Les Misérables 2012

If it's your kind of thing, you'll love it!

thereseb Nobody (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

I'm not going to use flash words....
I like musicals, and I have no problem with them being made into films. And as far as musicals on film go...I rate this one.

Great singing, awesome performances, plot easy to understand (because you could actually make out all the words that were sung - unlike when it is on stage)

There were only 2 things I struggled with: At the start it was hard to get used to Russell Crowe singing!!...and a few times when the camera panned out/away it looked a bit fake.

Redemption Through The Beauty Of Music

Jordan Flicks Superstar (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

If somehow you haven't heard of Les Miserables, it was first a novel released in the late 18th century to commercial success, which then became even more successful a century after it's release with a musical production that has travelled the world to both critical and commercial acclaim.

While this story has seen many versions of it grace the silver screen, this is the first time that the musical has been adapted to film.

And with very big shoes to fill, how does it fair?

Tom Hooper (The King's Speech) takes the reins and from the get-go exudes a confidence in what he will show by filling out the roles with a star-studded cast. Hugh Jackman (X-Men, The Boy From Oz) is bestowed with the duty of the center of the story, playing Jean Valjean. A man on a journey for redemption, he wanders through the years that finish in a Revolutionary period for France.

Russell Crowe (Gladiator) plays antagonist Javert, Anne Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises) plays Fantine, Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia) as Cossette, Eddie Redmayne (My Week With Marilyn) as Marius with Sacha Baron Cohen (The Dictator), Helena Bonham Carter (Dark Shadows) and newcomer Samantha Barks rounding out the cast as the Thenardiers.

While the cast may be strong, considering their previous works, what has to carry this film is not just the acting but also the music. Sold during production as one of the big points of the film, Hooper worked to capture the singing on film (instead of recording after filming) to help capture the emotion of the moment. This shows and most definitely does sell the movie.

Jackman's past work on Broadway stands tall as he owns the role of Valjean, and Hathaway is amazing in the role of the lost Fantine. Seyfried and Crowe are a little shaky compared to the former. Seyfried at times showing a little bit too much sweetness, or in Crowe's case some flatness. Overall though, and especially in final acts for Crowe's character, they come through with a deft delivery of emotion required for songs centric to developing their character.

The biggest surprise comes from Cohen, Carter and Barks. Cohen and Carter you can see were selected for the comedic delivery required by the "Masters Of The Inn", but it is Barks who shines, tasked with singing "On My Own" and doing it great justice.

Visually, the scenery is beautiful and captures the era well, and the lighting doing a stunning job of showing how dark it was during the time for the country.

At the end of it, it really feels as though you have travelled this journey with Jean Valjean, with what is a just over 2 hour film feeling like that of a beautiful lifetime spent watching this man fight to redeem himself.

And you will not be miserable when it is over.

A tad boring.

queenbee007 A-Lister (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

I considered a couple of times whether I should walk out of this movie. After all, we all know the storyline and ALL that singing was just getting on my nerves. Plus it makes each scene very long and slow. Thankfully the signing was good, sometimes great... and the costumes, make-up etc were fantastic. No way could I ever sit through it again though! :-)

Les Misjudgement

Mark-Roulston Flicks Superstar (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

For those of us who are huge fans of film musicals, there is a tragic lack of quality in modern cinema. Sure, occasionally a gem will come along, shaking up the rigid classical structure and offering something exciting, but for every Once there seems to be a handful of Chicagos, Nines and Sweeney Todds. It's tough out there for the song-and-dance enthusiasts.

With Les Miserables (an adaptation of the stage musical, itself an adaptation of the Victor Hugo novel), director Tom Hooper had a better shot at making something great than anyone has for some time. All the pieces were in place: solid source material, a director fresh from awards glory, and a well selected cast of performers. So, after chewing it over for several days, why is it that I'm beginning to think this might be a terrible film?

What works in Les Miserables works very well indeed. First of all, the story itself is top-notch; a bleak melodrama of the French Revolution with an emotional core that still resonates and feels relevant 150 years after its debut.

The cast are for the most part excellent, committing themselves admirably to the challenge of delivering essentially all dialogue through song. Hugh Jackman oozes the nobility required for Jean Valjean, displaying a stunning voice and holding together a performance that could quickly become camp in the wrong hands. Equally good is Eddie Redmayne, playing Marius' strength and bravery with a well-observed hint of naivete.

The real acting drawcard however is Anne Hathaway's sadly brief role, for which she will surely get much attention at awards time. Her performance of 'I Dreamed a Dream,' one of Les Miserables' most iconic songs, is quite honestly one of the most powerful pieces of acting I can remember, and is so raw and heart-wrenching that you will be left gasping. Not quite as strong is Russell Crowe, deserving of some credit for putting himself out there, but whose voice just isn't strong enough to really convey the menace of the villainous Javert.

Unfortunately almost everything else about the film is really handled quite badly. Much like The King's Speech (Hooper's previous film), Les Miserables is a victim of over-stylisation and awkward cinematography that is at times inexplicably jarring and, for lack of a better word, ugly. With all of the elaborate set design Hooper is apparently so excited about, for the vast majority of the film he insists on using very tight close-ups, making the sets and backgrounds redundant. It doesn't help matters that, on the rare occasions when his camera does retreat enough to show a little more, the over-use of blue screen backdrops gives a ghastly, manufactured look, too flat to be anything close to believable.

Whatever Hooper's reasoning behind the choices he makes with Les Miserables is obviously not for us to know. Adapting a stage musical such as this, I can understand the temptation to capture close-ups, offering an intimacy not possible in a live theatre, and it's precisely for this reason that the inevitable hero moments each principal character has (like Hathaway's aforementioned solo) are far and away the best moments in the film.

But surely a huge reason to do this at all would be to free oneself from the restraints of live theatre and indulge the epic nature of Hugo's original vision? Hooper, far too beholden to the play, instead chooses to merely recreate what could be easily put on stage, not taking advantage of the scope cinema can offer. The result is a well-acted but visually turgid mess, which only seems more misguided the further I get from it.

tinribs27.wordpress.com

Almost a new medium

CBwood B-Grader (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

The combination of musical and film is a particularly odd one - especially in the case of Les Miserables which only really exists on film either without music (1998) or on anniversary special recordings where the cast mostly just stand by a microphone and sing (their hearts out - I do not mean to belittle these!). With Tom Hopper's interpretation we get a strange mix between the two, it takes a while to adjust to the fact that we are seeing, living and moving through 1800s France but we are focused on this group of people that communicate almost exclusively with melody.

The performances are breathtaking, the gritty scale and live singing brings fresh revelation to the meaning of the music, and it's all just a bit heart wrenching really. But wonderful, truly wonderful.

Love it or hate it!

Anne1 Flicks Superstar (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

For the fans this is a great movie but if you are not into musicals, (there was one in our group who walked out) you wont be converted. The singing is amazing with 'Rusty Russell' the exception, but it's worth a look if only to see Anne Hathaway's and Hugh Jackman's performance!

Enjoyable...

Brian1 Flicks Superstar (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

but not up to the stage show.

Great acting/singing and loved it.

sooz56 Wannabe (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

I thought Hugh Jackman and Russell put on a wonderful performance, as did all the cast. I enjoyed it better than on the live stage as I understood the story line. My only gripe was that nearly all the main actors/singers had pristine white veneered teeth...not sure that dentists would have been high priority in that era, especially one who had just served 19 years in prison! This aside, excellant film and felt like clapping at times.

I loved this film.

JR A-Lister (?)

Flicks User Ratings

• Nobody
• Wannabe
• B-Grader
• A-Lister
• Flicks Superstar
• Find out more

would not of thought that such a thing could be humanly possible but it is. After all I do not count myself as a massive musical fan or a fan of the original source being either the book or the musical. Having nether seen the musical or read the book, I wasn't sure as what to think about the story as what I had heard was mainly synopsis from iMDB or other such websites.

I was quite surprised at how detailed the story actually was. Which is nice considering at what low expectations I had of the story on a whole.

The film stands apart from the most modern film musical with the largely incredible performances from the cast. Which rest on the shoulders of an incredible Hugh Jackman. But the supporting characters of the film have some quite incredible performances. Most namely Eddie Remane and the incredible Anne Hathaway.

Tom Hooper show's what a talented director he truly is. Demanding incredible performance's from all of the cast. Which is what he gets no question. But also the way in which he shoot's this film. From the long close up's he uses to the incredible swooping shoots that shows just how amazing the spectacle of Les Miz truly is.

All in all. I was not expecting to like this film as much as did. But came out of it with a tear to my eye but also throughly enjoying this film.