Movie Review: "Les Miserables," 2012
I thought it was well done. It captured the redemption story, which is the most important thing, and it stayed pretty true to the book. At times I felt like it was just moving from one scene to the next with little transition (which I also felt made it lack some depth in developing character relationships), and of course we all know my feelings about Jean Valjean being a tenor/high-baritone, but I didn't feel like that detracted too much from the story. I liked it better in movie form than I did on the stage (though there were parts that didn't need to be portrayed quite the way they were). Also, I was pleasantly surprised by Russell Crowe. After everyone said he did terribly, and after seeing the little bit of him that was in the trailer, I didn't have high hopes for him. But I actually thought he did well.
And now for some of my other thoughts.
In addition to doing a good job as Eponine, Samantha Barks is beautiful. Being me, I had to be all analytical and decide if she could be the daughter of Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. I decided she could be, seeing as she has the same cheek and jaw bones as Ms. Bonham-Carter.
One wouldn't think of Amanda Seyfried as looking like Anne Hathaway, but you can see how she could be her daughter. I think it's the lips and nose.
This Marius was dreamier and seemed less wussy than the Liam Neeson version Marius. That is a good thing.
'Ceptin' only, why did Eddie Redmayne wear blue velvet to one of the premieres?
posted by melilotnfosco | 11:42 PM
16 Comments:
I thought it was slightly distracting how Marius sang though, how his mouth or jaw shook so much or something. I guess that's normal for some professional singers though.
And while Samantha Barks is pretty, I thought her waist was freakishly small! It was so distracting to me. Sorry, just being honest. Maybe I'm just jealous, that very well could be.
Also, I just can't really subscribe to Marius and Cosette. Too fast, based on nothing. Even Edward and Bella I thought had more to go on than that. But who can explain love, I guess.
I wasn't impressed with Russell Crowe. I thought he sounded flat or something. But I am definitely no expert. And maybe that was part of the point -- I suppose he might have less emotion for his character, be more serious. But I still think Geoffrey Rush is better. Not sure how well he sings though. :)
I'm glad you liked it! Gonna see it again? :)
i'm not a russell crowe fan, but i thought he was really good in this role. this is why i don't listen to critics.
and while my general feeling about anne hathaway is neutral, i thought she did a good job with "i dreamed a dream".
i wish they had spent more time on the priest at the beginning and less time with fantine on skid row.
as for marius and cosette, chelley - in the book it's 'love' at first sight, but then they spend a lot of time talking, so there is more of a basis to their relationship.
i liked samantha barks.
funny how we haven't commented much on hugh jackman
chelley:
1. i didn't notice
2. her waist is very small
3. a fine example of no development of character relationships. there's more to it in the book (though i always feel marius is sappy).
4. geoffrey rush was a great javert
5. yes, i plan to :)
hobsis:
1. yes, one shouldn't listen to critics
2. yes
3. definitely. definitely.
4. yeah, that
5. yes
and 6. i thought that, too, as i wrote this
I was super excited to see this when I saw the trailers, but several friends commented that although they liked the movie in general, the prostitution scenes were a bit much, so I decided to wait until it was out on DVD so I could skip it if I decided to do so. It reminds me of the various times I have scene the musical live. The first 2 times I saw it, I loved it because, although it is obvious there was harlotry going on, they didn't actually show it. The last time I saw it, I was sitting next to a maybe ten year old boy and my husband who had never seen it before. The Master of the House scene actually had couples on the roof with pants down/skirts up, rocking back and forth. I was extremely embarrassed and wanted to reach over and cover that poor boy's eyes. It looked VERY real and I felt bad for the poor male actor because there was no way he could "act" like that and not get excited... We know there is prostitution going on--you don't have to SHOW it.
exactly. when i saw it on stage i saw it with my uncle and was uncomfortable at parts. just not necessary.
huh - interesting. i'm looking at this post on a different computer and the pictures are in different places. i hope they're not all jacked up on all of yours. cuz i really did take the time to arrange them nicely with the comments i was making.
no - it looks purty
They're a little screwy on mine, but it works. :)
Sorry for the late response, but here are my two cents anyway.
I did notice Marius's jaw moving when he sang. I am not sure, but I think it must be something new or not-so-good singers do to get vibrato. True vibrato comes from the vocal cords and vocal tract, not from external shaking. On the other hand, he is a good enough actor and singer to get me emotional with "empty chairs and empty tables".
I don't think I notice details in other girls' looks usually, but I did notice Samantha's waist was small, too. I thought maybe they tried to make her look starving poor with costuming, but since she didn't make her self truly starve like Anne Hathaway, it was disproportional.
Hehe this "love at first sight" is more poetic than realistic... it's sure to be "lust at first sight" instead.
I did also notice myself not getting emotional or sympathetic for Russel Crowe's character during his song, but I didn't think it was because of his singing or acting. I thought it was more because of his character's situation, I didn't think it was as bad as all the other characters so I just didn't feel sorry for him. My fiance said he didn't sing as badly as the critics say, he just thought it wasn't as good as the other actors by comparison.
I don't like seeing sex or nudity on screen, or even when it's implied... but I think it is necessary in "Les Mis" because it makes it more real and harsh. It creates the mood and drama. I don't remember there being too much more than necessary in the movie to make us feel bad for Fantine, the other characters, and the entire context of society... I wouldn't have allowed a 10 year old to see it though; the parents may not have known it was part of it... even though it was rated PG-13. I did think that the song "master of the house" was too long and overdone with the atrocities.
And, I still can get teary thinking about Anne singing "I dreamed a dream". Her situation was so shocking and terrible and sad, and the singing seemed to match the emotion needed... So she certainly did a good job in my point of view!
Also, this movie started lots of great conversations and introduced more people to the story of Les Mis! (and redemption:) So that's a big positive! :)
oh my goodness - not to get emotional about javert! i cried. and then i read it in the book and cried. jean valjean is offered grace. he accepts it and allows it to change his life. javert is offered grace and doesn't know what to do with it. he can't reconcile grace with the law - which is what he lives by. he can't let go of what is tangible and grasp on to faith. the conflict eats at him because it tears apart everything he knows and believes in - and he ends up dying in torment.
beautifully, agonizingly written in the book, and pretty well portrayed on screen, too.
auto -
i agree there's no such thing as 'love at first sight.' but like hobsis says, in the book they catch each other's fancies immediately, but then they actually talk (though marius drives me nuts).
and hobsis is also right about javert. i think he's truly the saddest character.
and i disagree with you about sex being necessary in 'les mis' to make it harsh. both the book and the liam neeson movie manage to make you feel terrible for fantine without getting that graphic. maybe it did help people feel the power of 'i dreamed a dream,' but i think both the writer and anne hathaway could've pulled it off without what led up to it.
and yes, 'master of the house' was totally unnecessary. in the book it's just a dingy, gloomy wayside inn. no need to make it more than that.
what it all boils down to girls, is read the book :)
i put it on hold at the library, just waiting now! :)
:D
Post a Comment
<< Home