Les Miserables Lovers...3rd UPDATE 10/18: Movie Dates!

[klacey1]

I'm going against the grain...I really didn't like it at all. I've seen it a few times on Broadway and was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The movie DRAGGED for me. I felt like I was in that theater for days.

I HATED the cinematography-- from the extreme close ups to the super quick sweeping shots. I also did not like how they seemed to minimize the instrumentals-- anyone else feel that way? The orchestra was barely audible in comparison to the singing. Did think the sets, when they were visible, were great. The visual of the funeral of Lamarque was beautiful.

Anne Hathaway-- did not like. I thought she waaaay overdid it. The gulping and the sobbing during I Dreamed a Dream ruined it for me, completely. I know people say she took it in a "different" direction-- in my opinion, it was BAD different. (Personal fan of Randy Graff's and Lea Salonga's versions-- the latter of which I got to see in person! Phenomenal!)

Russell Crowe was painful-- singing & acting. Normally I love him as an actor, so I'm not sure what happened.

Thought Hugh Jackson sang/acted beautifully, as did Samantha Barks. Amanda Seyfried was fine-- impressed with her ability to hit some of those high notes! I HATED Marius-- just not a fan of his voice, and thought his acting was unremarkable. I did LOVE, LOVE the actor who played Enjolras. He stole it for me. No surprise when I looked him up when I got home and discovered he's a Broadway actor.

Thought HBC (who I LOVE) and Sasha Baron Cohen did okay as the Thenardiers. Just okay.

So disappointed-- I was very much looking forward to it!

 

[java]

Forgot the funniest part. I went with my dd15. About 10 minutes in she turns to me and asks " is this a musical?"

 

[jdb in AZ]

My 16-yr-old grand daughter took her boy friend to see it (after she saw it with us.) He said he liked it except for all the singing.

 

[Mickeynutty]

I'm going against the grain...I really didn't like it at all. I've seen it a few times on Broadway and was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The movie DRAGGED for me. I felt like I was in that theater for days.

I HATED the cinematography-- from the extreme close ups to the super quick sweeping shots. I also did not like how they seemed to minimize the instrumentals-- anyone else feel that way? The orchestra was barely audible in comparison to the singing. Did think the sets, when they were visible, were great. The visual of the funeral of Lamarque was beautiful.

Anne Hathaway-- did not like. I thought she waaaay overdid it. The gulping and the sobbing during I Dreamed a Dream ruined it for me, completely. I know people say she took it in a "different" direction-- in my opinion, it was BAD different. (Personal fan of Randy Graff's and Lea Salonga's versions-- the latter of which I got to see in person! Phenomenal!)

Russell Crowe was painful-- singing & acting. Normally I love him as an actor, so I'm not sure what happened.

Thought Hugh Jackson sang/acted beautifully, as did Samantha Barks. Amanda Seyfried was fine-- impressed with her ability to hit some of those high notes! I HATED Marius-- just not a fan of his voice, and thought his acting was unremarkable. I did LOVE, LOVE the actor who played Enjolras. He stole it for me. No surprise when I looked him up when I got home and discovered he's a Broadway actor.

Thought HBC (who I LOVE) and Sasha Baron Cohen did okay as the Thenardiers. Just okay.

So disappointed-- I was very much looking forward to it!

Wow! You summed up how I felt...the movie drags. I have seen the play many times and so preferred it. The jumpy camera was so bad. The only one I thought was great was HJ. The others, I have seen MUCH better stage performances. Just mho.

 

[jackemail]

Loved it, and loved that the theater was sold out for a musical. I did like the Broadway version better, but still enjoyed the movie immensely.

Did think it was overlong, and that Russell Crowe stank.

Loved Anne Hathaway (did think the same thing about her in the pink dress), and Eponine was outstanding.

Lots of crying and sniffing in the theater many, many times.

 

[zoemurr]

So I had the very problem I knew I was going to have. I kept comparing it to the Broadway production and that caliber of singing. I seem to like the female roles better than the quality coming from the male roles.

1) Russel Crowe C- Sorry but the man cannot sing. there was absolutely no emotion in his role and Javert is supposed to be a man possessed.

2) Anne hathaway A. Not so much for her singing but she acted the heck out of the role. She definitely conveys her fear, disgust, disillusionment and sadness. Well done

3) Scenery. A. 1800's Paris in all it's shining glory. gritty, dirty, smelly
one scene though had me laughing. when Fantaine was working in the factory and it's the end of the day, every one is taking off their blue uniforms and are pretty much dressed in drab greys, whites and blues. How the heck did she get a pink dress?

4) the Thenardiers. B. I actually like this portrayal, a bit comedic with enough ruthlessness mixed in to make them believable.

5) Eponine. A. enjoyed her acting.

Overall it was an enjoyable movie. I won't nominate it for an oscar but it was worth the 9 bucks. I won't be buying it on dvd since I have the PBS 10th anniversary dvd (Dream cast, no one will measure up to Colm Wilkinson and Philip Quast for me) and the original broadway version.

I love the play and know I will focus on the "non-Broadway" caliber singing. I can't decide if I want to see it or not. The storyline is amazing, but the delivery of such talented people on stage really brings it home. I keep hearing how amazing Eponine is and that she has played on Broadway. Does anyone know why they didn't stick to all stage performers? This would have really sealed the deal for me..

 

[eliza61]

I love the play and know I will focus on the "non-Broadway" caliber singing. I can't decide if I want to see it or not. The storyline is amazing, but the delivery of such talented people on stage really brings it home. I keep hearing how amazing Eponine is and that she has played on Broadway. Does anyone know why they didn't stick to all stage performers? This would have really sealed the deal for me..

I think it may have been to expand the audience a bit. some folks are "non" musicals types and some folks live in areas where they don't have an opportunity to get a lot of plays. Having brand name stars will bring in a wide audience.

That's just a guess.

For me it was too glaring. Javert on broadway is a power house and Russel just left me flat and uninspired.

 

[JenM]

I love the play and know I will focus on the "non-Broadway" caliber singing. I can't decide if I want to see it or not. The storyline is amazing, but the delivery of such talented people on stage really brings it home. I keep hearing how amazing Eponine is and that she has played on Broadway. Does anyone know why they didn't stick to all stage performers? This would have really sealed the deal for me..

Samantha Barks did play Eponine on stage - but in the London production, not on Broadway. Daniel Huttlestone, who played Gavroche, also played the role in the London production. Isabelle Allen, who played Little Cosette, is now playing the role twice a week in the London production.

Quite a few of the barricade boys are also from the current London production, and besides Colm Wilkinson, there were other alumni from the show: Frances Ruffelle (the original Eponine on London and Broadway) was one of the Lovely Ladies - she was the one in yellow who sings the "make money in your sleep" line. Stephen Tate, who played Fauchelevent (the man pinned by the cart), is a former West End Thernardier. There were other alumni from the show in the movie as well. I saw Linzi Hately's name in the credits, she was a former Eponine (she also plays Mrs. Banks on the cast recording of Mary Poppins).

Aaron Tveit, who played Enjolras, starred on Broadway in Next To Normal, Catch Me if You Can, and Wicked (I think he did Hairspray as well?). Bertie Carvel, who played Bamatabois (the jerk who harrasses Fantine) just won an Olivier award for his performance as Miss Trunchbull in Matilda in London, and will be playing the role again on Broadway this spring.

Eddie Redmayne has a Tony Award - Best Featured Actor in Play for Red, which he did in London and NY, and he's been doing theater for a long time. Plus Hugh has his Tony for The Boy From Oz, and did Beauty & the Beast and Sunset Blvd in Australia, and Oklahoma! in the West End (all before X-Men). He also starred in a concert version of Carousel at Carnegie Hall.

So there are actually a lot of theater people in the movie - many from Les Mis! It's a good way to look at it.

They rarely cast entirely from the stage version because it's hard way to sell the movie - theater fans know who they are, but they only make up part of the wider audience they try to sell the movie to. And studios want these movies to make lots of money.

Rent used almost the entire original cast - that movie bombed. The Producers, which was a massive hit on Broadway, did a movie version that was almost an exact replica of the stage version - it bombed in theaters.

Hairspray had names in their cast - that movie was a hit. Mamma Mia made over $600 million worldwide, even with Pierce Brosnan.

It can be hit or miss (look at how badly Rock of Ages did last summer with that cast).

But Les Mis so far has made over $100 million worldwide, and still has countries to open in yet. So it looks like the casting worked - even with Russell Crowe (who I actually liked).

 

[threeboysmom]

Loved it, and loved that the theater was sold out for a musical. I did like the Broadway version better, but still enjoyed the movie immensely.

Did think it was overlong, and that Russell Crowe stank.

Loved Anne Hathaway (did think the same thing about her in the pink dress), and Eponine was outstanding.

Lots of crying and sniffing in the theater many, many times.

With Anne and the pink dress, I think it was their way of portraying her innocence. In the book, you are introduced to a much different Fantine - a younger Fantine who is carefree, so naive & innocent, hanging out with her friends, falling in love, etc. That was entirely missing from the movie (and probably the Broadway show). Maybe this was their only way of conveying that to the audience?

 

[Imzadi]

I love reading everybody's reactions. I've burned through 3 of these guys --> reading through everyone's posts.

It's been a long month waiting for to read what everyone else thinks of the movie.

This one pretty much covers the bases too.

Brilliant!

So I had the very problem I knew I was going to have. I kept comparing it to the Broadway production and that caliber of singing. I seem to like the female roles better than the quality coming from the male roles.

1) Russel Crowe C- Sorry but the man cannot sing. there was absolutely no emotion in his role and Javert is supposed to be a man possessed.

2) Anne hathaway A. Not so much for her singing but she acted the heck out of the role. She definitely conveys her fear, disgust, disillusionment and sadness. Well done

3) Scenery. A. 1800's Paris in all it's shining glory. gritty, dirty, smelly
one scene though had me laughing. when Fantaine was working in the factory and it's the end of the day, every one is taking off their blue uniforms and are pretty much dressed in drab greys, whites and blues. How the heck did she get a pink dress?

4) the Thenardiers. B. I actually like this portrayal, a bit comedic with enough ruthlessness mixed in to make them believable.

5) Eponine. A. enjoyed her acting.

Overall it was an enjoyable movie. I won't nominate it for an oscar but it was worth the 9 bucks. I won't be buying it on dvd since I have the PBS 10th anniversary dvd (Dream cast, no one will measure up to Colm Wilkinson and Philip Quast for me) and the original broadway version.

I think I agree with Eliza's post the most. Although I did think the chorus was definitely Broadway caliber.

I love the play and know I will focus on the "non-Broadway" caliber singing. I can't decide if I want to see it or not. The storyline is amazing, but the delivery of such talented people on stage really brings it home. I keep hearing how amazing Eponine is and that she has played on Broadway. Does anyone know why they didn't stick to all stage performers? This would have really sealed the deal for me..

It's part of the politics & finances of getting a movie produced in Hollywood. They NEED star names to "carry" the movie. That is actual term in Hollywood. The name, clout & reputation of a star(s) carries the audience to the movie theatre. They need to for a movie to be competitive at the box office, especially at the cineplexes where people can choose right in line to switch movies, without having to drive anywhere else and decide to go to a different film at the last minute instead.

Like, Tom Cruise, as wacky as he is in real life, had one of the best reputations for picking blockbuster movies and packing audiences into movie theatres. people would rather see a film with a star that they know and whose work they know, than a cast no one knows. That might turn out to be a waste of $10 a ticket.

Bradley Cooper is probably moving up into the position right now, of gaining real box office clout & power.

 

[Deb in IA]

OK, here are two questions I've wanted to ask, but kept forgetting:

1. When Valjean is first paroled, at the beginning of the film, he is shown climbing up a desolate hill toward a graveyard. Is that the grave of his sister and her child? Did they starve after he was thrown in jail?

2. Why did they cut the "Dog Eats Dog" number that Thenardier sings in the sewers?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I was curious about that mountain too.


They cut a lot from the movie. I think part of it had to do with time.

 

[ugadog99]

I love the play and know I will focus on the "non-Broadway" caliber singing. I can't decide if I want to see it or not. The storyline is amazing, but the delivery of such talented people on stage really brings it home. I keep hearing how amazing Eponine is and that she has played on Broadway. Does anyone know why they didn't stick to all stage performers? This would have really sealed the deal for me..

I completely understand. We are going today, and I'm so torn! I'm just not sure if I can go. Les Mis is my favorite of all stage productions ever. (I'm the OP of this thread, by the way.) I don't know if I can watch it with an open mind. I have two hours to decide if I want to do this or not. I was so looking forward to this, but I'm not happy with the casting, at all. I "understand" the need to bring "big stars" to draw non theatre people, but I don't agree with it. And Russell Crowe? Really???? Sigh......I don't know what to do.


On the upside, though, this was posted on Broadway World:

http://broadwayworld.com/article/Ca...LES-Will-Be-Back-on-Broadway-in-2014-20121228

I had planned on a trip to NYC this spring, but I think it may be pushed a little longer now.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

OK, here are two questions I've wanted to ask, but kept forgetting:

1. When Valjean is first paroled, at the beginning of the film, he is shown climbing up a desolate hill toward a graveyard. Is that the grave of his sister and her child? Did they starve after he was thrown in jail?

2. Why did they cut the "Dog Eats Dog" number that Thenardier sings in the sewers?

They pulled a lot of details from the book that weren't in the musical version. If the graveyard has any significance, it may have been explained in the book. I just figured it was for added for atmosphere so he wasn't walking up a boring mountain.

For people who are asking why they didn't cast stage actors, it's all about money! How many average movie goers who know nothing about the show would see a moving staring Alfie Boe, Andrew Varela, Kelly Ground, Michael Ball, Samantha Barks and Ramin Karimloo? I would love to see this cast do the movie! They've all performed the roles on stage to great reviews. However, movie goers don't know who the heck they are! They did cast Samantha Barks as the one theater actor in a major role, and she did an awesome job! Those of us who know and love the musical would see it no matter who was cast. In order to attract other viewers, they cast "movie names." That said, I do think that Hugh Jackman was great as Valjean. Ann Hathaway was amazing. The Thenardiers were fine, but kind of forgettable. Samantha Barks was awesome, as I knew she would be. Eddie Redmayne? OK, but I've seen better versions of Marius. Aaron Tviet was fine as Enjorlas, but I wanted a deeper and more commanding voice since he is the leader of the rebellion. Russell Crowe? No thanks. If anyone wants to see an really awesome Javert, look up a YouTube video of Andrew Varela performing the role. That guy seriously rocks it!

 

[StephMK]

OK, here are two questions I've wanted to ask, but kept forgetting:

1. When Valjean is first paroled, at the beginning of the film, he is shown climbing up a desolate hill toward a graveyard. Is that the grave of his sister and her child? Did they starve after he was thrown in jail?

I wondered that too and figured it must have been his sis's family. Hope someone can provide an answer.

I saw this Thursday w/DD18. I have never liked musicals (gasp!) but this was the first show DD was in as a freshman in HS. I have only seen a HS version so I have nothing substantial to compare. That said, I thought the movie was amazing. I knew it was sad but DD asked if I had brought tissues. Wow, we both cried during several parts. One day, I would love to see the stage show but for someone with no experience, the movie was well done.

We would have seen it even if it was all "unknown" no big name actors because we went for the story, not the people in it. That is the same for others I know who've seen it so it's too bad more Broadway actors weren't cast.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Details I remember from the book included Fantine selling her teeth and the scene in the convent when Valjean and Cosette are escaping from Javert. I don't remember the graveyard. But it's been awhile since I read the book.

 

[ariel71]

I've seen the stage version several times, the 10th and 25th Anniv. concerts more times than I can count, and listened to the original Broadway cast recording so much over the years that I wore out the tape out (yes, back from the days of tapes...). Just trying to say that the music is in my soul, and I acknowledge that there is no way the movie cast can truly compete as a whole with that caliber of singing (except for a few performers, e.g. Sam Barks). That said...

I have never seen it ACTED this well. Even though Hugh Jackman's singing annoyed me, his face in the soliloquy at the line "beneath the lash, upon the rack" was like a punch in the gut. It was the first time I really felt his anguish and what those 19 years meant. Same thing with "I Dreamed a Dream" (and I liked the placement after Lovely Ladies - makes more sense). Throughout the movie I found myself getting emotional at very different places than I normally do.

If anyone's hesitant, just go with an open mind recognizing that it's an entirely different treatment. About the point that I mentioned in the Soliloquy is when I said to myself "OK, the singing's passable but not outstanding - it is what it is". Once I kind of got myself into that mindset, I loved it in an entirely different way than I thought I would.

Separately-

According to the book, Valjean's last knowledge of his sister was that she was in Paris with his youngest nephew. He never heard about what ultimately became of the two of them or the rest of her children.

 

[Deb in IA]

I've seen the stage version several times, the 10th and 25th Anniv. concerts more times than I can count, and listened to the original Broadway cast recording so much over the years that I wore out the tape out (yes, back from the days of tapes...). Just trying to say that the music is in my soul, and I acknowledge that there is no way the movie cast can truly compete as a whole with that caliber of singing (except for a few performers, e.g. Sam Barks). That said...

I have never seen it ACTED this well. Even though Hugh Jackman's singing annoyed me, his face in the soliloquy at the line "beneath the lash, upon the rack" was like a punch in the gut. It was the first time I really felt his anguish and what those 19 years meant. Same thing with "I Dreamed a Dream" (and I liked the placement after Lovely Ladies - makes more sense). Throughout the movie I found myself getting emotional at very different places than I normally do.

If anyone's hesitant, just go with an open mind recognizing that it's an entirely different treatment. About the point that I mentioned in the Soliloquy is when I said to myself "OK, the singing's passable but not outstanding - it is what it is". Once I kind of got myself into that mindset, I loved it in an entirely different way than I thought I would.

Separately-

According to the book, Valjean's last knowledge of his sister was that she was in Paris with his youngest nephew. He never heard about what ultimately became of the two of them or the rest of her children.

Thanks, and yes, I agree completely with your assessment.

It is NOT the stage version. It is a different presentation, a different medium.

I think, for the most part, the stage actors focus mainly on the singing. Not that they are not good actors also - see the above comments on the current touring Javert, Andrew Varela - but in general, the stage performers are singers, and they concentrate on diction, projection, pitch, etc.

Now, the movie performers are also decent singers, but they focus more on the acting, the emotion. So, while the songs may not be as "pretty" as Anne Hathaway says, they have a different effect, because you are seeing them sung literally right in your face, instead of 100 yards away in an auditorium.

 

[ugadog99]

Okay, we are back. I have a long review to post. I will first say that I'm glad I decided to go. I will agree with the previous poster that I found myself more emotionally involved in scenes that, with the stage version, had never touched me that much. Overall, I did enjoy the movie, and it moved me just as much, if not more in some places, as the stage version. However, the musical will always hold first place in my heart, not the movie.

The makeup, costuming, scenic design, and special effects were incredible! The camera work, not so much. I didn't like the "in you face" jumping around stuff at all. In fact, there were moments that some of the quick movements even triggered my vertigo a bit.


I realized that I see this as two parts to one movie. In fact, in my head I saw it as Act One and Act Two. I much preferred Act Two! For the first part of the movie I kept feeling as though I were watching a really good movie but no t Les Mis. I wasn't connecting with the characters as I normally do. I will also say that Anne Hathaway is the exception to this. I loved her portrayal of Fantine. It was different, yes, but I liked it. The jury is still out on how I feel about "I Dreamed a Dream." I like the placement of the song, and I really liked the second half, but not so much on the first part. I thought the scene where Valjean finds Fantine and takes her to the hospital was beautiful. Fantine's death was heartbreaking, as it always is.

Now, to the individuals:
Hugh Jackman: His acting was INCREDIBLE! I will say that at the beginning I had a little trouble connecting with him, but very shortly in I was totally buying his acting as Valjean. I don't understand some of his singing choices, though. The man has a decent voice. He didn't need to sing-song as much as he did in Act One. By the time we hit what would have been Act Two, I thought his singing was stronger, though. All in all, the casting on this was really good.

Anne Hathaway: Excellent....period. She has to win awards for this portrayal.

Eddie Redmayne: Wow! I really, really liked him. Is he Michael Ball? No, but I thought he was very good. "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" broke my heart. It was beautiful!

Aaron Tveit: Hmmm....he was good but not as good as Eddie. I've seen more powerful actors in this role, so I'm just going to go with okay on this one. I will say that that I like the way they filmed his ending. It reminded me a lot of the original turning barricade scene.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter: Well, I LOVE the Thenardiers, so this was a difficult one for me. I actually liked SBC. He was certainly a different Thenardier, but he grew on me. HBC: didn't like this one at all. If I had ever been a performer and not a techie, Madame Thenardier would have been one of my dream roles (as would Fantine and Eponine), so I guess I'm difficult to please on this one.

Samantha Barks: Wow, wow, wow!! This casting was right on the dot! She is amazing as Eponine. "On My Own" had me sobbing. Really, really beautiful.

For me, the movie didn't become Les Mis until the ensemble commanded the screen. I know some haven't liked the filming of "One Day More," but I liked it and thought it worked. "Lovely Ladies" was very gritty but effective. "Master of the House" ehh....it was okay, but I like the stage version better. Once we got to "Red and Black" it really became Les Mis for me. Yes, that's because it was ensemble driven and that ensemble is filled with stage actors and singers. From that moment on, the beauty and the emotional connection started and I was hooked. I like the added moments that give more background to the story. I think that was a smart move for movie goers that might not know the full story as much as others. I noticed some lines added, changed, and deleted. It wasn't enough to make a difference, though, and most of it I thought were good changes. The ensemble ROCKED!! Whoa, really, really great!!

Amanda Seyfried: I'm not normally a fan of Cosette, but I liked her. She actually gave Cosette some "meat," and I liked that. Her last scene with Valjean was lovely.

Now, that brings me to Mr. Crowe. Horrible just horrible. WTH was with that casting? Yes, yes, I know about mainstream America and non theatre people, but for heaven's sake, couldn't they have found ANYONE else? For me, Les Mis has always been about the struggle between good and evil with Valjean vs Javert. With Russell Crowe's dismal portrayal that was lost. His Javert was just flat and unemotional and the "singing"....shudders! I truly think that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway would have been enough to draw in the audiences. Javert could have been cast with a stage actor, or at least someone who could have done a better job. For the first time ever (for me) Les Mis became about the story between Valjean and Cosette and Cosette and Marius. That was different for me, and I miss the dynamic between Valjean and Javert. My favorite of all scenes, The Confrontation, was just ruined.

Colm: The one and only Valjean for me, ever. His moments as the Bishop just made my $8 ticket worth it. There will never be another Colm Wilkinson...ever.

My favorite part of the entire movie was from the wedding to the end. It was fabulous. It was just different enough to keep me interested but maintained all the emotion and beauty of the original stage version.

Am I glad I went? Absolutely! Will we buy the DVD? Ehhh...jury's out on that, probably yes, but I'll have to plug my ears during when Russell Crowe opens his mouth. Heck, who am I kidding? I have to have those Colm moments forever on DVD. What made this movie? The ensemble of stage actors and singers and Hugh Jackman.

Whew....that was a lot, but I started this thread over two years ago, so I had a lot to say!

 

[Imzadi]

I love your review, ugadog99. I'm glad you went after all. I agree with a lot of your review. Of course, especially about Hugh Jackman's singing and not being able to connect because of it. I too loved the rest of the ensemble and they made the show for me.

I do agree with Deb in IA. It's taken some time to sink in & sift through, but it really is a very different show & experience. Sometimes I wished the 25th Anniversary production just had a touch more acting. Even without the sets, if they turned & acted to each other a touch more, it would have made that whole production complete for me, and I guess I was hoping for this movie to be THAT and it's not.

This movie does have other merits though. And if anything, it has made me appreciate going to see Les Mis when it comes back to Broadway again. I wish they'd stop taking it off Broadway. If they hadn't have had that year or so off, they'd actually be in the running with Phantom as the two longest running Broadway shows of all time.

But, I will see it again pretty much right after it opens or in previews, when the cast is fresh & new again. That's one thing that can be said for bringing the show back. When a show runs for a long time, they tend to recycle through actors and sometimes the performances aren't as fresh and the acting isn't first caliber anymore. (The better actors have already done the show and are staring in more recent hit shows.)


We still have not watched my friend's SAG DVD screening of Les Mis. She's still kind of on "movie burn out" and I don't think she's seen anything over a half hour sitcom since having see all those movies back to back. Probably when we finally do see it, I will be ready to watch the film with fresh eyes, as I know what to expect & what not to now.