or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Les Miserables Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Les Miserables Post Release

post #1 of 229
Thread Starter 

So...I know I've seen this and I get the impression some of you out there have, too. I'm not terribly worried about spoilers given the rumors that this is based on a musical which is based on a book, so we all probably have an idea of what's going to happen going into it. But you probably should know well enough to avoid post-threads for movies you haven't seen if you're sensitive to spoilers, so there's that, too.

 

I'll be blunt: Tom Hooper sucks. Watching this I can only be amazed at his luck in winning for The King's Speech two years ago, but of course he also showed a measure of shrewdness with that film-- he was smart enough to just put Wright, Firth, and Bonham-Carter in a room, shoot them with a wide lens, and do nothing of interest with his camera. And that film wound up being an entertaining, light, lovely little acting showcase for a group of very talented performers (and I'll admit that I favored BC's work the most because it was just nice to see her not play a bug-eyed twitchy crazy lady with messy hair for once in her fucking lifetime).

 

So, now we enter Les Miserables. And now we see what happens when Hooper tries to get clever with his camera. Shit happens. The guy has no idea how to frame anything, which is baffling if only because the lion's share of the film's shots contain a single actor singing their hearts out in one long take. I don't know how a person of reasonable competence can fuck that up, but Hooper fucks that up. Actors get the top of their heads cut off, or they get stuffed into a corner of the frame, and there's no reason for it other than Hooper's ineptitude. His film looks terrible. Apart from composition, the camera hovers and shakes like it's being shot by your drunken uncle at a family reunion, and if he's not doing Extreme Close-Ups, he's doing swooping overhead shots. That's it. That's his whole repertoire. Like I said-- baffling. And that's to say nothing of his aversion to color or his very, very cliche make-up choices. (You can tell a person's social class by their teeth. It's obnoxious.)

 

Somehow, he also manages to erase tension or stakes from a story that's tailor-made with both. Javert never feels like that much of a threat despite his persistence; Thenardiers come off as nuisances and vultures, but nothing all that dangerous. I've never seen the play but I've read the book and these are very light, fluffy versions of these characters. That might not translate for others but it bugged the hell out of me that I could never for a second respect these characters as heavies. (Also: please, everyone, stop fucking casting Helena Bonham-Carter in the aforementioned "bug-eyed twitchy crazy lady with messy hair" role in every damn movie ever. She really is better than that. Stop.)

 

The good: Anne Hathaway kills it when she sings "I Dreamed a Dream", but that's actually unhealthy for the rest of the film because I kept waiting for anything to match the high that sequence represents. She's amazing in that scene. And that's accepting how badly shot it is. She's so good that all of the emotion and power of her performance busts out of Hooper's terrible cinematography (I say "Hooper" because I doubt that Danny Cohen had much say in how the film was shot because he isn't a terrible cinematographer) and transcends. You will at least get choked up watching her belt this one out. You'll also probably have a ball with "Master of the House" and Sacha Baron Cohen in general, but Thenardier isn't all that prevalent in the story. "Master" is another high the film fails to reach again.

 

Frankly, the cast at large is quite good-- even Crowe, who appears to only be capable of singing a half dozen notes. But I'm not expecting Broadway-level singing from the film, because we're talking about two different stages; I'm expecting people to act through singing instead of striving to provide the most technically perfect oratory effect possible. In the end the cast carry the whole picture. It's Hooper who fucks it up.

 

And yet Les Mis will probably win all the Oscars ever because it's Les Mis and it's Hooper, and it'll only deserve whatever acting nods it gets. I may have an aneurysm if this receives a serious nomination for any technical awards.

post #2 of 229

I can't tell if you're reviewing the movie or just letting everyone know how much you don't like Tom Hooper.

post #3 of 229
Thread Starter 

I'm giving my honest reaction to a film that I think he really, really botched. Is that acceptable?

 

Should I be looking for things to criticize beyond his mishandling of nearly everything here? I mean, I like The King's Speech well enough-- it made my top ten for that year-- but holy crap, all of the smart things he did with that movie he actively avoids doing here.

post #4 of 229

It just sounded like you went in with an axe to grind about Hooper's style--which, if you've seen King's Speech (and/or John Adams), you should've been prepared for. Not saying you can't have a problem with it, it just seems like the vitriol is coming from something you brought with you into the theatre.

 

If you honestly didn't think the film worked, well, we'll talk after I've seen it. Just clarifying.

post #5 of 229

Well, this is disappointing to read after the awesome trailers. I look forward to reading other viewpoints, however.

 

Thanks for your opinion, agracu.

post #6 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

It just sounded like you went in with an axe to grind about Hooper's style--which, if you've seen King's Speech (and/or John Adams), you should've been prepared for. Not saying you can't have a problem with it, it just seems like the vitriol is coming from something you brought with you into the theatre.

 

If you honestly didn't think the film worked, well, we'll talk after I've seen it. Just clarifying.

 

No, that's fair-- and it occurs to me that "is that acceptable" sounds way more snide than I'd at all intended, since I mean it only as a straight up question.

 

If I sound like I have an axe to grind, it's only because of how much Hooper bungles this movie. I was actually looking forward to it-- my thinking was that if Hooper did here what he did on The King's Speech in tandem with the live-singing thing, he would end up with a very good musical on his hands. But nothing he does here really works as well as it did in TKS, and the whole thing just winds up being a big misfire. I get what you're saying and I definitely appreciate the clarification. As a rule I try not to grind axes against directors based on past bad experiences (with exceptions, which I can't help), but I'm probably more frustrated by this because I actually liked Hooper's last movie.

 

Curious to see if you react to it as strongly as I did (in the negative sense). Saxon, you too. Maybe my local colleagues are just a bad influence on me, but I honestly disliked Les Mis.

post #7 of 229

I really disliked the shooting style of King's Speech as well. I had forgotten he had done John Adams, but I recall thinking "Why is every damn shot a Dutch angle?"

 

It's odd: He makes camera choices that are baffling to me, often strange and unmotivated, yet I've liked the end result of his work so far due to the casts that he's been able to assemble. 

post #8 of 229
Thread Starter 

If that's the case you may be able to tolerate the bad cinematography in Les Mis (and yes, there are a bunch of abrupt and weird Dutch angles here, too). The cast is quite good, at least as far as I'm concerned.

post #9 of 229

I appreciate the warning, because I'm not going to be able to dodge this one in this theater.

post #10 of 229

So how are the rest of Musical Numbers? Any good?

post #11 of 229
Thread Starter 

"Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" moved me, and I liked "Work Song", too. "One More Day" is rousing enough but it's also the most cut-up segment of the entire film.

post #12 of 229

I really dug the non-conventional camerawork/compositions in The King's Speech.  And I could tell from the trailers that Hooper was essentially going back to that well for Les Mis.  Honestly, it looked a bit rough... as if it was just a steadicam-shot filming of an outdoor stage production.  But I figured I'd go with it in the actual movie.

 

I'm very curious to see that there... INCOMPETENCE... for myself.

post #13 of 229

Wasn't the story for this that the vocal parts were recorded live, as much as possible?  So I imagine if they got a good take they were going to leave the camera screw ups in so long as they weren't too terrible.  That could explain some of it.  If they were particularly determined to do it that way, I could see it warping the production a bit.

 

That said, I have no love for the musical.  I don't like musicals in general, but they're alright now and then.  However in this case there are several really important things about the story that the musical version cuts out and has overridden (most other adaptations follow the musical plot).  But since I read (some of) the book and saw the  amazing French adaptation with Gerard Depardeau  I'm kind of annoyed at the whole Les Mis! phenomenon and a couple of stirring tunes can't save it.

post #14 of 229
Thread Starter 

I didn't mind the non-conventional stuff in The King's Speech, either-- again, I liked that film-- but the non-conventional stuff here isn't "non-conventional" so much as it's just plain sloppy. I can't think of any shots in TKS that squeeze actors so far into one corner of the frame that they're losing limbs, and the camera in TKS at least remains steady throughout. There's no vanity in TKS. Hooper basically takes himself out of the equation and gives his actors a calm stage on which to perform. This isn't really the same deal. You might be able to find similarities in style between the two, but all I can say is that one looks good, the other doesn't.

 

As for the live-singing thing, yeah, that little gimmick does lead to a lot of long, uninterrupted takes, but I don't think that's an excuse for bad cinematography, really. Woody Allen and Alfonso Cuaron have done long, uninterrupted takes in their films that don't look sloppy. I think they could have pulled off the live singing thing and gotten good takes and taken some good shots. 

 

That said I do think that the live-singing thing is going to really alter the way that people film musicals from now on. It does add quite a bit to the best musical numbers, I think-- particularly, again, "I Dreamed a Dream" but also "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables". 

post #15 of 229

I don't mean for this to sound snobby, because I don't feel like I'm coming at this film from a snobby perspective. But, for comparison's sake, I liked "The Avengers" to an extent, but I acknowledged and recognized complaints that it was just the ultimate Big Mac blockbuster, bludgeoning in it's impact, lack of general nuance, and extreme predictability. By that measure, "Les Miserables" feels like "The Avengers" of musicals. All your favorite crowd-pleasing bits are here, and it's almost overwhelming. And then it's just overly repetitive and intellectually dormant. And if you don't care for musicals, fuck... you might be DEAD by the time this ends.

 

Some notes:

-Valjean has an early number (can't recall the song titles) where he finishes it by walking outside and throwing a torn-up letter into the air on his final note. The letter crests into the sky and then over the mountains as a tacky bit of CGI. It's really everything gauche and imagination-less about this entire film in one shot.

 

-Musicals are difficult to make, and no one makes them anymore, because the fact that everyone's singing creates a layer of innate superficiality, and it takes a strong filmmaker to break through that superficiality so that you can feel, and relate to, the drama going on. Hooper is not that guy, and I had to keep reminding myself why certain characters were important to Valjean. He's pretty much a stranger to adult Cossette (Amanda Seyfried, cute).

 

-Hooper holds on Hathaway close-up as she solos "I Dreamed A Dream," and she KILLS it. Impressive. Then Russell Crowe has a solo on a rooftop, and some of it is close-up, and some of it is from behind, as his his back framed against a CGI cityscape (the CGI is AWWWWFUL) for no apparent reason. Did Crowe just not want to show up on those days? You can't even tell if he's singing. Crowe, for the record, stands out as having more of a rock opera voice. When he sings, his face tightens as it looks as if he's straining to hit the notes. He does, but it turns him from an actor to a singer.

 

-Eddie Redmayne has the best voice in the movie. Who knew?

 

-Even the Sacha Baron Cohen/Helena Bonham Carter "comic relief" was OPPRESSIVE beyond belief. Just so loud and in-your-face and ugly. Ugh. Even Tim Burton would have been like, "Yeah, hold back, guys."

 

-All the choreography feels so cluttered and sloppy. I know "Les Mis" isn't some sort of dance-off, but everyone's bumping into each other, and the frame feels so pinched and claustrophobic, and yet there are hundreds of actors. It's a fucking eyesore.

 

But if you're expectations are "I want some fucking LES MIS, and I want it loud, you fucker!" then I suppose you'll be satisfied.

post #16 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

-Musicals are difficult to make, and no one makes them anymore, because the fact that everyone's singing creates a layer of innate superficiality, and it takes a strong filmmaker to break through that superficiality so that you can feel, and relate to, the drama going on. Hooper is not that guy, and I had to keep reminding myself why certain characters were important to Valjean. He's pretty much a stranger to adult Cossette (Amanda Seyfried, cute).
 

 

Yeah, this is really, really true. Hooper just can't cut the melodrama enough to let us connect with these characters. I suppose that might not be a problem for diehard fans of the play (at the press screening, I shared a row with a handful of people wearing Les Mis shirts and clutching autographed Les Mis programs; they unequivocally loved it), because they already have this innate connection to the cast, but for anyone else I think the film is going to be a gamble. I gave a shit about Fantine and Valjean and Marius, but I had difficulty mustering much of anything for anyone else, which is problematic when there are so many other characters to be concerned with in relation to the aforementioned three. (I felt nothing for Eponine's death when I very much should have, etc.)

 

The CGI is also pretty bad. The torn-up parole letter is one thing, but the cityscape stuff just looks off.

 

One thing I wonder: will Les Mis fans love this movie as a whole? With musicals like this, I think everyone has an idea in their head of what it should be, and I'm curious to see if Hooper captures the "essence" of the play accurately enough to win over the entire Les Mis fanbase.

 

Glad you liked Eddie Redmayne, too. If nothing else I hope this film vaults him into a realm of visibility; the guy's great. (Though I do hope that any positive recognition he gets out of Les Mis doesn't lead to him being shoe-horned into period dramas for the rest of his life. I dug him in Black Death too.)

 

And to re-emphasize: Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" is without a doubt the movie's highpoint.

post #17 of 229

I'm a theater geek, so I bring all kinds of baggage to this, but I think all the clips that have been recently dumped online make LES MISERABLES look positively awful.

 

I have no idea why you would cast non-singers in these roles and then record them live. I have no idea why you would direct the actual singers in your cast to deliver weak, breathy interpretations of songs that were clearly designed to be belt-it-out anthems and don't have the musical or lyrical  complexity to sustain quiet interpretations.


And boy, does this movie look ugly. This is LES MISERABLES, for crying out loud. Hooper should be going for the full David Lean treatment.

post #18 of 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I have no idea why you would cast non-singers in these roles and then record them live.

Regardless of whether you like the way they choose to interpret the songs, everyone in the cast has stage musical experience, so they're not "non-singer". Amanda Seyfried is a trained opera soprano for Christ's sake.

post #19 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

Regardless of whether you like the way they choose to interpret the songs, everyone in the cast has stage musical experience, so they're not "non-singer". Amanda Seyfried is a trained opera soprano for Christ's sake.

It's my theater geek background coming out. It's a snobby remark on my part, but I'll stand by it; what I more or less meant is that they cast people who have not devoted their careers to musical performance. Excluding a few cast members--i.e. Jackman/Barch--most people in the cast don't really fit the bill.

 

Amanda Seyfried is not an "opera soprano," even if she has received some classical vocal training and has done some performing here and there. As far as I can tell, the vocal training was while she was still a teenager. Serious opera training cannot occur until a singer has moved into their twenties. It's the same B.S. that was applied to Emmy Rossum during Phantom's publicity run ("She was a classically-trained singer who sang at the Met!" they said, which was a huge exaggeration; she had sung in the children's chorus at the Met, which, while a fine opportunity for a child, means very little in regards to vocal training).

post #20 of 229
Well then you'd probably be best off not watching film musicals ever if you want to apply such rigid and binary definitions to a person's singing abilities. Even back to the golden age of musicals, they were casting actors who could sing, not singers who could act.
post #21 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

Well then you'd probably be best off not watching film musicals ever if you want to apply such rigid and binary definitions to a person's singing abilities. Even back to the golden age of musicals, they were casting actors who could sing, not singers who could act.


Many of the folks they cast in movie musicals came to do it after a history on the stage. It's also the case that in many of the "great" movie musicals, they dubbed many of the actors with other singers (who could, in fact, sing). But you're right that this problem goes back further than LES MISERABLES. Take a look at the movie version of GYPSY, where they cast Rosalind Russell in the part of Mama Rose.

 

But it's a bigger problem for LES MISERABLES than for other musicals. SWEENEY TODD, for example, had an easier time with this approach, even if the weak vocals grated on occasion, because it's more lyric-driven than LES MIS. The songs for LES MISERABLES only work if sung grandly and beautifully. When they're not, the songs start to show their weaknesses.

post #22 of 229
Thread Starter 

The singing requirements for a film should differ from the singing requirements for an actual stage musical, though, wouldn't you agree? On a live stage, it's all about the performers; in a film, it's much more about how every element on screen melds together to create the total experience. Not that you should hire people who can't hold a note or carry a tune for film musicals, but I think technical vocal proficiency is less of "must have" than acting chops when you swap stages. Maybe that's just me.

 

I grant that they're live singing here, but that element still has to contend with the presence of Hooper and his/Cohen's camera and, eventually, the process of laying orchestral scoring over the entire scene. They're not live singing with a full orchestra playing in the background; they're live singing with an earpiece playing a piano accompaniment to them. Regardless I think the live singing thing will be a big deal for future musicals, but I also don't think it demands the same sort of vocal perfection you'd expect from a performer doing this live on Broadway.

post #23 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

The singing requirements for a film should differ from the singing requirements for an actual stage musical, though, wouldn't you agree? On a live stage, it's all about the performers; in a film, it's much more about how every element on screen melds together to create the total experience. Not that you should hire people who can't hold a note or carry a tune for film musicals, but I think technical vocal proficiency is less of "must have" than acting chops when you swap stages. Maybe that's just me.


My big point is that this also depends on the musical. Not all musicals are designed the same way. LES MIS (kinda like PHANTOM) is powered by big, soaring anthems, not subtle, character-driven songs. They call for somewhat strong vocal performances. I'm not saying they needed to get the world's best-ever singers to play the part. Folks like Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway seem to me to be about the right choices for this movie, but what's odd to me is that Jackman doesn't seem to have been directed to really sing these songs.

post #24 of 229
Thread Starter 

I understand that Les Mis is one of the most difficult scores to sing in the history of musicals-- something to that effect, from talking to critics who have seen the stage show-- and I understand that that calls for stronger vocalists. I'm still not convinced you need everyone to be singing at Jackman's or Hathaway's level, though honestly, given how few high points there are in the film, it would have been nice. They're both great.

post #25 of 229

Glad to hear that Hathaway destroys in this movie.

post #26 of 229

Have these been posted on this site, yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to say, Russell Crowe sounds a bit strange.

post #27 of 229

Seyfried is barely hitting those notes. I'd almost rather they just autotuned her. I'm not really seeing the huge difference that "OMG, live singing!" is supposed to make.

post #28 of 229

Well, at least she's hitting notes, instead of talk-sing-chanting like Jackman whose approach is neither euphonic nor an aid to comprehension.

post #29 of 229
Thread Starter 

The major difference that "omg live singing" makes has less to do with singing and more to do with performance and how it enhances performances.

post #30 of 229

Russell Crowe's singing in that clip is giving me major Gerard Butler in Phantom flashbacks.  Not particularly encouraging.

post #31 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

The major difference that "omg live singing" makes has less to do with singing and more to do with performance and how it enhances performances.

 

Based on those clips, it looks like the live singing is having the opposite effect. These are all great actors, and they look as flat as they sound...

post #32 of 229
Thread Starter 

I'm not overly familiar with Germain Lussier over at /Film, but he loved the shit out of this. My eyebrows nearly flew off of my face just reading the headline.

 

Maybe that will sway some people or give you reason to ignore my reaction to it in light of his praise. Not that you should necessarily take my reaction all that seriously given that I'm a total amateur, mind.


Edited by agracru - 12/6/12 at 2:24pm
post #33 of 229

Would you take Mamma Mia over this, agracru?

 

Negative review from The Hollywood Reporter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/les-miserables/review/398662

post #34 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

I'm not overly familiar with Germain Lussier over at /Film, but he loved the shit out of this. My eyebrows nearly flew off of my face just reading the headline.

 

Why does the banner ad of Hathaway look like something more suited to one of the Twilight movies?  Eugh.

post #35 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Would you take Mamma Mia over this, agracru?

 

Negative review from The Hollywood Reporter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/les-miserables/review/398662

 

I'd probably take this over Mamma Mia but only because there's nothing redeeming about Mamma Mia whatsoever. This at least has "I Dreamed a Dream". 

 

Lots of what McCarthy has to say echoes my own thoughts on the movie. The emotional connections really just aren't there, and that might be the most damaging thing in the entire film, cinematography aside.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

 

Why does the banner ad of Hathaway look like something more suited to one of the Twilight movies?  Eugh.

 

Yeah, the banners and posters for this always struck me as being kind of unsuitable for the film. I don't really know what it is, but they don't match. The Twilight comparison is apt, I think, which doesn't work to Les Mis's advantage.

post #36 of 229

I accidentally created a new thread.  I'll bring it all here and hopefully someone closes my asshole thread.

 

Having not seen the play, I didn't know what to expect.  I loved it.  I was incredibly moved.  This is the reason why you go to the movies.  The power of the collective experience when watching this movie in a packed theater is incredible.  People were sobbing through the whole movie.  I barely kept it together during Jean Valjean's last scene, and I still get teary thinking about it.

 

Hugh Jackman is a god damned treasure.  He carried this movie on his shoulders.  Without him, the whole endeavor would fall apart.  Russell Crowe does an admirable job, but he's outshone by his costars with a more powerful voice and flexible range.  Sascha Baron Cohen was great as the inn keeper, and Ann Hathaway steals it with her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream.  But Jackman.  Wow.  Amazing.  I hope he wins the Oscar for this.  DDL did an amazing job as Lincoln, but Jackman's performance here was a true, old fashioned, Hollywood masterclass of a performance.  Every time he was on screen, I felt his pain and sorrow.  And he's singing.  The whole damn time.  Just incredible all around.

 

Hooper did an effective job, but the closeups are a bit jarring an excessive.  They're definitely there to sell the emotion (and probably keep the budget down) and it works like gangbusters, but it takes a while to get used to.

post #37 of 229

Managed to get a hold of the soundtrack. Even if I don't like the movie itself, HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS. Absolutely no one should be giving Hooper or any of these actors shit for the live singing gambit. Because just based on the soundtrack, it's PAID. OFF. Even Russell Crowe manages to fit in well with his more rock-and-roll voice.

 

And the orchestrations are some of the best I've heard for these songs. Bear in mind that I've only seen the 10th and 25th Anniversary Concert productions on DVD in the past few months.

post #38 of 229

I dunno. I think Crowe is pretty bad here, to the extent that he makes Gerard Butler's Phantom sound good. Butler didn't have the pipes for his role, but he was at least as expressive as he could be. Russell Crowe's vocal performance is both strained and stilted.

 

Anyway, I had no idea they re-orchestrated the entire score to the extent that they did. For movie musicals, usually they just beef up the instrumentation a bit (ala PHANTOM or SWEENEY TODD), but this is a complete overhaul. For someone familiar with the earlier orchestrations, it comes as a bit of a shock. Sometimes the new orchestrations are a great deal more elegant than those for the stage, but other times they are a bit grotesquely overblown (the new version of "Javert's Suicide" is the worst offender in this regard, with ramped-up orchestrations that may be there to compensate for Crowe's more muted vocal interpretation, but actually just overwhelm everything).

post #39 of 229

Well, they sure as hell didn't want the 80s electronic piano in the film version.

 

I dunno, maybe Crowe sounds fine to me because I'm more on his "less showboaty" wavelength.

post #40 of 229

I have never seen the stage play, so this was my first exposure to the story. I am VERY disappointed with what I saw today.  

 

I am not happy that the film puts Valjean/Javert on the sidelines to introduce this bullshit with Edward Cullen and Amanda Seyfried, whose character is basically Johanna from Sweeney Todd: a pretty blonde who does nothing but be a pretty blonde and fall for some douche. I am not happy that the high point of the film comes so early (I dreamed a dream!), and everything else is downhill from there.  I am not happy that this movie was so poorly paced that I was checking the time during that battle scene near the end.  I am not happy that the characters who I cared about were pushed aside so I could sit through these douches sing about their revolution.  Dear God, I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATED that shit.  Not happy that I didn't get more Fantine, but dammit, if Jennifer Hudson can win an Oscar for THE scene in Dreamgirls even though Adriana Barazza should have won for Babel, Anne Hathaway better goddamn win for THE scene of this film.  You'd have thought I was at a funeral with the amount of crying that I heard during that number.   Hugh is fucking awesome, though.  I always forget that this guy can actually act his cellulite-free ass off when he's not rocking claws and mutton chops.  I really want to see him get nominated for this role. 

 

Russell Crowe's singing voice sounds like a foghorn, and I had to restrain myself from laughing at the sound his body makes when he hits the water during the suicide scene.  Fucking hysterical.  It was also incredibly awkward every time you see him singing on a rooftop, and the background is obviously CG.  His movements are very restricted, and it just looks strange.  I really didn't like him in this movie, and not in a "love to hate him he's so eeevil!" way.  I think he flat-out sucks here.  His character is written as pretty one-note, so it's not 100% his fault, but even when he's meant to be having a suicidal break, his face remains exactly the same.  Hugh Jackman puts him to fucking shame here.  It's not even close. 

 

I really, really wanted to love this movie.  Up until we're introduced to the Douche Squad, led by Douche Street Child, I was with it.  Once these new people hit the scene, it was like a plug being yanked from a wall outlet.  I disconnected, and didn't come back until Valjean's death scene.

post #41 of 229

Those posted clips just confirmed for me that there's no way I can sit through 3 hours of this stuff at the theater. I'm just not into singing-as-dialogue and random bursts of song in my movies. I'll be checking this out on cable next year though.

post #42 of 229

I'll be watching this only for that Anne Hathaway performance. The rest not so much.

post #43 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

I'll be watching this only for that Anne Hathaway performance. The rest not so much.

 

I recommend you watch the film up until her performance, then go into another movie across the hall for an hour and some change, then return for the ending.

post #44 of 229

Yeah, i considered skipping this and watching her performance online somewhere. But i don't think i have the patience for that.

 

What the hell. I survived through 2hrs of Mamma Mia, didn't it i? 

post #45 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Yeah, i considered skipping this and watching her performance online somewhere. 

 

 

That scene alone deserves to be seen on a huge screen, just to watch the expression on her face change during the song.  You're not going to get that full immersion from a torrent.

 

Also, notice how the people who were bitching about her voice from the trailer have magically vanished?  Where'd you go, fuckers?!

post #46 of 229

God, I love reading your reactions to a movie, Harley, even when I don't necessarily agree (although I have yet to see this). They're fucking hilarious. Especially when you do shit like describe Hugh Jackman as having a cellulite-free ass.

 

I will disagree with you on him not really acting as Wolverine, though. Maybe not in Last Stand or Origins, where he's very clearly coasting, but he's legitimately great in the first two X-Men films.

post #47 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

God, I love reading your reactions to a movie, Harley, even when I don't necessarily agree (although I have yet to see this). They're fucking hilarious. Especially when you do shit like describe Hugh Jackman as having a cellulite-free ass.

 

I will disagree with you on him not really acting as Wolverine, though. Maybe not in Last Stand or Origins, where he's very clearly coasting, but he's legitimately great in the first two X-Men films.

 You could bounce a quarter off that ass.  BELIEVE IT. 

 

And when I say act, I mean that the guy has a ridiculous range of talent that isn't always put to the best use.  He's a great Wolverine, and he is indeed great in the first two, but he can do a hell of a lot more than look gates-of-Hell hot in a wifebeater while killing dudes during the mansion raid.

post #48 of 229

True enough. Hell, he managed to be great in Kate and Leopold, and when Liev Schrieber is struggling to make something work (seriously, I love that guy even when he's in garbage...which is sadly often), that's no mean feat.

 

I also love his duel performances in The Prestige, and have heard good things about his scene-stealing in Rise of the Guardians. He also did one mean Elvis impression in Happy Feet.

post #49 of 229

I honestly thought they hired some ugly and tiny version of Hugh Jackman in The Prestige.  SO GOOD.

post #50 of 229

To me, that and Happy Feet were the first real indicators of "Wow, this guy has RANGE." And then I found out he was an Aussie Broadway vet, including playing GASTON in Beauty and the Beast.

 

Many jaw drops were had that day.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Les Miserables Post Release