Les Miserables (2012)

[FilmBuff]

Never mind, got trolled.

Edited January 17, 2013 by FilmBuff

[ladyevenstar22]

i finally saw it todayyyyy

 

i give it  a resounding    

 

what will all the negative things i've read about it, fishnets comments ,critics secretly i had doubts

even though as i've said i know this book and film adaptations through and through

 

 

the one thing i didnt like was samantha barks singing (i'm not saying she sang bad ) she has a very pop voice! whereas others sounded cohesive, not helped by fact i don't like eponine character ,she's really not nice when you read her

 

the thenardiers were sooo funny, everyone was laughing, their comedic timing was perfect

 

i too will make special mention of both kid actors performances , awesome! gavroche just own his scenes

 

and here's another thing i'm no musical purist who gets to see shows on broadway or off it; on this rock there aint much i get to see lol BUT i didnt feel like russel crowe was that bad, i think people criticizing him must have seen same performance on stage and maybe in comparison it doesnt hold up 

 

i love hugh jackman and i was amazed at his transformation for this role, he really sold me on life had battered him real bad as much as he tried time and time to be a good person if not for his past dogged pursuit in the form of javert, i cried at the end because i didnt want him to die , that whole scene was just too emotional, plus it was coming off of eddy redmayne performance of " empty chairs ..."where i was already choking up

 

MEGA MEGA KUDOS TO ANNE HATTHAWAY that girl made me bawl my eyes out from the moment she cuts her hair to end of her "i dreamed a dream" so much emotion packed into a song, a memorable turn ( song keeps popping up in my head even now) OSCAR IS YOURS young lady, she's only in the movie for 20mn until brief appearance at the end but man she earned her buck worth for every frame she's on! 

i remember she was up for role in the phantom of opera  but emmy rossum got it and i thought mehh  then i heard her belt a few notes at the oscars when she did a stint with hugh jackman and thought hmmm ok ok she's got something and was very happy she was cast in this and it paid off

 

now fishnets i haven't forgotten you, about those close-ups, what was the matter with them ? i thought they were perfect, in sense that approach tom hooper went for i totally bought it, it gives a very intimate feel to the scene like its only you and the characters, very minimalist , the decor wasn't over the top, i loved the cinematography, there was a very stark nakedness that added realism to the grime of poverty and desolation the characters on hard times go through , i even appreciated that their teeth  didnt have the actors hollywood polish (that can be so jarring when you have to wonder who's their dentist in 19th century france puhhlease) i felt nothing you warned me about, go figure!

 

i'm so watching this again and again....but at home (sorry about that but after my experience at the theatre today again !) i'll write my crowd report tomorrow you guys will not believe this , my theatre does not inspire me confidence

 

 

i give this an A but only because there's not option AAA!

[Jack Nevada]

Les Miz is a mixed bag.

The bad stuff first: it gets boring at times, especially in the second act. Russell Crowe is horribly miscast, and the Helena Bonham Carter/Sacha Baron Cohen comedy relief duo fail to squeeze out a chuckle. In fact, their musical number was one of the more embarrassing things to watch in a while. The editing gets pretty choppy at times, with like 13 cuts in a minute in scenes that dont require as much editing. Also the constant singing makes the plot a bit hard to follow at first, and it creates a distance between the characters and the viewer, imo. I dont think I'll be coming back to see Les Miz again.

 

The good stuff: rest of the cast do a stellar job, especially Hugh Jackman, who knocked it out of the park with an Oscar worthy performance. He should be getting more praise. Anne Hathaway is great too, but at this point its kinda redundant to say that. 

An underrated performance comes from Eddie Redmayne, who's number Empty Chairs and Empty Tables rivals I Dreamed a Dream in emotionality. All of the actors also sing very well, so your ears will not hurt even though the were singing live on set.

 

So to me its a 3,5/5 movie, with the most impressive aspect of it being the great acting it has

[The Futurist]

WTF was that ?

 

I mean seriously ???

 

I am pretty sure there were more medics on this set than stunts men.

 

How many seizures the cast had by shouting,belting, singing very very very loudly, drooling, crying, sobbing, looking sad and constipated all at the same time during their scenes FOR 2 AND A HALF HOURS ??

 

I am not sure this was very healthy to be honest.

 

THe cinematography and framing were atrocious, fish eye dutch angles galore !

 

The Oscar Hathaway moment was ten times more powerful in the trailer than in the actual movie so I was pretty disapointed with that.

Selina Kyke is still Hathaway's best 2012 performance by far.

 

My favourite actor of the whole cast was the little kid at the barricade ( Gavroche ?) and I give a nod to Jackman for trying very hard.

 

Crowe was hilariously bad.

Didn't care for Reydmane and  Banks.

Borat was ok, Bohnam Carter is irritating

Amanda was so :wub: .

 

The story is ok I guess.

 

The movie never got to me, I was cringing almost the whole time, I was a little emotionnal at the very last sence with Wolverine, Causette and Reydmane but that s it.

 

Please Mr Hooper, go back where you belong :

 

THE FRAKKING BBC.

 

Thank you very much.

Edited February 15, 2013 by The Futurist

[Jack Nevada]

Jesus, i gave this 3,5/5? What was I smoking?

 

2/5

[DeeCee]

Some epic and beautiful music let down by a terrible story.

[BoxOfficeZ]

Finally got to see the movie. 

 

Music is fantastic first off. Just absolutely epic. 

 

Secondly, the singing by most of the cast is rather well done, especially Hathaway, Barks, and surprisingly Redmayne. Jackman was pretty good too, though a tad overblown. Russell Crowe cannot sing a damn sadly, since his character is so great. He would have been better in a non-musical version of the story. Carter and Cohen were okay, made for some laughs in the audience.

 

Camera work seems very iffy, like weird closeups of some people of them singing and sometimes you don't even see their head.

 

The battle itself was okay, even the set was the same size. 

 

I give this a B+

[acsc1312]

Lolololol out if everyone, futurist liked Amanda?! Her voice still gives me nightmares.

[Jack Nevada]

Its a fucking shame how quickly they rush through Valjean's backstory and Fantine, and then stay in the barricades seemingly for 6 hours. The whole revolution thing wasn't nearly the most compelling thing about the story, so why focus on it so much?

[acsc1312]

Yeah, I was expecting more of valjean's story with cosette based on the trailers. The novel is like 100 pages of the bishop's story before he met valjean. Definitely glad they cut that out.

[Jack Nevada]

Yeah, I was expecting more of valjean's story with cosette based on the trailers. The novel is like 100 pages of the bishop's story before he met valjean. Definitely glad they cut that out.

Yeah, that would have been boring, but I really really would have liked to see the characters get more fleshed out. For example It was almost comical how it seemed that Fantine was selling herself on the street the same day she got fired. I mean come on, give more background and take your time with the characters! Nobody cares about the revolution, especially since nothing came out of it

Edited February 26, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[ChD]

Yeah, I was expecting more of valjean's story with cosette based on the trailers. The novel is like 100 pages of the bishop's story before he met valjean. Definitely glad they cut that out.

 

Even if they put the Bishop's story in the movie, it wouldn't take too long since most of the 100 pages is about how he was feeling about things and how he was living, and that can't be really put into a movie without narrator...

 

I do agree that they should've made the movie about Valjean and Cossette's lives, not 9/10 of the revolution and then give them a few minutes of screen time for each other story.

 

In the end, I can't say I wasn't pleased with the movie. I admit I loved the movie and it's still one of the best movies that I watched this year...

[Jake Gittes]

The more I think about this movie the more it falls apart to me. I knew I didn't like it almost immediately, but looking back it really seems like such a ridiculously over-the-top melodrama. I really respect and admire all the actors' commitment to their roles, as well as what it took to record the songs live, but the material was laughably bad at times, and visually, to me, it all quite simply looked dead.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Jake Gittes

[Jack Nevada]

Its a huge missed opportunity

[Hiccup]

The movie doesn't hold up well at all. It is just like the Hobbit Part 1. You give it a 3 or 3.5/5 when you leave the theaters but a month or so later you drop it to a 2/5.  

[Jack Nevada]

If they had had a better director and a better editor and a better script this could have been so much more. I mean, the rest (performances, sets, cinematography, singing) ranges from good to fucking brilliant. I think most blame should be put to Tom Hooper, editors Chris Dickens and Melanie Ann Oliver, and the army of screenwriters who worked on this, because these people are the ones that fucked up Les Miserables.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[acsc1312]

Nope. Cinematography was horrid as well

[Jack Nevada]

Nope. Cinematography was horrid as well

At times yes. Most of the time I was cool with it, I had a bigger issue with Chris Dickens bringing his trademark hyper-caffeinated editing style into a movie that really didn't need it. 

[Jake Gittes]

Did they need to change the writers or the story itself? I'm leaning towards the latter. Never read the original book or seen the musical, but what I saw on screen imo would need some fundamental re-working to be a legitimate dramatic piece.

[Jack Nevada]

Did they need to change the writers or the story itself? I'm leaning towards the latter. Never read the original book or seen the musical, but what I saw on screen imo would need some fundamental re-working to be a legitimate dramatic piece.

 

Agreed.