Les Misérables (Tom Hooper)

[TGM]

Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper

imdb

[TGM]

So this was pretty good, though I may have hyped myself up a bit too much for it. Performances were great, and it definitely has some brilliant moments strewn throughout. But the pacing was just awful, I feel like I just sat through a four hour long movie.

[Spinal]

Quibbles are minor. This is a largely successful adaptation of the stage musical experience. The cumulative effect is powerful. Hooper makes a lot of good choices. Crowe's voice is a little problematic, but the rest of the cast is very strong. The casting of Colm Wilkinson is brilliant. The 'live' performance aesthetic works well. The new song is kind of pointless. But other edits are smart. I want to see it again.

Fans will be pleased. Skeptics are not likely to be converted.

[TGM]

I want to see it again.

The more this sinks in, I kinda want to as well, but I also kinda don't. There's some scenes that are definitely among the very best I've seen all year, and are almost enough to drag me back out to this. But there's probably just as many that seemed to linger a bit too long, and I caught my mind wandering quite a bit at times, enough to make me second guess sitting through it again. It's really a mixed bag.

As for Russel Crowe, the only time he really seemed off to me was in the first song. After that I thought he was fine.

[Gizmo]

It was all sold out when we got there. Gonna try again Thursday.

[Fezzik]

Good stuff. Well made, and there are moments of sheer brilliance but also some problematic directorial and/or editing choices.

Crowe's casting is ultimately a mistake, especially during 'Stars' but when the movie gets it right, it's PERFECT.

Jackman is a revelation, Hathaway is as good as her pre-release hype and Redmayne is a glorious surprise. Both 'I Dreamed a Dream' and 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' turned me into sobbing messes in the theater, and in those moments, and some others like it, the film is amazing to behold.

There just weren't QUITE enough moments like that for me to fall completely in love with it.

[Gizmo]

Lived up to my expectations, but didn't surpass them. Really enjoyable, but wasn't without is flaws, mostly in pacing. I gave it 5 stars because we lack the 4.5 vote and I thought it was better than 4.

[plain]

Brutal aesthetic swallows stirring-emotion whole; a far-flung resonance follows, bludgeoning its audience into defeat. Hooper continues to alienate in such a way that is hard to articulate or even fathom; there's a distinguishable core here that cannot overcome the director's stuffy and troubled mounting of this musical. Cast is okay all around, with Hathaway as the clear standout. Film would have worked best as a period-bromance of supressed homosexuality between Jackman and Crowe. Tried my best to adapt to its tune, but I wouldn't wish this experience on my worst enemy.

[Spinal]

I felt like the character that was hurt most by the edits for the film was Eponine. By the time you get to know her, she's on her way out. I'm watching the 25th anniversary concert on YouTube and reminding myself about the stuff that was condensed. It's nice to see Samantha Barks play the totality of the character. Even though she has to do it opposite Nick Jonas who is clearly overmatched.

[Gizmo]

I've been infatuated with Barks ever since the first time I saw that 25th Anniversary Concert. Really pleased she got the role in the film.

[eternity]

The best thing I can say about it is that it's pretty funny. Otherwise it's about as easy to take seriously as Trapped in the Closet, except R Kelly may have a more keen visual eye than Tom Hooper.

[Bosco B Thug]

What a bizarre and highly conflicting film experience. This will be absolutely excruciating to some, while others - I'd call them those who aren't averse to, or even can appreciate, unashamed sentimentalism - will be moved by the film's earnest aesthetic search for high-flown emotion. I am in the latter group, while admitting this film is a nightmare of hollow slavishness to beloved source material.

But color me surprised by how much I kind of love Hooper's "innovative" stylistic approach to the movie musical. His messy framing, brazen "gritty" mise en scene, handheld camera, proliferate close ups, and rambunctious montage editing of all these things make it seem at times like a musical made by a renegade rock filmmaker of the 60's/70's, while the "verité" filming doesn't bleed out the theatricality but actually supports the idea of our watching emotional appeals on high. This film has a sense of burlesque and theatricality that makes it feel a real honoring of theater traditions, which I'll admit makes Hooper a much more daring and honorary reviver of the ideal of the movie musical than Tim Burton.

[Bosco B Thug]

The best thing I can say about it is that it's pretty funny. Otherwise it's about as easy to take seriously as Trapped in the Closet, except R Kelly may have a more keen visual eye than Tom Hooper.

Man, I couldn't disagree with any of this, though. (Trapped in the Closet comparison seems apt.) Except the last part.

Consummate performers were definitely Jackman and Hathaway. Best scene was either "At the End of the Day" with the factory ladies or "Master of the House."

[Watashi]

Anytime Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were onscreen, all I could think of was Sweeney Todd. Maybe Hooper should have casted differently.

This was decent. Hooper's intense dutch angles were annoying. I liked the live singing. Russell Crowe is easily the best part. The people who thought he was miscast must have been watching a different movie.

[Spinal]

The people who thought he was miscast must have been watching a different movie.

This is pretty much everyone.

[Sycophant]

I liked this. I don't think it's particularly well or thoughtfully directed, though the performances are basically all really good. Looks like television for the most part, and I don't think it uses its cinematic language very intelligently. Also, the pacing feels like a mess. The strength of the core material sees it through.

I've never seen the play produced myself. Just listened to the original Broadway cast recording once with someone filling me in on plot details. This definitely has me wanting to see a stage production some day.

The film's attitude about the rebellion and revolutionary spirit is a bit confusing, and maybe that's a problem inherited from the play? Or even Hugo's novel? The very final scene's presentation is a bit strange to me,
[

Show Spoiler

with Jean's character being reuinted with two ladies and a bunch of young dead rebels, who stand atop a massive barricade with dead soldiers at its base--is that what heaven is? I'd thought the material had a more skeptical eye to the impulsiveness and gleeful martyrdom of violent, youthful revolutionaries.

]

Other than that, the story's thoughts about grace and order are quite compelling, and all other qualms aside, those do shine through.

[eternity]

Anytime Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were onscreen, all I could think of was Sweeney Todd. Maybe Hooper should have casted differently.

This was decent. Hooper's intense dutch angles were annoying. I liked the live singing. Russell Crowe is easily the best part. The people who thought he was miscast must have been watching a different movie.

She is literally grinding up meat that includes things that people would not want to eat, and then serving it to them. He had to have wanted us to draw the comparison.

[Sxottlan]

Wasn't too crazy about this. Hadn't really been into the musical for a long time and now after all these years, the whole thing strikes me as a little creaky.

Did love the opening, mostly because seeing a sailing ship dragged into dry dock is not something I've ever seen before in a movie. I liked a lot elements in this: Valjean's trek over the mountains (mostly because we see an actual honest to goodness full moon and not some special effect).

Performances in all were pretty good and I really had nothing against Crowe although I thought he was outmatched. Jackman has always had a crying scene in just about all of this movies and he really goes for broke. He deserves some recognition, if not only for this, but for his past decade of work in Hollywood (should have been nominated for The Prestige).

The melodrama I had truly forgotten about. Maybe because I saw it on the stage and it didn't stand out like it does here because of Hooper's flat in-yo-face! direction. The comedic subplot with the innkeepers seemed real out of place.

[Spinal]

I liked this. I don't think it's particularly well or thoughtfully directed, though the performances are basically all really good. Looks like television for the most part, and I don't think it uses its cinematic language very intelligently. Also, the pacing feels like a mess. The strength of the core material sees it through.

I've never seen the play produced myself. Just listened to the original Broadway cast recording once with someone filling me in on plot details. This definitely has me wanting to see a stage production some day.

The film's attitude about the rebellion and revolutionary spirit is a bit confusing, and maybe that's a problem inherited from the play? Or even Hugo's novel? The very final scene's presentation is a bit strange to me,
[

Show Spoiler

with Jean's character being reuinted with two ladies and a bunch of young dead rebels, who stand atop a massive barricade with dead soldiers at its base--is that what heaven is? I'd thought the material had a more skeptical eye to the impulsiveness and gleeful martyrdom of violent, youthful revolutionaries.

]

Other than that, the story's thoughts about grace and order are quite compelling, and all other qualms aside, those do shine through.

Some of the film's more unfortunate edits come in the barricade scenes. The pacing and impact of the stage show are extraordinary. I think they make it clear on stage that the students are well-intentioned, but ultimately get themselves in way over their heads. They take the same side as Valjean, but are brash, waving flags and guns in the face of authority. By contrast, Valjean is elusive and, when confronted, demonstrates to his pursuer through love and forgiveness that righteousness exists beyond human laws. Where the students fail, Valjean forces Javert to implode on himself.

The film cuts two numbers, "Drink With Me" and "Turning", that serve to paint a clearer picture of who the students are. It also cuts one of the stage show's most memorable moments, a lengthy instrumental reprise of "Bring Him Home" that underscores the aftermath of the strike upon the barricade. I will not spoil the moment for those who have not seen the show on stage.

As for the film's ending upon the barricade, I think they were simply trying to tie together all of the various characters and their struggles. There are many reasons why we suffer - poverty, injustice, unrequited love. The story is a celebration of those battle against misery, whether it be to fight for a child, fight for a cause or fight for love.

[Mysterious Dude]

Having read the book (but not seen the play), the movie seemed very rushed to me. Fantine's story is already half over by the time we meet her. Same for the revolutionaries, who are already devoted to the cause when we first meet them, but in the book they come together more gradually. Also, Marius and Cosette knew each other for more than a day before being separated.

I know most people probably don't care about that stuff, but I'm so rarely in the position of having read the book first. It's fascinating to see the changes, but also a little distracting.

[Gizmo]

Having read the book (but not seen the play), the movie seemed very rushed to me. Fantine's story is already half over by the time we meet her. Same for the revolutionaries, who are already devoted to the cause when we first meet them, but in the book they come together more gradually. Also, Marius and Cosette knew each other for more than a day before being separated.

I know most people probably don't care about that stuff, but I'm so rarely in the position of having read the book first. It's fascinating to see the changes, but also a little distracting.

That's the nature of the musical, or really the adaptation as a whole, gotta keep things moving from song to song, scene to scene. No time for dwelling on things and getting into all the details like a book has.

[Sycophant]

As for the film's ending upon the barricade, I think they were simply trying to tie together all of the various characters and their struggles. There are many reasons why we suffer - poverty, injustice, unrequited love. The story is a celebration of those battle against misery, whether it be to fight for a child, fight for a cause or fight for love.

Thanks, Spinal. I think what bothers me about the very ending is that it conflates this specific case of revolutionary bloodshed with that beautiful struggle. Dead soldiers on the ground distract me from the idea that love and grace stand above all.

Perhaps I read his character too generously, but with the dead soldiers on the ground and Javert (a humanized character who serves as antagonist to our protagonist and possesses a flawed ideology, sure, but fights a struggle as earnestly and nobly as any college kid) missing from the barricade, it f

Also, I am grumpy about youthful revolutionary spirit lately, so it's a particular sticking point for me, I suppose.

At a Les Mis fan's recommendation, I listened to some of the Broadway recordings and I really kind of desperately wanna see a good production of this on stage.

[Spinal]

At a Les Mis fan's recommendation, I listened to some of the Broadway recordings and I really kind of desperately wanna see a good production of this on stage.

Looks like it is still touring.

[The Bad Guy]

It Stinks!

[Sycophant]

Looks like it is still touring.

Oh, cool. Looks like it'll wrap by the time I'm back in the States next August, though.

Guess I could catch the Japanese production in May. But that'll be in Japanese, I believe.

Guess it's going back to Broadway in 2014?