and it is still beating, probably also be prepared to go through a few tissues.3) Some of the critics have panned it. ("I screamed a scream as time went by," quipped one spoilt cypher, sulking about the length of the film.) If the opinions of critics are important to you, then that might matter. Mind you, they panned the original stage show, too, which shows how out of touch they can be.Now, to the film: the most important thing to keep in mind is that the film is not the stage show. This is both a plus and a minus: A plus, in such scenes as the death of Fantine ("Take My Hand") where a stage actress has to belt out her last song despite being on the point of death from malnutrition/TB/pneumonia, whereas in the film, the camera can come in close and Ann Hathaway can be as feeble as she needs to be for verisimilitude and we can still hear her. It becomes a minus when the sung dialogue jars with the "you are there" ambience of motion picture, which is deliberately designed to take away the conceptual distance between the audience and the stage. Nevertheless, the sung through format, along with the courageous decision to have the actors sing live in filming the takes instead of lip-synching pre-recorded songs, works well. There is a gritty realism to the whole production with some brilliant camera work. Some have lamented the overuse of close-ups, but there are some fascinating panoramic shots and overhead views not often seen.The advantage of the film screen is immediately seen in the Prologue ("Work Song") where the convicts, instead of trudging in a desultory circle representing hard, pointless work, are shown, in chains, straining under the lash to tow a stricken ship-of-the-line into a dry dock. This gives a perspective on hard labour not available on the stage.Ann Hathaway astonishes as Fantine. Never again will she be typecast as a pretty, dizzy girl. Her performance is a tour de force and delivers a powerful emotional range which is complemented by a surprisingly good vocal one. If she doesn't win an Oscar for her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream," I shall be very surprised and disappointed.Hugh Jackman's Jean Valjean is another surprise to me, although apparently not to those who have heard him on Broadway. He is, I am told, a baritone, and Valjean is a demanding tenor role, but Jackman manages not only to hit all the notes, he does it with conviction and power. His acting is likewise convincing.Much has been said, and not much of it good, about Russell Crowe's Javert. Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with criticism of his singing voice; not only does it lack strength, it's just the wrong kind of voice for this sort of neo-operatic work. In another genre, it might pass muster, but not here. On the other hand, his acting is at all times workmanlike and utterly convincing; he owns the role in a way that a better singer may not. However, Javert is not only a powerful dramatic role, it's a powerful vocal one as well, and Crowe hasn't the vocal power. This is obvious in his solo in "Work Song," where Javert hands Valjean his ticket-of-leave and reminds him that he is still under durance; Crowe's manner is perfect Javert -- overbearing and harsh -- but his voice coos rather than menaces. However, I guarantee you won't notice his vocal shortcomings in "Stars;" you'll be expecting him to make a more serious misstep. The camerawork in that scene is simply superb.There is a scene after the battle where Javert inspects the bodies of the slain revolutionaries, sees the child Gavroche, removes a medal from his uniform and pins it to Gavroche's jacket. This is a remarkably touching moment, especially since Gavroche has been Javert's unexpected nemesis in an earlier scene, and leads us to wonder if Javert himself is really as utterly beyond redemption as he ultimately comes to believe.While Crowe teeters on the edge of mortal disaster, Sacha Baron Cohen's Thenardier teeters on the verge of slapstick at times. The Thenardiers are both comic relief and the most truly and irredeemably villainous villains in the story. In "The Waltz of Treachery," which was cut short (the insinuation of pedophilia was excised) Cohen professes devotion to Cosette, but cannot remember her name, calling her "Colette" and, hilariously, "Courgette."Solid performances are turned in by the other principals. Isabelle Allen (the child Cosette) does a haunting and near-heartbreaking rendition of "Castle on a Cloud." (Incidentally, her appearance was deliberately made up to resemble the poster for the stage show, which was in turn taken from a cover illustration in the novel.) Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne do justice to the adult Cosette and the revolutionary Marius. Samantha Barks does a fine job in her reprise of her stage role as Eponine (unfortunately, her best song, "On My Own" is cut short) and if you don't weep in her "A Little Fall of Rain," then you probably need to be checked for a pulse.All in all, this is a splendid movie; at least 4½ stars. If you only see one film this season, see this one.Regards,Pahoran 5
Tacenda Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) High five to this movie review, ever think you'd like to do this for a living? I recommend everyone see it on the big screen and not wait for the video. Edited January 10, 2013 by Tacenda
Calm Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 hilariously, "Courgette."Meaning zuchinni for those who don't get it, I get it from Hercule Poirot.
Svawd Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 This movie was good except for all the singing 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 This movie was good except for all the singingThat's why they call it a musical, yo!
blackstrap Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Meaning zuchinni for those who don't get it, I get it from Hercule Poirot.At least she wasn't called a ' cougarette ' !
Calm Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Got a snort from me for that, but am on my iPad and can't remember the code for it.
sweetpotatoh Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 The movie was alright. The ending and beginning were good. The middle of the movie was horrid and boring. Most of the revolutionary scenes were done badly, lacked emotion and I lost interest. It was like there were two different movies, one good one crap. Wolverine is a terrible singer. I could over look it because he was such a fine character in the movie and many of the great things he did he wasn't singing. 1
Saints Alive Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 I would have been happy if they ended it with Valjean taking Cosette away as a little girl. It was kinda down hill for there for me.
ERMD Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 I enjoyed the scope of the production and the cinematography.Someone else should have been cast as Javert. Crowe's acting did not make up for his singing.I give Jackman a "pass". He strained too much with "The Prayer". It was not poignant or tender; more overbearing and forced.Hathaway, Barks, and many of the Revolutionaries were outstanding.
altersteve Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Wolverine is a terrible singer.Hugh Jackman is by no means a terrible singer. Not by any standard. 1
jwhitlock Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 What a great review! Loved the movie, and my observations were about in line with yours. I did get the impression that the producer went to some length to work with Russell Crowe's vocal shortcomings, and the result is not bad.
blackstrap Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 For personal interest I went to wiki to read about les mis. I noted just how many films and shows have been done. I read the synopsis of the book ( sorry 1500 pages is excessive ) .What a complex and convoluted plot. Paris must have been tiny in those days as Valjean was constantly running into and away from Javert? I recall seeing one movie some time ago and some of the episodes on TV.Musicals and I have a restrained relationship.
Tacenda Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 For personal interest I went to wiki to read about les mis. I noted just how many films and shows have been done. I read the synopsis of the book ( sorry 1500 pages is excessive ) .What a complex and convoluted plot. Paris must have been tiny in those days as Valjean was constantly running into and away from Javert? I recall seeing one movie some time ago and some of the episodes on TV.Musicals and I have a restrained relationship.Maybe because I've never seen the play or movie version before, that gave me new eyes. And the singing was awesome because it could have been you or myself up there. Though a couple of the stars sang very well, imo. Have you seen the movie? I just thought of something, you might be a great singer.
sweetpotatoh Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Hugh Jackman is by no means a terrible singer. Not by any standard.Hugh Jackman is by no means a terrible singer. Not by any standard.By my standard he is.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 This movie was good except for all the singingUm, was it a musical?
JaceyCarter Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 The story line of the movie was good. Enjoyed a lot.
Deborah Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Having read the book (unabridged), seen the stage production and other movies made I thought the movie was amazing and thoroughly moving. I loved Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. I knew Jackman could sing but his acting abilities combined with the songs were powerful. I didn't even mind Russell Crowe's singing because his acting was so good.A powerful story of redemption, love and forgiveness.
Recommended Posts