Hooper's style of directing struck me as overblown and melodramatic in KING'S SPEECH, but LES MIS is supposed to be a sweeping melodrama, so it felt much more appropriate.

The every word sung style also took me a little getting used to, but it was fine. The real showstopper, to me, was "Dreamed a Dream." Anne Hathaway burned that mother down. Unfortunately, that means the movie peaked about 25 minutes into its three hours. I also liked "On My Own." Some great performances all around but I agree -- Crowe isn't a great singer, Eddie Redmayne is a great singer but kinda weird looking, and SBC and HBC felt like they were coming from some other movie (SWEENEY TODD, for example).

I actually think -- having not seen the stage version -- I would probably like it better. The movie is fine, I can't find too much to complain about I guess (except for the focus -- was it a conscious choice to focus on peoples' ears half the movie?), but I've kind of... seen it, you know? Epic historical filmmaking, it's been done. With a ton of money and a ton of time, it can be done. Whereas I think the appeal of the stage show is that all of this epicness is being achieved right in front of you, in real time, with clever and inventive stagecraft. I can imagine why, as a theatrical experience, Les Mis would be a must-see attraction. As a movie, it's good and all, but it didn't blow my socks off.

Get ready for a very long, possibly emotional post because I am a huge Les Mis fan.

Because I'm a fan who is very familiar with the stage show, I came into the movie with different expectations than you guys seem to have had.  I was excited for a few things (Aaron Tveit, Eddie Redmayne, and Sam Barks finally being on the big screen, namely) and worried about quite a few more (Tom Hooper's direction, Hugh Jackman singing a part that is out of his range, Russel Crowe singing).

The things I was excited for didn't disappoint me at all. I would have liked more of Enjolras (his part was cut down) but Eddie and Sam were just perfect.  Say what you will, but I love Eddie's face and voice.

As for the things I was worried about...Hugh sounded good, but when he had to pretend to be a tenor it did not work out.  I winced during Bring Him Home, which was not the reaction I should have had.

Tom Hooper continues to be Tom Hooper. During Look Down/Paris 1832, I found myself wondering if we'd seen anyone's waist while they were singing.  Some songs (I Dreamed a Dream) benefitted from the close ups. But it annoying very quickly. Dorkman, you are totally right about the focus.  I just don't think Hooper was the right guy to handle this kind of film. Yes, it's sweeping and melodramatic but it's mostly about loving someone/something before you die.  Shoving a camera into someone's face won't create that closeness, no matter how many times you do it. I think a better director could have made that intimacy happen.

tl;dr: the movie was close, but not quite on point.  When it worked it worked very well (Fantine's chapters; Grantaire being executed with Enjolras). But by cutting out important story beats (Eponine being the "first to fall" at the barricade; Eponine appearing with Fantine to take Valjean to heaven) I think it lost a bit of the theme.

Last edited by Allison (2012-12-30 23:15:57)

You are high and you should feel high.

Eh, I let this slide because that's how romance worked in fiction for a long, long time. I mean, look at any Disney fairy tale. Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid -- it's all love at first sight. It's stupid but you can't really fault the film for an element of the story dating back to the novel.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. You all have such hard hearts around here!

First: Marius feels the exact same way you do, Spork. When he says "I'm doing this all wrong" he's referring to falling in love. He is not supposed to fall in love with some random girl because he is an intellectual and a revolutionary, but he still finds himself kissing her handkerchief to feel close to her.  He doesn't even know if she'll mourn his death, much less if her love for him is real.

Second: I love Marius because his arc is all about feeling this totally irrational and passionate love for someone you barely know. It's a contrast to Enjolras's deadly passion for the revolution.  I don't think it made it into most productions, but in the early workshops when Marius was talking about the girl he saw, Enjolras had a great moment where he declares his mistress is France.   

And this is my problem with the movie. It simplified the theme of young boys rushing into decisions by cutting down Enjolras' part (Marius sings love songs to Cosette, Enjolras sings them to the barricade) and by cutting Turning (the women clean the streets lamenting how these schoolboys died for nothing, despite how much they wanted to change the world).

(Have I mentioned I really care about Les Mis?)

HBC is definitely a general crowd pleaser. Everyone knows her from stuff like Harry Potter and what have you, and in the theater I was in, all she had to do was show her face and the audience started chuckling. Really, just that first shot of her walking down the stairs and everyone laughed.

I was actually a little bit bothered by it too. And what's funny is that the idea of love at first sight in a movie like this was not quite what bothered me. I just couldn't buy the idea of falling in love at first sight... with Amanda Seyfried. Haha I know some will disagree. I just don't think she's much of a jaw-dropper. But she did a fine job, although I thought it was funny that her singing voice was higher-pitched than young Cosette's.

It's more like an English opera. There's probably fifteen sentences in the whole movie that aren't sung. And while discrete musical numbers can sort of be discerned, for the most part it's just sort of floaty melodies set to music until another number takes off. So if your problem is the transitions, you'll be alright, because there's pretty much nothing else to transition to.