Les Misérables (2012)

I've never seen a proper showing of this play, so this will be my first time seeing the story played out. Love their teaser. Skipping the trailer as the movie will be out shortly.

I heard this a lot growing up. I'm excited for it as well. Cast looks interesting. In particular, Anne Hathaway looks spot on in the teaser. Interesting note (pun intended), the actress they got to be Eponine is THE Eponine for the play as well.

I will see this. There is no way it can be as good as I want it to be but I'll still see it. I'm very apprehensive about the casting, Russell Crowe in particular. The bit of One Day More that he sang in the trailer was terrible. If Taylor Swift had been cast as Eponine, I would have killed somebody.

Aren't there enough versions already?

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Aren't there enough versions already?

You aren't aware of art and commerce, huh? Welcome to Planet Earth!

This will be watched and enjoyed!

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I'm very apprehensive about the casting, Russell Crowe in particular. The bit of One Day More that he sang in the trailer was terrible.

It was certainly flat and lacking in body. A shame considering that this is one of the two shows I ever bothered to catch during the three years when I was living in London, and a huge part of what stuck with me was the sheer power of the vocals.

Interesting bit of trivia: None of the songs were pre-recorded, which is standard practice with any musicals. Instead, all the songs were recorded while being filmed. This process allowed for a more natural feel and let the actors concentrate on their acting instead of lip-syncing.

I'm looking forward to the release

cyrax wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

Aren't there enough versions already?

You aren't aware of art and commerce, huh? Welcome to Planet Earth!

Can't we at least agree to put a couple decades between remakes? I know Hollywood is idea bankrupt for the most part, but they could at least visit different wells a bit more often.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
cyrax wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

Aren't there enough versions already?

You aren't aware of art and commerce, huh? Welcome to Planet Earth!

Can't we at least agree to put a couple decades between remakes? I know Hollywood is idea bankrupt for the most part, but they could at least visit different wells a bit more often.

I have no problem with studios spending money on whatever they wish to create, especially if it's well done. Also, they promised the old versions will still exist.

Showed the wife the trailer. Yep, we're going (Hugh Jackman is at the top of her "list").

It was obvious that Russel Crowe struggled with his singing. Reminded me of Pierce Bronson's singing in Momma Mia (also watched with the wife...earned me major points). While they don't necessarily have good voices, I give them credit for attempting it and, to me, it gives the roles more grounding in reality. Not everyone has a great voice.

I like the musical, but I can’t help but cringe at movie musicals. I'm still not sure if I'm going to see this.

I'll wait until the finished product is out to judge anyone on their vocals. Trailers can be quite deceptive. And that international trailer seems more cobbled together than anything.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

[Can't we at least agree to put a couple decades between remakes? I know Hollywood is idea bankrupt for the most part, but they could at least visit different wells a bit more often.

None of the other Les Mis films were the musical though.

I saw it this afternoon. Overall, I'd say it's pretty good but with some complaints. I'll start with my complaints and then talk about the good things.

I should point out that there are some spoilers in my post. I didn't bother tagging the because, come on, but if you don't know story particulars you probably don't want to read my post.

Jackman and Crowe are clearly the weak links. I was somewhat surprised by Russell Crowe. He definitely doesn't have a big enough voice for the part (and Stars and Javert's Suicide suffered for it) but he was actually ok when his singing wasn't the focus. Hugh Jackman was just terrible. Just really bad for almost the entire movie (the end, when he's dying, was really the only time I wasn't actively wishing for him to stop singing). The rest of the cast ranged from good to outstanding. It seemed like they were really holding back a lot while singing which was really disappointing at some points. The end of One Day More should sound restrained. The constant use of close-ups while singing was an odd choice. Anne Hathaway was verging on Blair Witch snot scene territory during I Dreamed a Dream and Amanda Seyfried does not look good in close-ups. The sound effect commits suicide is almost comical in it's over-the-top-ness.

Anne Hathaway is really good. I Dreamed a Dream is really good and clearly the reason why she's been the face of the advertising even though she's not in the movie very long. Unsurprisingly, Eponine was great and she was really hot when she was dressed up as a guy. Marius was pretty (Empty Chairs at Empty Tables was probably the second best performance of the movie, either that or On My Own) but Enjolras was better. I thought the biggest surprises were Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thenardier's. I went in with very low expectations for them, especially with how bad I thought Bonham Carter was in Sweeny Todd, but they were quite enjoyable. Do You Hear the People Sing and the Finale were both great which helped offset my disappointment in One Day More.

That Jackman's singing was bad is surprising given his stage cred. Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm looking forward to see this tomorrow as this is in my top 3 musicals of all time (Fiddler on the Roof and Westside Story are my other two).

Jackman has never been much of a singer. He apparently had never sung on stage before prior to the production of Oklahoma he did a few years back, and while he was able to blunder his way through that music pretty convincingly with some aggressive training and coaching, I am not surprised to hear that he is sketchy on the Les Mis material. It takes a real musician to pull that stuff off without making it sound maudlin and trite.

Nevin73 wrote:

That Jackman's singing was bad is surprising given his stage cred.

His voice wasn't the biggest part of the problem. He's probably on par with Crowe but less forced*. They made a big deal about doing live singing so the actors could go at their own pace and they added in the orchestra afterward to match. Jackman just took that and ran with it. Lots of pauses that seem out of place, lots of recitative. If it had just been a bad voice, I would have been able to live with it (see: Russell Crowe).

To provide another perspective, I saw it with my mom who is generally not a fan of musicals and had very little/no knowledge of it but for some reason wanted to see this. She really enjoyed it even though she thought it was a bit long. One of the first things she mentioned was that Jackman was terrible. And, she really like Gavroche.

*Outside of barely paying attention during a semester and a half of ear training in college, I have no vocal training whatsoever. So, I'm in no way an authority on such things.

Just got back from seeing this, and mostly agree that the lead voices were very much a weak link in the production. That said, I also felt that there were way too many close-ups to the point where, although I know that the setting serves largely as a background for the core human drama, I couldn't help but feel that there was seldom any sense of space, or for the streets to express themselves. That tears were frequently shown up close just seems like a cop out, a statement of the bloody obvious that overlooks the expressive potential of the setting in which the tale takes place.

It probably didn't help that I saw this on stage in London around four years back, and that experience knocked this out of the water. But perhaps that's in part to it working better as theatre? I don't know - the simple power of the stage actor's voices, and the audibility in general, was far beyond my cinema experience.

Also, I didn't get stuck in a sell-out show (Boxing Day, what was I expecting?) next to a middle-aged woman who kept on verbally muttering the obvious - "Oh, no!"; "It's Cosette!"; "Eww, yuck!" - and even insisted on humming along at one point.

That said, I still liked it, even if the audience applause at the end baffled me some. I guess that this and The Hobbit will go into my basket of 2012 films that I thought were perfectly fine, but that people went disproportionately nuts over :/

I was very upset with the audio mix of this film, practically indecipherable in my showing. I came out of it very disgruntled while my friends were gushing about how good it was. Since I missed out on the audial experience I will limit my comments to the visual aspects of Les Mis.

Set design and costuming were top notch, and I would applaud the makeup team for the constant transformation of Hugh Jackman over the course of the movie. The framing of the film, when the camera wasn't smothering the actors' faces, was at times really delightful. Blocking of Fantine, Cosette and Eponine was gorgeous at times, with static shots that could be appreciated as portraits in their own right.

I really wish I'd liked this film better, but I honestly didn't understand or care to understand what was going on half the time. And the times I could figure out what was going on the plot seemed rather flaccid. What is driving Javert's motivation of capturing Valjean? Love at first sight, really? What message are we supposed to take away from the failed revolution? Perhaps the book can shed light on these questions, the film did a miserable job of conveying theme and character motivation.

*Sigh* I will say this in defense of the movie, Anne Hathaway's 15 minutes on screen were pretty great, as well as any time Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter and Samantha Barks pop up. Bravo to them.

Saw this the day after Christmas with the girlfriend and her mom. I should note, I'm not a big fan of musicals to begin with, so that may have colored my view a good bit.

For the most part I thought the film was very well done. Crowe's singing was rather terrible, but I thought Jackman actually did rather well. What hurts him, and most of the film, is the amount of close ups. Jackman is a fantastic actor, and he is almost never given room in the film to act. Really rather sad.

Anne Hathaway was great in her role. Going back to me disliking musicals though, especially as serious drama, I felt almost nothing for her character. You can't put someone on the screen for 15 minutes, have them sing the whole time and make me care.

Really enjoyed almost all the other casting, Marius and Eponine both I really enjoyed. Though I spent the entire last half of the film trying to remember where I'd seen the actor who played Marius before. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were both revelations and brought some much needed diversity to a story that is rather stagnant. Stagnant at a high level of tension for sure, but it doesn't really ever change.

Overall the problems I have with the film are related mostly to musicals as a whole, this musical in particular, and the original novel. The performances were on the whole solid to spectacular. Tepid thumbs up.

thejustinbot wrote:

Saw this the day after Christmas with the girlfriend and her mom. I should note, I'm not a big fan of musicals to begin with, so that may have colored my view a good bit.

For the most part I thought the film was very well done. Crowe's singing was rather terrible, but I thought Jackman actually did rather well. What hurts him, and most of the film, is the amount of close ups. Jackman is a fantastic actor, and he is almost never given room in the film to act. Really rather sad.

Anne Hathaway was great in her role. Going back to me disliking musicals though, especially as serious drama, I felt almost nothing for her character. You can't put someone on the screen for 15 minutes, have them sing the whole time and make me care.

Really enjoyed almost all the other casting, Marius and Eponine both I really enjoyed. Though I spent the entire last half of the film trying to remember where I'd seen the actor who played Marius before. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were both revelations and brought some much needed diversity to a story that is rather stagnant. Stagnant at a high level of tension for sure, but it doesn't really ever change.

Overall the problems I have with the film are related mostly to musicals as a whole, this musical in particular, and the original novel. The performances were on the whole solid to spectacular. Tepid thumbs up.

QFT. I was going to think of something smart to say, and give my own opinions, but honestly they're right there. I had quite a few chuckles reading through your post saying, "That's what I was going to say," multiple times.

Not being familiar with this work before, beyond the titular song and name, I was pleased with the movie. The only problem I had with a song was the first, because it was hard to understand the beginning with water splashes. Not a great way to open a musical. He may not have chops, but I do like Hugh's singing voice. Things that felt the most off to me were Anne's short time on scene, and Hugh's immediate turn to death even if there was a small hint to his aging.

I was overwhelmed a bit at first, because the film really is 99% singing. I didn't expect that, having never read the novel or seen the musical (I can't imagine why none of my HS or college lit classes featured it). It took some adjusting, and the singing probably made the film longer than it needed to be. However, I was truly impressed by the narrative. I can understand why it's considered such a classic. Manly tears of manliness indeed, especially toward the end.

I am going to ditto folks who were similarly not as impressed with Jackman's or Crowe's singing. It was a bit of a disappointment for me because I came in with much higher expectations for Jackman in particular.

Hathaway, for her 15 minutes, really does steal the show, but the real surprise for me was Amanda Seyfried. I always regarded her as a pretty face, B-list actress but she really made the most of a fairly limited role by showing she has a great set of pipes on her. Wow. I was clearly not expecting that.

Oh, and if this is the last we see of Samantha Barks, it will be a tragedy.

I dreamed a dream that I loved a movie musical, but life stole my dream from me.

I'm not sure what I was expecting, but not quite so much melodrama and not quite so many extreme closeups of solo singers. This movie will look better on TV.

Les Mis IS a melodrama. Even the book.

NSMike wrote:

Les Mis IS a melodrama. Even the book.

I was about to say the same. Even for the criticism of Jackman's pauses, etc. I want to ask if people watch musicals. They are, by their nature, a bit melodramatic. People breaking out into song is something that requires a leap of faith to begin with. I thought Jackman was fine. I've seen Les Mis 4 times on stage. It's very long and loud and as a consequence I've never fully connected with the story or music. To me the movie was better because they reinterpreted important elements of a musical such as intense, sometimes overwhelming emotion via close ups and by taking liberties with the singing. I liked that, personally. It was the first time I actually liked Les Mis and connected with it.

Now movie versions of Rent, Wicked and many others performed this way would be ridiculous. I don't even know that you could make a decent movie out of those or out of, say, The Book of Mormon. They're fine as musicals and should probably stay musicals. To me this seemed like a faithful version of the musical that found better techniques for conveying emotion that sometimes didn't require the best singing with the biggest voices.

I just spoke to a Mizgeek who offered up the best explanation for why Jackman and Crowe were, in my mind, disappointing.

In Jackman's case, he was singing two octaves above his normal range, which meant he was in the thin, falsetto register the entire time. Makes sense. Hard to belt it out with feeling when it sounds like someone had the testicle clamps on you.

In Crowe's case, he was singing an octave below his normal register and can't sing anyway.

One would think it would have been pretty easy to cast a natural tenor. There have to be dozens of them out there. And I would have paid money to see Mike Rowe play Javert.

Paleocon wrote:

I just spoke to a Mizgeek who offered up the best explanation for why Jackman and Crowe were, in my mind, disappointing.

In Jackman's case, he was singing two octaves above his normal range, which meant he was in the thin, falsetto register the entire time. Makes sense. Hard to belt it out with feeling when it sounds like someone had the testicle clamps on you.

In Crowe's case, he was singing an octave below his normal register and can't sing anyway.

One would think it would have been pretty easy to cast a natural tenor. There have to be dozens of them out there. And I would have paid money to see Mike Rowe play Dirty Javert.

(FTFY and agreed. He would be great in that role, especially with his singing experience.)

My wife and I are fans of the musical. We liked the 1998 film, though we always wanted a treatment done such as this one. I'm interested to see what our opinion of it will be once we get a chance to watch it.