Les Miserables the Movie [Spoilers]

[Dienekes]

So, saw this movie with my family on Christmas. Now Les Mis is my personal favorite musical so I was excited to see it on the big screen and thought I would have fun with it regardless, and prayed they would have decent singers for the parts this time, unlike the Phantom of the Opera movie that came out a few years back.

So anyway, inflicting my opinions of the movie upon the world. I thought it was pretty good, overall. But it had a lot of problems here and there.

Putting Les Mis on film allows the director to add so much to the experience. Beautiful sets, higher production values, and a clear look at the actors so we don't just see them sing, but them act as well. To emphasize the acting on display, it was decided to make the actors sing while they're performing their roles instead of making perfect songs in a studio and adding the tracks to the finished movie, every imperfection, every quiver is heard and adds weight to the performance. This produces some very good songs, and some that aren't all that great. But this leads to my major problem with the film. While yes, film allows us to focus on facial acting that does not mean that most of the film needs to be close ups. Almost every single song has a close up in it, some songs are entirely close ups. Some are mostly close ups when it makes no sense to be close ups, At the End of the Day. It gets distracting and annoying very fast. While it works for some songs, such as Valjean's Soliloquy, it should have been toned down, a lot.

There are times when they let the camera go a bit which gives us the great Do You Hear the People Sing? sequence. And some of the barricade shots are excellently done.

There are also a lot of minor changes to the singing in between the major songs. Some of these changes are improvements, but most of them are just distracting. A few of them are bad in that they just don't flow right or are confusing. One that stuck with me was during the Runaway Cart sequence when Javert starts to figure out that Valjean isn't who he claims to be. Normally Javert says "Forgive me sir, I would not dare." Making Valjean respond "Say what you must, don't leave it there." Here they switch the two lines. Now I know why they did this one, since they brought in Javert's attempt to quit the force from the book, but what we get in the movie is Valjean asking Javert not to stop when by all accounts it didn't look like he was going to. Then he does anyway.

However one change I thought was pretty good was the return of the Bishop ushering Valjean to his death, replacing Eponine. I thought it was a good change, not just because it allowed me to see more of the amazing Colm Wilkinson, but because the Bishop had a much larger impact on Valjean than Eponine did, who in this rendition does not speak to Valjean once.

Ok so the part that I was most interested in, the actors and their performances.

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean was very good. Now, I was basically raised on the 10th Anniversary All-Star Cast recording, and that is in my mind some of the best performances of the characters ever. Hugh Jackman is not Colm Wilkinson, when I think of Jean Valjean I think of Colm Wilkinson's voice and this will not change that. But Jackman gives a great performance, his voice took me awhile to get used to but he nails the performance. His soliloquey as mentioned before is breathtaking, and noticeable that there does not appear to be any cutting away, just one great look at the man as he makes the decision to atone for his misdeeds. Also, this was before the close up to their face thing had overstayed it's welcome. Though they could have at least tried to make him age throughout the movie. He looks like he's stuck in his 30s for 20 years and then suddenly dies.

Russel Crowe as Javert. My personal favorite character, and the one I was most dreading. I have never heard Crowe sing, and now I can see why. He wasn't exactly bad, but he was notion special either. He could have used more force being his voice, this is Javert the merciless voice of the law. Despite this, Crowe does a fine job acting the character, though I'm unsure about the changes made to him. Some are great, like including his attempt to quit his job from the book, others try to humanize him a bit too much, like when he put his medal on Gavroche's corpse. Now part of my complaints of the 25th Anniversary recording is that they turned Javert from a flawed, but good man into a villain. Here they go almost the other way around to make him more sympathetic. Preferable to the alternative, but I still like when his actions are just given as what he does without the need to overly vilify him or make him better than he was. Also suffers from the lack of aging.

Anne Hathaway as Fantine. She did good, very heartfelt and stirring performance. I enjoyed that they did not try to pretty her up as she gets closer and closer to dying.

Amanda Seyfried as Cosette. If there was a weak link, it was probably her. Now, her voice is pretty and her acting fine, but she could not sustain herself throughout the song and vibratoed every other note. Perhaps she would have done better prerecording her vocals, but as it stands she was weak.

Eddie Redmayne as Marius, did very good. Now normally Marius is a rather dull character for me, but Redmayne owned the role. His voice was strong, and his motivations were believable. Though, it irked me that he was given the strong "I will not accept money from my rich bourgeoisie family" sentiment in the beginning, another addition from the book, only to have them reconcile at the end because... I don't know. I don't remember how/if it was resolved in the book, but it was jarring and unneeded in the movie.

Sacha Baron Cohen as Thenardier. Ok, just going to say it, I do not like Cohen. I do not find his material funny, but I thought he did an ok job in Sweeney Todd, and I can see him doing well in an over the top comedy villain like Thenardier is. He was... ehh. Honestly I think he's problems are the directors fault. Master of the House is the funniest and catchiest tune in the show. It just fell flat here, and randomly added a substory in the song of Santa sleeping with a prostitute. They took away his true villain song in the Sewers which really delves into his philosophy on life (even though it was obvious anyway, I still enjoy the song), and oddly at the end decided to portray him as getting his just desserts by throwing him out of the wedding. But that's not the point of his character. He's a repulsive survivor, and karma Houdini who actually gets wealthy from his evil, but that was to show that the world actually can reward evil, but that does not make the good any less noble, in fact it makes it moreso.

Helena Bonham Carter as Mme Thenardier, is basically the same as above. She did ok. Direction could have given her a few more laughs or punctuated her jokes better.

Samantha Barks as Eponine, did great. Nothing more to say here, believable acting and a good voice. Yeah, she's still not crazy like she was in the book, but I don't think anyone thought they were going to go that route anyway.

Aaron Tveit as Enjolras. A different portrayal, not the He-man he's often portrayed as, but he's believable as a revolutionary and quite possibly the best singer of the bunch. Very good performance.

Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche. Ehh, he was a child actor/singer. People find him cute I guess, I didn't think he was all that great. My brother loved him though and teared up when he died (pansy).

So anyone else seen this? Agree or disagree with me on any part of my long and terribly edited ramblings?

[Gaelbert]

I think you really hit the nail on the head. To me, anything that's not the Original London Cast is wrong.
I haven't seen the musical in a long time (although I listen to it constantly), so most of my comparisons are movie/book rather than musical/movie.
Points of yours that I especially agree with:
I know that the actors were singing live, and I know Hooper wanted to show that off. That doesn't mean I want to have the camera shoved down their throats constantly. The extreme close-ups were more distracting than anything else.
Any time I hear "Do You Hear the People Sing?" I get chills. Points of interest were the raising of the barricades, and the final moments of the film. I didn't cry like a little baby, but only just barely.
Critics seem to be savaging Crowe's performance. While his singing was less than stellar, his acting seemed fine to me. What pissed me off more than anything (possibly my biggest complaint about the film) was when Javert pinned his medal on Gavrouche. I can see why that was done, but it disappoints me.
Anne Hathaway as Fantine was meh. Great actress, but definitely overhyped. I've never understood the fascination with the character, certainly not in the musical anyways. Wish she had looked less pretty and more crazy towards the end, which is the impression I got from the book.
Marius was quite impressive. I wish there had been more from the book to flesh him out, but that's the fault of the musical.
Marius was reconciled with his grandfather in the book when

Spoiler

Show

after Marius is wounded, Valjean carries him back to the grandfather's house. The grandfather is so worried about Marius that when he awakes the grandfather promises to never say another bad word about Marius' father, the revolutionaries, or Napolean again so long as Marius will allow him to stay in Marius' life. It's adorable reading how the grandfather tries to praise the French Revolutionaries in spite of his deep and abiding hatred for them, if only for Marius' sake.

Enjolras was fine, although I prefer his portrayal in the novel and wish the movie had more of his relationship with Grantaire. Their death at the end was touching.

I enjoyed the movie, but I'm still not sure of my overall opinion of it. Then again, I'm still not sure how I feel about the musical or the book itself and I've had years to think about them.

[Janus]

I've only read a small bit of the novel (up to Valjean arriving at the Bishop's home), but I've seen the Liam Neeson film, and watched/listened to the 10th and 25th anniversary concerts, and those adaptations have painted my interpretations of the story and characters.

Simply put, I'm in love with this film. Saw it a second time today, in fact. Russel Crowe's growing on me with his singing, but honestly, I was pleased with his acting. I thought his pinning a medal on Gavroche was a great touch. To me, Javert's not a villain in the story, but an antagonist. Like Valjean, he's a man, no worse than any man. Just extremely lawful neutral.
Heck, one change I'd have made is to put him in the finale. Not in the main group, but on the roof of a building by himself.

[Balain]

I just saw the movie tonight. I enjoyed it. I love the novel it is my favorite novel of all time. I also loved the musical. I saw it the year it opened and about a dozen times over the past 25 years. I was worried I might not like it as much, I did enjoy it though.

Now all I need is to find a copy of Raymond Bernard's version (which I have seen once years ago)

[Philistine]

I agree with Dienekes on almost every point, including Crowe being terribly miscast in the part of my favorite character*. Javert is conviction; and while Crowe's acting was perhaps adequate, his singing lacked the requisite fire and commitment. A Javert who doesn't believe in what he's doing - completely, utterly, wholeheartedly - isn't Javert. Crowe's singing is just too weak to be convincing. (And yes, the medal scene was... just wrong. That's not Javert.)

One thing I disagree on is Redmayne's Marius. He was doing something... I don't know the technical terminology for it, but his singing voice through most of the show sounded like a recording from the 30's or 40's. It was artificial and weird, and it really stood out because 1) it sounded not at all like his speaking voice and 2) nobody else in the show did it. He sounded much less alien when he dropped it for Marius's big showpiece, "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." I do agree that they should have dropped the whole "I won't take my uncle's money" thing since they didn't ever pay it off - it makes Marius look weak and/or hypocritical.

And the Thenardiers... One thing that bugs me about the stage musical is that it mostly turns the Thenardiers into comic relief. The movie goes even farther with that, adding quite a bit of comedic business when Valjean shows up to take Cosette (though the child actress who played young Cosette did a very creditable job with it), and compounding that severalfold by removing all of "Dog Eat Dog" and most of "Beggar at the Feast" from the program. But... the Thenardiers are monsters. They're the anti-Valjean - the villain, to the extent that the piece has one - as vile and unredeemable as Valjean is noble and redeemed.


* To be fair, none of the "characters" in Les Mis are particularly well-fleshed-out, three-dimensional people who learn and grow and develop over time - which was of course a deliberate choice on Hugo's part, because Les Mis is less a story than a fable**. (And that's okay. It's still a classic of Romantic literature, and for good reason.) That said, Javert is IMO the least undeveloped character in the book, and the one with the most interesting conflict.

** A fable about the shortcomings of the 19th-century French criminal justice system, with Valjean as the basically (in fact, improbably) Good man who can't catch a break because of one (extremely sympathetic!) youthful "mistake," Thenardier as the thoroughgoing scum who slips through the cracks because the police can never quite prove anything against him, and Javert as the inflexible system which - despite all good intentions - hounds a good man to his death while letting the evil walk free.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I will agree that the Thenardiers weren't villainous enough, and Crowe's Javert was the weakest singer.

But if I was looking for singing, I'd just go through one of the dozen or so Anniversary CDs and listen to the professional singers. As it stands: The acting was wonderful from everybody. The emotion was powerful. And except for Marius' lip-quivering when he sang, all the actor's singing was serviceable.

I laughed, I cried, I spilled coke on the guy in front of me in the theater. This movie is AMAZING.

[Cristo Meyers]

So anyone else seen this? Agree or disagree with me on any part of my long and terribly edited ramblings?

Saw it yesterday. It hit all the right emotional notes and I enjoyed most of the music, though there were some things that just didn't seem right.

Crowe has the right bearing/look to play Javert, sure, but I agree with Philistine that his singing lacked fire. Emote, man! It won't kill you! But, the Valjean/Javert duet was done well enough, which was really the only one I was looking forward to.

My criticisms of Cosette go more towards the character herself, so me criticizing the actress is a little unfair. I'm just glad they decided against using Taylor Swift.

I couldn't stand Cohen's Thenardier. Maybe that's just my intense dislike of Cohen showing through, but nothing about his portrayal seemed right. I don't know what accent he was using, but he sounded like he was still doing Bruno. Nothing about him seemed even moderately threatening at the moments he was supposed to seem so, he just always seemed like a clown, and not even a particularly villainous one. I know that the musical's Thenardier is largely comic relief, but he's still a villain that was fully willing to kill people if it benefited him. Cohen lost all of that. Maybe leaving Dog Eat Dog in would've given him a chance to change that, but I doubt it.

I thought a lot of the extras were too made up. The crowds of the poor honestly seemed more like the hordes of shambling undead than the wretched poor, especially when they were closing those gates on them outside the factory. Once I made that connection the whole point was lost. The crowds just started seeming silly.

Overall, like I said, it still hit the right notes, even if Master of the House didn't. Barks delivered like I expected she would, Hathaway deserves a lot of credit for a great performance, I liked Jackman's Valjean, and I enjoyed some of the additional story elements that were there (except including Marius' uncle).

[Philistine]

It seems like sometimes people get confused about what kind of person Javert is. They see that he's merciless and impersonal and hard-hearted, and that he makes no allowance even for honest human error (much less repentance and reformation), all of which is true, and then they equate that to being cold and unfeeling, which... is often true, but not in this case. Javert cares very much, just not about the same things as other people. He believes he's looking after the good of "people" in a general, collective, abstract sense rather than "persons" as individuals. I mean, you don't get to be such a terror to the underworld that random street urchins know you by sight, and robbers' lookouts scream your name to warn their confederates of approaching police, by not caring. That's just absurd.

Anyway. Between this Robot!Javert notion and the Villain!Javert interpretation, which puts all his actions down to a decades-long personal vendetta against Valjean, I'm not sure which bothers me more.

[Foeofthelance]

I hate to be the one to sound a sour note, but I honestly wasn't impressed. The songs were great, and the performances were incredible...but it was just so bad.

First, the photography bothered me. Ok, fine, you payed out a small fortune to get the most famous actors you could, so you want to show them off with a bunch of close ups during their solos. That's not a problem, except for when my sister started to count Anne Hathaway's nose hairs. What was a problem was the inability for the camera to hold steady. It makes it kind of difficult to connect with the performance when the camera is constantly dragging backwards or creeping forwards, as if the operator just can't be satisfied with the distance. Just back and forth, back and forth. Not even shaky cam, just...seemed amateurish.

Second, it just dragged on way too long. Scenes just seemed stretched, to the point where Eponine's death on the barricades reminded me of Liam Hemsworth death in Expendables 2. Now, Expendables dragged it out deliberately, but that was for the sake of the joke. In Les Mis... Not so much. "I've been shot! I'm dying! Hold me! Now refrain! One more refrain! They must be paying me by the minute because I am going to insist on one...more...refrain! Ok, I'm dead...but you're still singing. Damnit, hurry up, I've got a chair leg in my lower lumbar and went off the clock three beats back."

Finally, I just couldn't stand most of the protagonists. I think it really is just a case of bad story telling in this particular case. They should have been sympathetic, they just weren't. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the people they are supposed to be rebelling again just...don't exist in the movie. The Upper Class/Establishment consists of the one guy who was mean to Fatine for all of two minutes; Marius's grandfather, who spends all his time worrying about his grandson; a bunch of extras who get stepped on by Gavroche during his lecture; and Javert, who spends the entire time obsessing over Valjean. The worst he does is calling the Schooboys...a bunch of foolish schoolboys. And then as a kicker, despite being the "Face" of the bad guys the entire time, what does he do upon reviewing their bodies after the fight? He pins his Medal of Valor on Gavroche, the same kid who sold him out to be hanged as an enemy of the people. So the People, with the exception of Fantine and Eponine, get portrayed as a bunch of filthy bullies, thieves, and general scoundrels. The Establishment, on the other hand, is portrayed as caring, hard working, and religious, with the exception of the nameless jerk who assaults Fantine. Jean Valjean ends up falling somewhere in the middle, as he starts out as a thief, but ends up behaving more like the upper class, and even becomes one of them up until Javert takes up pursuit again. So then we have the Schoolboys trying to start a revolution against the second group in the name of the first group, which just makes them look like a spectacular bunch of idiots.

Yes, historically this is a bad time to be French, but it's never actually shown why. They're just tired and hungry and dirty, and from the way they act you sort of get the feeling they've done it to themselves, because everyone who isn't tired, hungry, and dirty seems to be a pretty decent and upstanding fellow.

So, blah. Remind me to skip any repeat performances of the movie.

[BRC]

I knew almost nothing about it when I saw it on monday. I knew that it was set in the French Revolution (Turns out I was thinking of the wrong Revolution), I knew that there was a man named Valjean who had stolen some bread, a man named Javert who was chasing him, and people were sad.
After seeing the movie, I tracked down the London cast recording on Spotify and got a better understanding of why it is such a big deal.

I think I would have appreciated this a lot more seeing it on the stage. Some things that were very jarring in the film, such as Marius and Cossette falling head-over-heels for each other after spotting each other in the crowd, I could buy in the context of live theater, but not in a film. Same with how Javert seemed to be the only policeman in France, to the point where random street urchins would shout "JAVERT". In live theater, it is perfectly reasonable, you have Javert, and maybe a few chorus members dressed as policemen walk onto the stage. In the film, something seemed off about it.

Also, I don't really care for Operatic-style talk-singing. I like singing in musicals, I like talking, but that weird talk-singing that they have to do to advance the plot between the big songs is weird.

I don't know, while watching I was easily able to see how a Stage Play would have gone, but as a film it didn't work for me. Part of that was Russel Crowe's poor singing, I didn't really notice the extreme close ups, but I certainly don't remember feeling drawn in, and that may have been the reason.
Russel Crowe is a lesson in the dangers of Stunt Casting. Don't get me wrong, he can act your face off, but as has been noted, he cannot sing. This was my first encounter with the material, so I don't really have a strong opinion of his version of Javert. Reading this thread, I see how Javert works very well as a metaphor, but as a person he falls flat.

[mangosta71]

Looks like someone isn't a fan of the musical. Eponine's death is dragged out longer on Broadway, and the revolutionaries make a bigger deal out of it. Like a number of other scenes, the movie blended the book and the musical - in the musical, she's shot offstage and staggers to the barricade with a message to Marius (from Valjean), where she dies before the fighting starts; in the book, she blocks a shot aimed at Marius during the first attack (as in the movie) but dies rather quickly (before Marius even realizes who she is, iirc).

For the most part, it's a good movie adaptation of a great stage piece. Yes, some of the line switching was jarring, and it would have been better without so many closeups. While Russell Crowe is a wonderful actor, he was not an appropriate choice for Javert - Stars was singularly disappointing without Javert's fire. Pinning his medal on Gavroche would have worked better if it had come after the confrontation with Valjean in the sewer - if he was questioning his service to that extent, he should not have been threatening to shoot. I felt that the actors that played Marius and Grantaire should have been switched (though admittedly, Redmayne was doing much better by the end). The kids that played Gavroche and young Cosette were much better than I expected from child actors. Grownup Cosette had a better voice than the girl that I grew up listening to (still not good enough, or cute enough, to make me not wonder why Marius was chasing her when he could have had Eponine, but I digress). I thought Anne Hathaway did a phenomenal job with Fantine. I thoroughly enjoyed Hugh Jackman's Valjean once I got used to his voice, particularly the look on his face and his tone when he was paying off the Thernardiers to take Cosette. The Thernardiers themselves were shown as scummy con artists, but not particularly villainous. Dog Eat Dog would have done much to remedy that, and highlighting the fact that Eponine and Gavroche were their children could have been used to make an interesting contrast. Enjorlas and Grantaire were wonderful, and I was sad that Drink with Me got cut because that's the song that shows the camaraderie among the revolutionaries (which makes the audience care about them as a group) and would have let Grantaire show off a bit. Samantha Barks was incredible.

Overall, I liked it quite a bit. Doubt I'll see it again in the theater, but I'll probably get the DVD.

[Philistine]

I think I would have appreciated this a lot more seeing it on the stage. Some things that were very jarring in the film, such as Marius and Cossette falling head-over-heels for each other after spotting each other in the crowd, I could buy in the context of live theater, but not in a film. Same with how Javert seemed to be the only policeman in France, to the point where random street urchins would shout "JAVERT". In live theater, it is perfectly reasonable, you have Javert, and maybe a few chorus members dressed as policemen walk onto the stage. In the film, something seemed off about it.

I understand, I really do. But while it may not change your opinion, I feel compelled to point out that the same criticisms (and many more like them) can be leveled at Hugo's original, 1500+-page novel, which basically runs its plot on a combination of really outrageous coincidence and people basing major life decisions on their superficial impressions of others with whom they've had only the most fleeting and incidental of contacts. Classic of Romantic literature, like I said before. So I see these as limitations of the source material, rather than failings of the medium (or an inappropriate choice of medium).

[Gaelbert]

I actually feel like the romance as portrayed in the book feels pretty accurate. Marius seems like the type to fall in love with someone he's never actually talked to, raise her up into an ideal, and then pine away for her for 8 months before actually saying anything to her. As for Cosette, she's lived her entire life in a convent. The only man she's ever really known was Valjean. She seems liable to "fall in love" with the first attractive man her age to look at her twice. The fact that both of them are rich and don't have any real problems in their lives (Marius going to the barricades was entirely his choice) just emphasizes this. So I'm not at all surprised they got married. I just highly doubt the marriage will work.

[SuperPanda]

I did not have a terribly good experience with the movie, though this is likely because I saw the touring cast in September and they hit the entire show out of the ballpark when they were there.

If you only want to read a summary scroll down to "To sum up."

I didn't get used to Hugh-Jackman's voice, and I found myself upset mostly due to directing choices. "Bring him Home" got dropped down, which I understand, but it took a haunting aria into a very nasal sound and I didn't like the new way. The other issue was that as soon as Jackman wasn't singing he was fantastic, his emotions bubbled to the surface the instantly and he was Valjean, but he was trying so hard to hit the notes while singing that his facial expressions dissolved. Jackman's performance would have benefited from having a studio recording of the song, and I think he would have hit it out of the park if they did that and adjusted the scale of the songs to be in his range. He really has too deep of a voice to hit the broadway Val Jean, but he made an admirable attempt.

With Javert I am terribly biased. Javert is my favorite part because it is the only one comfortably in my range (I could pull of Master of the house or Enjorlas if I really needed to, but they don't let me use the lower register). So changing him from a Bass to a higher range irked me the entire movie. I disagree with the opening post on the 25th aniversery Javert, he wasn't a villain in that production, he was a poor man who clawed his way into status and power and, as people who do that tend to do, looked down on and resented those who did not. As he says "Honest work, just reward, That's the way to please the lord."

Crowe as Javert: I found him to be lacking in authority. The part when he interacts with ValJean in the prologue made him look like a bully in film which I never saw the character as being. And Javert is "Honor" and "Authority" in a box. Crowe's voice was dwarfed by everyone else, including Jackman's through the entire film. He was late on his cues and lacked any and all meanace or threat, even when wielding a sword during the confrontation. I generally expect Javert in the musical to ooze, order, authority, and confidence in the early part of the play and become more and more frayed as it goes on. Stars felt okay, but a bit on the weak side. I both liked and hated the Gavroche medal scene. It was a touching and nice scene, but it was completely out of character. If they had chosen to have him kneel down and close Gavroche's eyes then it would have been touching and beautiful, showing Javert respecting the loyalty and conviction the boy had shown (Traits Javert highly values), but the medal was just too far (for a street thief and revolutionary). I found Crowe's body language to be more "I don't want to be here" than "I am the law." In short I was terribly disappointed with him.

Anne Hathaway did a fantastic job.

The only complaint I could have on Samantha Bank (Eponine)'s performance was that they never managed to make her unattractive. One thing this film did wonderfully was take the glitz and glam out of the celebrities in it, and take all of these usually very appealing people and make them look genuinely unremarkable most of the time, but Banks remained very attractive the entire film. I guess there are limits to the power of makeup.

Enjorlas I found to be a bit weak on volume and charisma, but I got spoiled by the 25th anniversary production where they had an Amazing Enjorlas. I will admit, I never cared about the part at all before hearing what it sounds like when done that well... so this complaint can slide.

Thernadie wasn't funny... now it is entirely possible that I've been spoiled by good play productions, but I found Thernadia and Mrs. Thernadie to be less comic-villains and more genuinely repulsive this time around. It really didn't help me that the actor playing Thernadia was changing his accent every other sentence so that I spent half the time when he's around trying to figure out where they want to imply he is from.

The rest of the cast did a good job on the music. My major gripe is with the direction and camera.

The extreme close up singing didn't work well for me (especially not on the big screen). I found myself paying far too much attention to how moist the lower lip and the tip of the tongue becomes.

There were world class actors on the screen who all are capable of acting extremely compellingly. I know Russel Crowe is able to ooze authority and power, I've seen Gladiator. I know Hugh Jackman is capalble of the emotion Valjean is going through - the scene where he is negotiating for Cossete was well done, he had something to do in that scene. In contrast Valjean's Soliliquy started out well, and then dragged when it could have had him packing his bags, walking out to get a coach, singing in the coach, walking in the court on the beat of "I'm jean Val Jean" Instead him pacing until that note and then starting his trip to the court house.

Some of the changes like Enjorlas falling out a window instead of falling over the Baricades I can forgive.

Other changes, like in the epilogue "On this page I write my last confession, its the story of those who always loved you, your mother gave her life for you and gave you to my keeping." being changed to "On this page, I write my last confession, its the story of one who always loved you, I never knew what love was until you came into my life." I strongly dislike the change, it greatly devalues Fantine and it doesn't at all reflect Val Jean who did know love before... he was caught stealing bread to save his sister and her starving child... he might have forgotten it in his hardships, but it is heavily implied that he was always a good man and the Bishop reminded it of him.

I didn't like the new music that was added in, those parts felt jarring and came at the expense of other songs.

Because the producer had done such a fantastic job with the 25th aniversery and all of the positive press it had gotten in interviews, I went it with very high expectations, and nearly all of them were dashed by the time the Bishop was on screen.

I didn't need to see Fantine take her first costumer to bed, that was a painfully awkward thing to have on film and it usually happens off screen, the added awkwardness of it happening in a coffin was rather uncomfortable. Another choice that I really didn't need was the loud reverberating crunch at the end of Javert's Soliloquy... On the stage that fades away as a poignant moment, where he it ended with a decidedly sickening exclamation mark. Robbing Santa while he banged a prostitute is also on my list of "didn't need to go there" moments. It is funny out of context, but it just didn't do it for me in the context of the movie.


To Sum Up: For those of you it worked for, I am genuinely glad it worked... I found it to be jarring and unpleasant for the majority of the film with me wanting to hurt the cinematographer and the acting director for not using the resources they had to make a screen adaptation. There was an enormous amount of wasted potential and seeing the potential be wasted frustrated me. The few scenes where they used it worked incredibly well and only served to highlight the scenes where the chose not to bother.

By the end of the movie I wanted to give Jackman a hug, not because he was a tragic hero, but because he tried so very hard through the whole film and just missed the mark. I wanted to offer Russel Crowe a lift somewhere (anywehre) else, because his body language was saying "Can I go now?" to me the whole film. I did not like the Thernadie's, but thats a personal choice. I do not find the comic who played Mr. Thernadie funny anyways so that could simply be my problem there.

That the film is being well received I take as a mixed blessing. On the one hand it means that the play, which I love, will continue to be popular. On the other, it means that several things about the play which I've loved will be changed in the popular awareness. I will not be a happy camper if someone tells me I have too deep of a voice to sing Javert's parts (unless they are specifically talking about the higher notes in Stars... because I can hit the low ones in the Confrontation no problem but have to reach for Stars).

I don't recommend seeing it in the theaters, The cinematography will work much better on a smaller screen. On DVD, it might work better.

Eidt: Terribly sorry about the bad spelling of people's names. I'll fix that when I've got time.

[Foeofthelance]

Looks like someone isn't a fan of the musical. Eponine's death is dragged out longer on Broadway, and the revolutionaries make a bigger deal out of it. Like a number of other scenes, the movie blended the book and the musical - in the musical, she's shot offstage and staggers to the barricade with a message to Marius (from Valjean), where she dies before the fighting starts; in the book, she blocks a shot aimed at Marius during the first attack (as in the movie) but dies rather quickly (before Marius even realizes who she is, iirc).

I haven't seen the musical, so I don't know if I would like it. But what you're describing is a radically different scene from the movie interpretation. If she had come in off stage already wounded but carrying a note, that's moving the plot along. If there are people running about reacting to her, there is some action in the scene. If she dies quickly and brutally, not even to be acknowledged by the man she loved/obsessed over and gave her life for, then its a poignant reflection on the futility of life.

Instead we get a close up of the two of them as they sing the same line half a dozen times, like a broken record stuck on the fade out. The more I think about it, the movie seemed to be relying on the thought of, "Well, we have famous actors and a classic script,so this can't possibly be a bad idea!" As my brother put it, "I've seen high school musicals that were handled better than that."

[Tono]

I think your problem is with the song itself. Here it is on stage. Of all the songs in the movie, that one seemed like the one that was closest to how it 'should be'. Not the Original London Cast that is(IMO) the exemplar for this show, but the song was sung close to how it has been in the past. It wasn't really elongated or shorted, as a lot of others were.

[otakuryoga]

guess i will toss my 2 pesos in

i liked it overall..though i highly doubt the soundtrack will replace my 10th anniversary CD..or even the 25th

found some changes jarring..like the first song...though "hot as hell below" wouldn't have worked too well with the stunning scene of hauling the ship into drydock(was that from the book? i cant really remember as it was 20 years ago that i read it)
--and the retrieve the flag part set up the memory at the cart scene

Hugh Jackman: i thought he did quite well..particularly for God on High which i don't normally care for very much

Russell Crowe: pretty meh especially for the "talking" bits but pulled off Stars rather well...did NOT like the contrived medal on dead gavroche bit

idiot guy...errr sasha whatever: yeah...don't like him at all..BUT, i think he did well here(except for the mutating accent) but was really hurt by the chopping in half of Beggar at the Feast and complete loss of Dog Eat Dog

Anne Hathaway: pretty darn good...really liked that they used the part of Lovely Ladies where the pimp asks about the new girl since thats usually cut out

Samantha Banks: rocked..as to be expected after the 25th anniversary performance she put in

----------

general pluses--- the scenery both natural and set pieces(though i thought the actual barricade seemed a bit ....lacking)

the "bit" characters..the factory women, factory foreman, etc all seemed to do well...or at least not draw unwarranted attention to themselves

------------

general minuses--- the changing of lyrics/flipping of lines

complete loss of songs: Dog Eat Dog, Drink With Me, Turning(Through the Years?--the womens chorus after they all die on the barricade)

bringing in more detail from the book-- normally would be all for this, BUT, this was supposed to be a movie adaptation of the MUSICAL..so the bit with Javert trying to resign..and the climbing of the wall into the convent just really didn't belong(and of course led to the above line flipping problem with the song Who Am I)

when Javert returns to the barricade...he apparently cannot see the wide open gate to the sewer in front of him...which was supposed to be a large heavy grate set in the ground(something a pair of soldiers could not lift but Javert knew Valjean was capable of and thus headed him toward the sewer exit) not some dinky opening in the wall

[thompur]

This is my favorite review of Les Miserables.

Quite honestly, it's not one of my favorite musicals. I saw it on Broadway back in '87 or '88 I think. We paid $60 per ticket. While the production was spectacular and visually amazing, the music was rather un memorable and just didn't inspire.

I went to see the film with my mother, sister, and nephew, who was the one who really wanted to see it. I thought all the acting was fine. The singing was a mixed bag, but nobody embarassed themselves.

My nephew loved it, my sister liked it, and my mother thought it was a crashing bore. Ah well. De gustibus non disputandem est and all that.

[mangosta71]

Javert's attempt to resign is an important piece of character development. I just wish they had done it with straight acting instead of making up another song with which Russell Crowe could fail spectacularly at conveying any sort of emotion or internal conflict. Dude can act. He can be the fiery, forceful badass that Javert is supposed to be. He just can't sing it.

I haven't seen the musical, so I don't know if I would like it. But what you're describing is a radically different scene from the movie interpretation. If she had come in off stage already wounded but carrying a note, that's moving the plot along. If there are people running about reacting to her, there is some action in the scene. If she dies quickly and brutally, not even to be acknowledged by the man she loved/obsessed over and gave her life for, then its a poignant reflection on the futility of life.

As Tono mentioned, the long, drawn-out death scene is absolutely faithful to the musical stagepiece. Eponine eating a bullet meant for Marius onscreen during the attack is faithful to the book.

[Urpriest]

I thought the shifting accent on Sacha Baron Cohen's character was intentional. There are parts where he's clearly playing with the words, mocking various accents, and even the rest of the time, the point of the character is that he's a chameleon, affecting whatever identity he needs to get to those around him.

[MLai]

Saw the movie yesterday night. I knew absolutely nothing about Les Mis (despite living in NYC for decades), except that it's French Revolution something (and I know nothing about the French Revolution except a king and his idiot Portal-quoting wife got beheaded).

I have zero interest in Musicals in general. However, a few months ago I saw Wicked and absolutely loved it. I was awestruck for every second of that play. And yes I did wonder if all plays are that good, and Wicked wasn't just an exception to the rule. After watching Les Mis movie, I wonder about that a lot less, and am sliding back into my old "Meh" stance.

I was not drawn into the story. Firstly, every single character I like or care about dies, and all the idiots or flat characters live happily ever after. Anne Hathaway was incredible, and after the most stirring song of the entire movie (her solo song in the dark), I finally sat up and the Holy Grail of thoughts that all directors seek popped into my head: "What will happen to her next?" And then she dies. Wow. Thanks movie, now I can fall asleep again.

And I liked the hot brunette (Eponine?) 50x better than bland adult Cossette and her idiot lover Marius. Her heroism, and her moral struggle, felt real to me, felt interesting. Marius revolution-roleplay rang hollow. Marius and Cossette's barbie-love was a waste of movie time. Throughout Eponine's angst, I kept hissing to her "He's not worth it!" It's not the Holy Grail of audience thoughts that all directors seek, but it's up there. And then she dies.

And the kid was fun. And never held an idiot ball. And then he dies. Via idiot ball.

The Revolutionaries I identified with, because I'm pro-Occupy. And then they die.

So who gets to live happily ever after? The happy idiots and the rich ppl. Uh, wasn't this supposed to be about the French Revolution? Nope, it's actually a nice propaganda piece lecturing about how rich ppl are upright and just, and poor ppl who rebel against the establishment all die stupid deaths, and if you're born rich (Marius) no consequences will follow your actions (grandpa welcomes him back rather than disowns him).

Basically I oscillated between thinking "This story is so last century" and "This story is so French" (Valjean's perhaps-unintentionally creepy attitude towards kid and teen Cossette).

And I was giggling throughout all the "emotional" songs, especially Valjean's lullaby to Marius or whatever the hell that was. Only song that really made me sit up was Anne Hathaway's. And then she died.

[Dienekes]

Ehh, the point wasn't that the rich people are upright and just while the poor are not. We're supposed to like the students, Fantine, and I guess Eponine as well, at least in the play, a bit less so in the books.

The point was supposed to be that rich does not make you bad any more than poor makes you good. People do evil things, good things, and sometimes good does not triumph over evil. But that doesn't make the good any less noble, or the evil any less disgusting. The world isn't perfect, but hopefully, like Valjean, you can still make a difference and lead a good life.

I will say, I do agree with some of your criticisms though. Cosette was never an interesting character. But then I didn't think Eponine ever was either, sure she had a good song, but other than that she just pines over some guy. Who cares? She's far more interesting in the book where she is bat**** insane. Also the creepy lines between Valjean and child Cosette were added for the movie. Me and my brother actually started mocking it in the theater when we heard some of those added lines.

[MLai]

Well, is this movie based on some actual historical event in Paris? Because I went in thinking I'll get to relish some hateable nobles getting guillotined, but instead I basically saw Tiananmen Square, and that kind of pissed me off as if watching injustices occur in the real world wasn't enough. Upended expectations.

The final scene was like pouring salt on the wound. The would-be revolutionary students died and achieved nothing. And then I get to see them, what? Pretend everything is great in some heaven-dream sequence? What were those dead ppl happy about? Was that in the book?

As for Eponine... well, the "Who cares?" line can be applied to any character in any movie. It's not just that she pines over some guy. It's how she goes through the movie. Cossette is just some dainty lass played straight. She did nothing interesting. But Eponine had a personality. We saw her internal struggle on whether she should sabotage Marius' pursuit of the barbie, and she gets the opportunity on multiple occasions, but every time her goodness won through. And she joined in on the rebellion, and conducted herself with heroism. She's just a much more likeable and dimensional character.

[Dienekes]

Well, is this movie based on some actual historical event in Paris? Because I went in thinking I'll get to relish some hateable nobles getting guillotined, but instead I basically saw Tiananmen Square, and that kind of pissed me off as if watching injustices occur in the real world wasn't enough. Upended expectations

Yeah, the Student Revolution of 1832. Also, a near random murder spree lead by a power hungry demagogue seems a bit of a harsh thing to relish.

The final scene was like pouring salt on the wound. The would-be revolutionary students died and achieved nothing. And then I get to see them, what? Pretend everything is great in some heaven-dream sequence? What were those dead ppl happy about? Was that in the book?

Religion plays a very strong role in the story. Defining the motivations of the principle protagonist and antagonist (in the musical anyway). Yes, they do show a brief image of a heavenly reward for the good characters. It's a bit of an artistic license with the original material, admittedly, but I think the agreeableness of the imagery depends on the beliefs of the individual, so I'm not going to continue defending that bit. I will say it adds a very powerful song.

As for Eponine... well, the "Who cares?" line can be applied to any character in any movie. It's not just that she pines over some guy. It's how she goes through the movie. Cossette is just some dainty lass played straight. She did nothing interesting. But Eponine had a personality. We saw her internal struggle on whether she should sabotage Marius' pursuit of the barbie, and she gets the opportunity on multiple occasions, but every time her goodness won through. And she joined in on the rebellion, and conducted herself with heroism. She's just a much more likeable and dimensional character.

Yeah sorry, my own biases there. But when I have a decade long cop chase, and a revolution going on I tend to find any and all romantic subplots just a waste of my time. I'm not a romantic man myself, I don't get it and frankly I rarely care for it. The only benefit of that particular love triangle was the addition of a good song or two, that's all. Yes though, Eponine is a more developed character in the play than Cosette, whose sole purpose seems to be just to be to give a reason for Valjean and Marius to know each other.

[Disproportional]

Well, is this movie based on some actual historical event in Paris? Because I went in thinking I'll get to relish some hateable nobles getting guillotined, but instead I basically saw Tiananmen Square, and that kind of pissed me off as if watching injustices occur in the real world wasn't enough. Upended expectations.

The final scene was like pouring salt on the wound. The would-be revolutionary students died and achieved nothing. And then I get to see them, what? Pretend everything is great in some heaven-dream sequence? What were those dead ppl happy about? Was that in the book?

This movie is based on the 1832 revolution which got brutally put down. Prior to this, there was a series of revolutions (starting with the famous French one) that eventually came full circle. In 1830, a French monarch was removed from the throne, only to be replaced with another one. Liberals in France were very frustrated with their 40 year struggle for Republicanism, which lead to this revolt.

That scene at the end when they die is supposed to be the 1848 revolution, when the monarchy these students were against gets overthrown, 16 years later. The spirits get to see their work complete, albeit much later than they had hoped.

[mangosta71]

The passage of time could have been represented a lot better than it was. No change in wardrobe, makeup, scenery, etc. gives the impression that the ending sequence covers a couple hours. But then we have Valjean, who had been strong/healthy enough to carry an unconscious guy through the sewers all night, get weak and die over the course of a few minutes onscreen. It makes a lot more sense if 16 years have elapsed.

[MLai]

Yeah, the Student Revolution of 1832. Also, a near random murder spree lead by a power hungry demagogue seems a bit of a harsh thing to relish.

Like I said, I know nothing of the French Revolution(s) besides what I already mentioned. But I do know a king got beheaded, and he wasn't a good king or a king in touch with his people. So yes, relish.
But even as the movie itself implied, a lot more things happened during that time period and France's eventual march to a modern governance was not a straight and steady one.
So since this forum forbids IRL discussions, if I wish to learn more of French history, I'll look it up myself.

But when I have a decade long cop chase, and a revolution going on I tend to find any and all romantic subplots just a waste of my time.

I don't know about the book, but this movie really isn't about the "cop chase" or the political happenings. It is in fact about the select individuals, with the former mentioned epic events serving as ill-explained background.

The passage of time could have been represented a lot better than it was. No change in wardrobe, makeup, scenery, etc. gives the impression that the ending sequence covers a couple hours. But then we have Valjean, who had been strong/healthy enough to carry an unconscious guy through the sewers all night, get weak and die over the course of a few minutes onscreen. It makes a lot more sense if 16 years have elapsed.

16 years? I had no idea. For a movie which loved its "X Years Later..." captions, they could have easily made that clear.

That, and actually showing the 1848 Revolution, with maybe the spirits of the dead students celebrating behind the 1848 activists, would have ameliorated my misgivings regarding that final scene which I felt was intolerable pandering: "The corrupt Establishment won, but don't worry you can have your cake when we kill you and you go to heaven. Here's a heaven scene to make you feel better." Doesn't help that I see Organized Religion in the same light as the Establishment.

As for Valjean, I just thought that he had a stroke or something while walking to his carriage. Yes I know I know that's not how strokes work.

[Janus]

That scene at the end when they die is supposed to be the 1848 revolution, when the monarchy these students were against gets overthrown, 16 years later. The spirits get to see their work complete, albeit much later than they had hoped.

Hmm, I've never seen it like that. I always figured it was meant to be the "ending in Heaven/better world" type thing, with the lyrics referring more to the fight against oppression, though I interpret that in more of a spiritual sense than a physical one.

[Scarlet-Devil]

Alright, walls of text aside, for someone who hasn't seen the play or read the book (and thus doesn't know the story or the songs or anything), would you recommend seeing it in theater?

[huttj509]

Alright, walls of text aside, for someone who hasn't seen the play or read the book (and thus doesn't know the story or the songs or anything), would you recommend seeing it in theater?

I watched it with someone unfamiliar with either, she loved it.

What are your feelings on musicals in general?