Ryan McNeil
It seems like Broadway musicals should be predestined to hit it big with film adaptations. The shows selected are usually chosen because they were a hit with audiences. The screenplay is all but written and the staging is at least roughly mapped out. The property even comes with a built-in audience, sometimes one that’s one or two generations old. It’s all right there for the taking. So why do modern movie musicals keep tripping over their own feet?
LES MISERABLES brings to life the stage musical by Claude-Michel Schönberg, based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. Like the stage show on which is based, the dialogue is almost entirely sung, and seldom spoken.
We begin in 1815, and meet a prisoner named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman). Valjean was put in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and has had his sentence stretched to nineteen years due to his attempts at escape. Finally up for parole, he comes face to face with his police warden, Javert (Russell Crowe). Javert spells it out for Valjean: Even though his time is up, his papers list him as a dangerous man. His life is about to become a prison without bars.
It doesn’t take long for Valjean to break parole, and seek refuge in a church. While there, a bishop (Colm Wilkinson) reaches out to him, protects him from further persecution, and inspires him to life a life for others.
Eight years later, Valjean – now under a false identity, and a pillar of the community – is absent while one of his employees named Fantine (Anne Hathaway) is cast out into the street. With a small child to take care of, Fantine grows desperate and turns to prostituting herself to make ends meet. Meanwhile, Valjean has learned that an innocent man is about to stand trial for his breaking parole. When he confesses to his true identity, Javert makes it his mission to bring him back to justice. As their paths cross, Valjean discovers what has happened to Fantine, and makes it his mission to do right by her…and her daughter Cosette.
Fleeing from Javert, and adopting Cosette, Valjean heads for Paris…and is right in the middle of things nine years later when The June Rebellion breaks out.
What. A. Mess.
I think it’s reason to worry when a film’s best shot is its opening shot, and in the case of “LES MIS”, it’s doubly apropos. As the film opens, we are dropped into a capital-E-epic scene with the prisoners hauling a ship into port as the sing “Work Song”. The scene brings a glorious amount of scale and scope, and in an instant does things that cannot be done on a stage. Not too long after that, “At The End of The Day” allows us some lovely ensemble vocals, and some rather pretty staging. Finally, two scenes later, we are witness to the absolutely stellar “I Dreamed a Dream” performance by Anne Hathaway.
It’s the high point of the film. It’s all downhill from there. And sadly, it arrives only 31 minutes into a 157 minute film.
What hampers LES MIS isn’t exclusive to this film, it’s a pair of problems that affect all movie musicals. The first problem is casting. I’m not certain it’s a new problem, but for some reason Hollywood is skittish to cast a lesser-known in a major film, even if that lesser-known is a stage legend. So a producer could have their pick of the litter for a role like Javert – able to choose from dozens of talented singers who play the part with presence. Instead, the part is given to “a name” like Amanda Seyfried to sell to the common moviegoer. Unfortunately, actors like Seyfried who can’t sing the part end up doing more harm than good.
The second problem is direction. Directing a movie musical might be the toughest gig in Hollywood today. The camera isn’t only there to capture the scene at hand, it has to be considered a part of the scene at hand and choreographed within it. A great performance of a song could well be happening in front of the lens, but if it is captured poorly it’s pretty much all for naught. A movie musical has so many moving parts, and with the direction dropping itself into the middle of all of them, it either finds its fit within them, or it jams up the whole machine. LES MIS does the latter.
The camera feels less like a revolutionary marching with a flag, and more like a cannon being pushed down a cobblestone street. Hooper’s camera seldom knows where it should be – sometimes in too close, and often unsteady during moments that demand some stillness. Occasionally, we catch glimpses of glorious sets that must have taken many man-hours of work to pull off. These images are lush, intricate, and handsome as hell. Unfortunately, we’re usually only given glimpses of them because Hooper feels the need to shoot much of the dialogue, and every solo, with a very tight shot on the actor’s face, thus the scenes get very little setting. It feels like he is constantly trying to recapture the magic of “I Dreamed a Dream”…which is perplexing, since mimicking that scene’s stillness would only detract from its effect.
There are a few good things to take away from the film, Hathaway’s solo landing at the top of the list. What that scene does is what the whole film should have done – showcased performances based on emotion, capitalizing on what movie can do that the stage cannot. Likewise, the decision to capture the vocals live instead of overdubbing them later gave the songs veracity. If there’s a takeaway from LES MIS, it’s a hope that more musicals do this going forward. Unfortunately, the positives are far outnumbered by the negatives, and the film ultimately is a miss.
Thus, we get another misstep in the modern musical genre, a genre that is quickly getting filled with more misses than hits. LES MISERABLES actually manages to pull off a rare feat in that it will likely disappoint both the average moviegoer, and the fans of the original property. It’s understandable to miss the mark with one or the other – nailing both takes talent.
Now, to be fair, the best role in the thing, Enjorlas, is played by Aaron Tveit, who is best known for, wait for it, being on Broadway. All is well.
Ok, you say it is likely to disappoint casual movie goers and fans of the musical. But, you’ve already said that you weren’t that huge of a fan, like say, me or Marshal. All the reviews from “fans” I’ve read can’t stop gushing about it. Movie musicals today fail in my opinion because they change too much to appeal to the casual movie goer and change a hefty amount of the show. Take RENT. Not a bad film, but a terrible adaptation of a stage show. That show is like LES MIS in that is mostly sung the whole way through. They changed that completely for the more traditional dialogue-song-dialogue-song and so on.
That LES MIS is staying true to the show by maintaining the big thing, the task of action THROUGH music, not in between songs, gives me great hope. Who knows. Maybe I’ll agree with you. But I think I’m predisposed to love the hell out this thing!
I don’t remember saying I’m not that huge a fan. If I did, let me be more clear:
Rent is my sort of musical. Next to Normal is my sort of musical. Spring Awakening is my sort of musical. While I enjoy and appreciate more classic shows like Les Mis, Fiddler, and My Fair Lady, they aren’t the sort I’d reach for first.
You might be interested to know, that the second time I watched this, it was in a room filled with fans of the musical – and to a man they disliked it. There have only been nominal changes to adapt it for film, mostly in the form of staging (“One Day More” for instance has everyone in different spots). The operatic nature of the dialogue didn’t bother me at all in fact…what did was the lack of technical prowess with how this film was pulled off.
See it for yourself, but don’t say I didn’t warn you…
Fair enough. You won’t have long to wait for my opinion. I’m seeing it on X-Mas as well as Django Unchained. (How’s that for a double feature?)
Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me at all. A lot of these movie musicals make the mistake of casting familiar, “big” actors instead of professional singers who could bring so much more to what the roles called for. Instead we’re given familiar faces, but they lack the necessary talent to perform the roles well.
My sister is dying to see this, so we will probably go on Christmas Day, although I’ve been reluctant. I can only imagine what criticism she will give the film, given she has a double master’s in music performance and musicology 😉
Good review, Ryan! It’s nice to read a review that isn’t overtly one way or the other. It seems like some people are so passionate about the musical (or book), that they’re willing to excuse some major issues.
The actors aren’t the deepest offence…in fact it’s really interesting to see what Jackman, Hathaway, and Redmayne do with their parts. All of them can sing plenty well enough, and actually do so using subtleties that wouldn’t work on-stage. Of course, that said, we could have done with a better Javert.
I’ll be interested to know what your sister has to say. It’s more a mess as a film than a mess as a musical.
Glad to hear you thought this review was even-handed…I really didn’t want to bag all over a film just a week or so after calling for people to be less cynical.
So after talking with Jenn (my sister), and having seen it with her on Christmas Day, she agreed partly with your statement — “the actors aren’t the deepest offence.” In her opinion, it was the musical direction that made their singing not as good. I, for one, LOVE the music of Les Mis and have seen the theater version in London, NYC, and Chicago multiple times. The singing in this movie was poor aside from a few actors (to name a few, Hathaway, Redmayne, and Barks). Jenn was rather disenchanted with Jackman’s musical performance because he was “under pitch the entire film’s length.” I, however, didn’t think he was quite that bad.
I loved the production design – the sets were fantastic. My biggest overall complaint for the film was the camera closing in on the actors in EVERY. SINGLE. SCENE. All we got was one close-up after another, rarely seeing any background in it.
Trust me, you’re far from cynical here, Ryan 🙂 Thought you wrote a good review that was probably more film than music-based, which is difficult with a musical film.
I’ve written somewhere before that the second time we watch films, we are able to notice detail more since we aren’t as caught up in the plot. I really think that’s what has me so less enchanted with the film than a lot of those who love it.
I get the impression that a lot of moviegoers who fell hard for it were seeing it for the first time, and with that they got swept up in the story and the powerful music. Maybe I’d like it more if I’d never heard the songs before or seen a stage production.
I would watch Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried in just about anything but just can’t get excited about this movie.
Seyfried is out of her depth, but Hathaway slays. If you can find the complete scene of “I Dreamed a Dream”, fire it up and prepare to be amazed.
I’m not even going to lie: though I plan on seeing the film, I’ve never had much interest in Les Mis the musical, and the trailers on this are so irritating I’m flat out relieved to see a negative review. The raves I keep seeing are just so exhausting…
I came to a conclusion this afternoon: You have to be a complete failure of an editor to fuck up the trailer for a musical. The music is pre-programmed, you have your pick of the show-stopping moments, and you can completely ignore any failings.
The trailers for Phantom, Nine, and Dreamgirls all made them look killer. When the actual films were unveiled though…
You are the second trusted reviewr to pan this film- of the two reviews I’ve read. I’m already heartbroken. What says the lovely lady-wife?
Ask and ye shall recieve.
Lindsay should be commenting with her thoughts shortly…
I glossed over this (totally skipped plot recap) to get your general vibe. I’m a bit surprised and can’t wait to come back and read more indepthly. Especially since I’m sure to disagree once I finally see this thing next Wedneday. 😉
Trust me, I was surprised too…but I’ve watched it twice and all the failings I saw the first time are still there. Pity, because generally speaking, I like the show.
If you *do* end up liking it, prepare for a Halfyard-esque browbeating.
The cast is amazing, and while they make the movie bearable, they don’t make it good, and they can’t save it from Hooper’s horrible, horrible craftsmanship. Someone needs to direct him to a movie theater so he can, y’know, actually watch a few movies, because his repertoire of shots is apparently limited to sweeping overhead angles and extreme close-ups that would make Wayne Campbell cringe.
It says something about Hathaway that her performance carries so well through Hooper’s awful composition and shaky camera; “I Dreamed a Dream” alone should earn her an Oscar. And everyone else here does their work too. But they’re working in service to a film that lacks any sense of imagination or soul; it’s hampered by Hooper’s limitations as a filmmaker. You’d think he could have made this work by just repeating the same steps he took in The King’s Speech, but he doesn’t. He can’t. Put this in the hands of a much more creative, thoughtful director, and I think it could have been excellent, but man, it’s a painful slog.
Riddle Me This: Take the same cast and crew, give it all to Baz Luhrman. What would we have got?
Something more visionary and imaginative but possibly a bit weird. Which I would have taken over Plain Toast Hooper’s vision of the June Rebellion.
I’m a big fan of Les Mis and I can’t say I’m not disappointed by early reviews. I was really looking forward to this and I’ll still definitely go and see it but I will go in with slightly lowered expectations. Les Mis does suffer from a poorer second half, so it’s not surprising that it does downhill, but there’s still so much to work with that it shouldn’t nosedive as it apparently does. Nice review Ryan!
Make sure to drop by again after you’ve seen it. Your comment has inspired a few thoughts of my own, but I don’t want to give away any more than I already have.
“LES MISERABLES actually manages to pull off a rare feat in that it will likely disappoint both the average moviegoer, and the fans of the original property.”
I… think you should speak for yourself. I was willing to consider the screening we attended as ‘polite’. Most screenings like this have a polite applause.
Saw it again tonight with my family, who are all (especially dad), uberfans. He even watched the 10th anniversary concert right before going and I was certain it was going to poison the experience hearing a much better Javert before hearing Crowe.
They all adored it, they all cried, the audience applauded, whistled, wept openly, moreso at Valjean’s death/finale than the Hathaway showstopper.
And yet, I watched it the second time with a room full of avid LES MIS fans, all of whom wondered what the fuck was being done to their beloved property. The complaints started coming hard and fast at the break we took for intermission, and went full-tilt when the final credits finally rolled.
I’ve never said that a bad film can’t spark an emotional reaction.
“all of whom wondered what the fuck was being done to their beloved property. ”
Maybe it was never theirs to keep (EPIC MOVIE REFERENCE).
And besides, the point I’m making is by every measurable standard of audiences currently available, I think this prediction of yours has been proven wrong. Highest Cinemascore of anything in theaters now except for Argo, high on the IMDB…
But yes, i spoke to Lindsay about les Miz at the last pub night and she seemed genuinely shocked that anyone there liked it at all, and spoke mostly about editing. I think she isn’t seeing the forest for the trees, just as a lot of critics did not for Cloud Atlas or Prometheus or even the Dark Knight Rises or a number of other bombastic films this year. At the end of the day to me a visceral emotional response trumps the nitpicking every time, and Les Miz thus far, is proving to be getting that response.
A lot of the best directors with big films this year made no real attempt at being emotionally resonant. A lot of cool films, heady films, but few with this degree of emotional warfare. I think Hooper’s techniques are unpopular with the critical crowd but prove themselves effective over and over again, whether its the friendship of the King’s Speech, the love story in John Adams, or wrestling romance out of heroic sacrifice in Les Miz.
When I saw King’s Speech I liked it a lot but watched people attack Hooper and didn’t really care to defend him. I see the lenses and canted angles and was ready to let it slide. No more. Tom Hooper is a great populist director. By no means near the greatest director, but unworthy of the over the top Ratnereque derision some are adopting.
“The complaints started coming hard and fast at the break we took for intermission”
I’m just gonna lay it out there. You poisoned your own screening. Even if you were still going to come out on the negative side anyways, you poisoned your own screening. It’s no huge deal, a lot of people do this watching films at home with someone else, but if you’re stopping to discuss it halfway through you’re just going to watch the rest of it as a group looking for things to nitpick together rather, unable to or at least now peer pressured into letting the film draw you back in.
At this stage, I’m pretty darned sure we are never going to agree on this film.
One thing I’ll grant you is that I probably shouldn’t have tried to predict audience reaction – and with that said, there’s very little stock I actually put in audience reaction, so citing Cinemascore falls on deaf ears around here.
What Lindsay likely discussed with you (I’ve heard all her points a few times over), and what I’m discussing here should NOT be tossed into the same pile as nitpicks that plagued reactions to Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises. For someone to watch a film and say “this was poorly acted/directed/edited/etc” is *not* the same as “I don’t understand why she didn’t run to the side” or “How the hell did he get back across the world after getting back out of that hole?”. There’s a massive difference between nitpicking and pointing out poor execution – and Les Mis suffers from the latter.
I don’t know what to say about big directors and their films being less than emotionally resonant. Not only do I have no idea which films you’re referring to, but I think that’s taking things off into a whole other tangent than the film at-hand. I will say this: I have no qualms with Tom Hooper as a director: I counted myself a fan of THE KING’S SPEECH back then, and still do now. My criticism of Hooper’s work on Les Mis is just that: My criticism of his work here, not on his track record as a director.
As for me poisoning my own screening, I have no clue what you are basing that on. There were five people and myself gathered in the screening room, and I didn’t tell a one of them what I thought about the film going in. I didn’t want to affect anyone’s preconceptions, and just wanted them all to see it for themselves. I didn’t even prompt a “so what do we think so far”? when time came to switch discs…they all just began with the “wtf’s” unprovoked.
The fact that there was a break in the action can’t even be put to blame, because the break would be there if they were catching a stage production anyway. As it happens, the break occurred because Universal sent out screeners dvd’s that have the movie split into two discs.
You’re right that we won’t agree when the things people are saying about the editing and framing choices are to me and so many others, exactly why it worked. To me Hooper’s framing and editing accentuated the emotional performances. I was just reading articles about the testing process on the film and how it doubled in positive response after committing to longer takes and more close-ups.
But yes, overall:
It’s like saying
“Hangover wasn’t funny, it was all dick humor”
vs.
“Hangover was funny, it was all dick humor!”
“I didn’t even prompt a “so what do we think so far”? when time came to switch discs…they all just began with the “wtf’s” unprovoked. ”
Well, then maybe THEY poisoned the screenings for each other. General point: You can’t tell me you haven’t seen a movie where the vibe or reactions of people around you either got your back up, pulled you out, made you question your own opinion. Especially if you’ve sat next to Mr. Halfyard or Mr. Parker at anything he hated 😛 – man, you didn’t get to see it but 3 hours of him at Cloud Atlas was a sight to behold. Some people can’t hold back their opinions mid-watch, I’ve been guilty a few times, but for the most part it’s a dick move when people intentionally try to negatively sway the vibe.
“there’s very little stock I actually put in audience reaction, so citing Cinemascore falls on deaf ears around here.”
For the record, neither do I, I don’t need popularity to confirm my opinion… but I will openly admit to liking it when it’s there, because there’s so many more sources and voices that can express something I can’t or analyse something that was hitting at my subconsious. I’d say thats why so many of us get more frustrated talking movies when we’re in the vast minority, right?
But yeah, predicting reaction is dangerous ground, most especially for Peter Travers, who both predicted that the Harry Potter franchise would quickly die, that Batman and Robin would reinvigorate the franchise, and that the Matrix was never gonna make money.
Feh, I’m a hypocrite. I told you before and after we saw this that it would win Best Picture, attempting to predict the Oscar voters. I still think I could be right, but I’d be the one with egg on my face if I was wrong. Shrug.
You’re bringing in a LOT of details that have very little to do with what happened on the screen.
So test audiences said that long takes and tight close-ups were good. Fantastic. If test audiences said that they didn’t think certain characters should die, would the film be re-written?
I mentioned this above, but I might as well repeat it: The problem with so many of the songs being performed in tight close-up, is that it makes them all feel interchangeable. The raw emotion of “I Dreamed a Dream” is heightened because it is composed in such a way that we have nothing to distract us. It’s akin to every light being dropped on the stage except for a single harsh spotlight on Fantine. But then the trick is used again for “Suddenly”…and again for “On My Own”…and again for “Bring Him Home”…and again for “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”…
By the time it’s all over, what was once a bold piece of staging has become common.
As for whether my friends poisoned the screening for each other, again – I think you’re reaching. They’re all theatre nerds, so they are all used to a fifteen minute break coming in the middle of the fray. Their discontent wasn’t permeating the room in a Halfyard/Parker way, so there too – you’re guessing.
I get that you really like this film buddy, and I’m really happy for that. I can see how one would, especially if one hadn’t seen the film before. And to be clear, I sat down wanting to like it, so my critique comes from a place of clarity.
Even amongst those who like it though – nobody has been able to give me a good enough counterpoint to overlook how poorly this film was executed on a performance, directing, photographic, and editing level.
“nobody has been able to give me a good enough counterpoint to overlook how poorly this film was executed on a performance, directing, photographic, and editing level.”
Well that’s the problem, is that we don’t think it was poor, and that all decisions were made to accentuate the emotional performances. One person marking by the film school handbook says ‘bad’, but a lot of us looking for the visceral experience say ‘yes’.
“If test audiences said that they didn’t think certain characters should die, would the film be re-written?”
You’re way off base on this. Hooper was looking to get an emotional reaction. He saw in testing that a certain method drew more of a reaction, and he followed it. Your example is someone corrupting their vision or intent to get a better rection. Apples and oranges. If you’re making a film with the intent to showcase grit and misery, and you come across a technique that the intented audience are showing you that they love, you’re a fool if you ignore it. And an even bigger fool if you ignore it just to try and please a few critics with hard nosed ideals of how you have to do things.
I have to come in on Ryan’s side. Our review will be up tomorrow, but suffice to say, I, my co-writer, and my lovely accompaniment for the screening are all huge fans of the musical. And we all came out thinking, meh, and is there anywhere we can see the stage production again NOW. There are some great moments in the film, but they are few and far between, and the sacrificing of songs and treasured moments for line changes and shallow-focus close-ups brought me solidly into the “meh, it was alright” department.
“Moments”
As my displeasure with LES MIS dulls into something different, that’s what I’m left seeing the film as: a disjointed series of moments. What’s more, every once in a while when one of these moments arrive it made me grumble with malcontent that the moments seldom stretched into entire scenes. What’s more, those moments only underscored what was missing in the rest of the film.
Oh well.
I want to weigh in as a hardcore fan of the stage production who has now seen the film three times (all work related!). I saw the original Canadian cast opening night in 1987, and have seen the stage production in many different cities/languages over the years. It is my most beloved musical, and I was one of the people crying out on first viewing “what have you done to my show?!?!”
That being said, I love what Goon said about “maybe it wasn’t theirs to keep” This was always my concern with the Les Miserables movie, which I outlined in my preview piece for BroadwayWorld: http://toronto.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW-Special-25-Years-Later-Sharing-LES-MISERABLES-with-the-Masses-20121202
I think that this show is a remarkable feat, capable of inspiring and evoking emotion in people they didn’t know they had. My fear was that the magic of the show would be lost through film, and upon first viewing I was adament that fear had been realized.
I have now seen it three times, the last of which I went with my father who first took me to the show 25 years ago. It’s growing on me. As someone who can recite the entire score (in three languages) I think that my sentimental attachment to the production was getting in the way of me appreciating it for what it is – a mediocre film with some excellent performances that serves to share the story I love so much with the world.
I whole-heartedly agree with Ryan about much of Hooper’s direction however, from a film making standpoint many balls were dropped and it is at times horrific how bad the editing is. That said, I feel like the incredible performances, gorgeous score and powerful storyline are able to supercede the film’s flaws and I think this movie will win over most people who see it.
On a personal note, I think I just needed to adjust my expectations and become more familiar with the way it is presented – which is also why I think I enjoyed the third viewing so much more. That said, I don’t think a hundred viewings could convince me that Crowe was right for the role of Javert! Hooper’s direction and Crowe’s singing prevent it from being the masterpiece it could have been (and I’m firmly on the ‘I would love to see what Baz could have done’ team) but I do believe the die-hard fans need to recognize the good that can come from having the story exposed to a larger audience.
As for ‘general’ film goers – I think that they will be so inspired by the music they may not notice the flaws.
I like Baz but I think his version would put production at a much higher priority than emotion.
High marks for returning to the film after that first screening. had someone suggested to me that any of you would give it another look after that Thursday night in early December, I’d have called them a liar.
You touch on two things that I never really considered in my review: the power of the production itself and ownership of said production.
Something that is undeniable is the pure power of LES MIS as a production. Regardless of how well or how poorly it is sung…how well or how poorly it is staged…at its core is a story of people who long for something better. That want will always strike a chord, especially the want that Valjean epitomizes, the want for someone we care for. It’s certainly a theme I got caught up in the first time I saw the show on a stage, and one I can see hiding amongst the weeds of this curiously crafted film.
While I can’t claim any sort of ownership (Rent was always “my show”), it’s something that can complicate a fan’s reaction. Some fans will watch it and love it no matter what due to ownership. Other fans will come in with ownership and shred it for not being what it’s supposed to be. It happens with all sorts of properties – comic book movies, sequels, etc – so why not beloved musicals too. It’s a difficult element to work around since it isn’t one the filmmakers have in mind when adapting the property. Good on ya for eventually working around it…I’ll have to ask you the trick when I face my own moment of ownership next summer with MAN OF STEEL.
I agree with the comments about Russell Crowe and the direction. And Hugh Jackman’s acting swayed me enough to appreciate him as Valjean, even though his voice wasn’t meant for the role. What kept taking me out of the film was Amanda Seyfried. Cosette was turned into a Disney Princess. Her voice was SO annoying. Completely out of her element. And that butterfly/moth or whatever it was on the fence while she was singing? I was expecting a squirrel to come along and harmonize. Was hard to stay in the moment of the film.
Welcome to The Matinee, Jacki!
I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought jackman’s voice wasn’t quite there. The man has chops for certain (his one-man show convinced me of that, as if I ever needed convincing), but some of the heftier moments of Valjean seem just out of his reach – I’m thinking specifically of “Bring Him Home”.
As for Seyfried, I’m with you, but decided to turn a blind eye for how little the adult Cosette brings to this adaptation. It’s strange, considering how content the producers were to chose non-A-Listers for the juvenile roles in this show, you have to wonder why they bucked the trend for Seyfried?
Actually, just to clarify, I came out of my screening quite happy with what I’d just seen, and it wasn’t until I started talking to other people that my initial reaction to the film was tainted and – frankly – ruined. now after listening to and reading everyone else’s reactions, I can barely remember my own.
I do remember thinking that Les Mis would likely end up on my Top of the Year list, though, because even though it was lacking the emotion I loved about stage performances (where you can’t even see facial expressions and the actors have to rely on voice and body language instead of crying on cue for their close-ups…interesting), it was still a more enjoyable experience overall than many of the films I sat through this year. So, I guess we’ll see come January. I definitely think the director almost single-handedly messed up the heart of the story (Seriously? Marius takes a nap and Valjean is prompted to pray for his life?), but it is still a story and music and characters that I love, so any chance to revisit them – for me – is welcome.
So your official position is that until a rewatch at some later date, you have no official position?
This is an abysmal film. I’ve got even more problems with it than you. I actually though Seyfried was a much better singer than Hathaway, especially for that song. Crowe was terrible and Jackman wasn’t much better. The best singer was Samantha Barks.
Most of what makes this film bad is the direction. Like you said, you get glimpses of great-looking sets, but the film almost never does anything interesting with them. I saw the musical on stage and it’s visually much more interesting than this film.
Such a waste of what could have been a fantastic adaptation.
Barks being the best singer makes a boatload of sense good sir, considering she was one of the very few stage performers that Hooper cast. Perhaps if he’d gone further in that direction, things would have been different.
Your point of it being “a waste” might be what leaves me so disenchanted. Not so much that it’s objectively “bad” (though I believe it is), but that it could have been so much better had some better decisions been made.