Fan Reviews ( Spoiler Alert)

[jo]

Let's set up a new thread -- for when the rush of fan reviews (by us...and others) will be ushered in soon! I know some people who had a chance to see advance screenings here and other message boards who may want to write up their comments while the movie is still fresh in their memories.

Do you hear all the fans sing


Jo

[jo]

Here is a very long and detailed FAN review ( relatively spoiler-free) by a serious poster on IMDB --

by JohnnyLynx 27 minutes ago (Tue Dec 18 2012 17:04:35) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

UPDATED Tue Dec 18 2012 17:18:09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A week before the release, and a day before some advance screenings, I have finally finished my long, detailed fan review. : P I wrote it for a few specific people. I don't know if anyone else would even bother to read it, but here it is, for anyone wanting a longtime fan's perspective. Some of this (most of the comments on the cast, and also the lsit of song changes) has been posted previously. I just wanted to have it all in one place so I could link to it easily.

(in-depth, but spoiler-free)

Contrary to what you’ve heard, this is not an adaptation of the world-famous stage musical. This is a film adaptation of Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel that unfolds through the medium of song. Screenwriter William Nicholson seems to have consciously eschewed any memory of Trevor Nunn and John Caird’s wildly popular staging, and used Boublil/Schönberg/Kretzmer’s libretto as an apparatus through which to convey Hugo’s vast and socially-conscious five-volume novel. The familiar songs are all here. Valjean still has his dark night of the soul, Fantine still sings of lost innocence and love, Javert about celestial orbs, and Marius about a deserted cafe. The students still contemplate the colors of their flag, and the dead still ask us who are living if we will join in their crusade. But the context and settings have been completely and poignantly reimagined. Nicholson’s screenplay, combined with Tom Hooper’s up-close-and-personal direction and a cast who throw themselves headfirst into their roles result in a film that is paradoxically smaller than its stage counterpart, and yet more punctuated in its pathos. Though this meeting of Hugo’s vast and sweeping narrative and Hooper’s stubbornly intimate direction is somewhat uncomfortable at times, I enjoyed every minute of this film.

Despite having a huge soft spot for it, Les Misérables is a musical I’ve always regarded as unfilmable. And yet, this film works. Much of the credit for that belongs Nicholson. This man is the real unsung hero of this musical. The changes Nicholson made to the libretto, polishing the stage version’s inconsistencies and bringing the work ultimately closer in letter and spirit to Hugo, anchor the film in a historical and social context and make these familiar numbers seen fresh and new for me, a longtime fan.

Although I’ve seen reviewers complain about its length, I found the film a very tight and dense telling of the story. In fact, I’d say it’s positively breathless. There are no slow bits, no let-up at all, and it’s the cumulative result of small cuts to the libretto combined with Hooper’s quick-change shots. Both the novel and the stage version are more spacious affairs. Hugo spreads his narrative over 1,000 pages by loading the novel with descriptive detail and philosophical and political reflection, often going on essay-length digressions that have little to do with the story. On stage, the sense of space surrounding the more introspective moments afford some time to breath and reflect. Hooper, however, never moves his camera farther than a foot from his actors’ faces, such that even the quiet solos (“I Dreamed a Dream”, “On My Own”, “Bring Him Home”, “Empty Chair at Empty Tables”) feel larger-than-life. The result is a film that sometimes feels like a two-and-a-half hour onslaught of one grim image after the next. I predict this will put off a sizeable portion of the audience.

In some ways, this is the exact opposite approach to what Trevor Nunn and John Caird achieved in their 1985 staging at the Barbican in London (which was then reproduced on Broadway and around the world). For all its reputation for spectacle, John Napier’s set design is fairly barebones. He was, however, able to create the illusion of space by cloaking the production in darkness. The characters on stage are suspended in a black void, which the audience fills in with the open fields of northern France or the labyrinthine streets of Montreuil-sur-Mer or Paris. If you’re expecting the painterly, iconic stage pictures Caird and Nunn created coupled with the illusion of space Napier created, you’ll be disappointed.

It’s a somewhat quirky meeting. Hugo, Boublil, Schönberg, and even Nicholson are telling a vast and sweeping social narrative. But Hooper is more interested in the particulars of misery, preferring to give it a single human face, rather than focusing on the multitudes: you will see the sun-etched wrinkles on Valjean’s brow, Fantine’s sunken and emaciated eyes, and be able to count Marius’ boyish freckles. Sometimes it’s too close for comfort, as when we zoom into Valjean’s face after he’s just been slogging his way through the Parisian sewers. (When you see it, you’ll know what I mean.) This focus on individuals extends to Hooper’s approach to numbers such as “At the End of the Day” which begins in the streets of Montreuil-sur-Mer. Instead of one, monolithic chorus of downtrodden as in the stage version, Hooper distributes the song among small groups and individuals. In this case, the result is more ragged, plaintive, and hoarse than the stage incarnation, and quite haunting.

What are the other flaws beyond the lack of emotional downtime? Despite the obvious attention to detail from the set and costume designers, the film exists is an odd mixture of gritty, hyper-verismo and stylized CGI and storybook-like forced-perspective. And it never quite manages to convey Restoration-era France. Hugo meticulously anchored his novel in the real world of 1815-1838 France, incorporating actual names, news items such as famous murders, real streets and real buildings. The novel itself is highly biographical: Marius courting Cosette was the young Victor Hugo courting his eventual mistress, Juliette Drouet. And yet, here, the action seems to take place in a strangely bleak and contrived dream-world. The heavy use of dark filters distort the colors of the film. It feels airless and artificial. Is this forgivable in a film in which the characters break out into song? Probably, but I felt it diminished the social, political and moral impact of the story. Hugo was writing of this world and any modern reader who undertakes the 1,000+ page novel will be struck by how modern and relevant Hugo still is. The film doesn’t completely obliterate the story’s relevance, but it makes it too easy to dismiss because it feel so constructed.

The other flaw is the editing. The film could have benefited from just five to ten more minutes to make it less whiplash-inducing. This is especially problematic in Valjean’s journey through Digne, in which he is seeking lodging and work. The novel, the stage version, and Nicholson’s original screenplay were more spacious, allowing us to see full scenes in which Valjean is sent away from door to door, again and again. What we get in the film, however, are split-second shots of Valjean being refused, getting beat up (?), wandering, etc. which fail to convey a sense of this man’s alienation and abandonment by his fellow human beings. This build up is important. Without it, the Bishop’s entry loses something. Similar instances where the editors needed to take a more gentle approach are the barricade scenes, which are chaotic and don’t give enough of a sense of the complete action. And yes, there are handheld cameras and Dutch angles. Having recently seen Raymond Bernard’s 1934 version (considered by many to be the best film version of this story), I was struck by the wry angles with which Bernard films his five-hour masterpiece. Admittedly, Barnard manages better than Hooper, but there are some sweeping, captivating shots in this film that are incredibly exciting, notably the opening scene in which the convicts are pulling a massive ship to dock.

This is a film I now want to see again (and probably multiple times in the theatre): every scene is a highlight. Despite his ADHD camerawork, Hooper’s direction makes for an exhilarating experience. Each number is rife with detail and imaginative shots.


So, how is the cast...

(contains some more detailed information on some scenes; some spoilers for those not familiar with the musical)

Basically, I was entirely bowled over by this cast. Everyone was excellent.

Anne is every bit as wonderful as everyone has been saying she is. I really have nothing to add to the praise she's garnered. I was skeptical of Anne's casting at first, but this is a method acting masterclass. I think her scenes are probably where the actor's choices, Hooper's direction, and William Nicholson's screenplay meld together to create perfection. "I Dreamed a Dream" comes at a completely unexpected moment. Even having read the screenplay ahead of time and knowing it's new placement, I barely recognized the song at first, which starts a capella. Then you recognize these familiar lyrics and you go: "Oh God. THIS is where this song is happening. This is the moment (at her lowest), and this is the place (a sordid brothel), where Fantine thinks back on her relationship with Tholomyes. And it's absolutely devastating and punctuates the sense of having fallen so beautifully. If you're worried about Anne's singing, don't. She hold her own vocally. I was surprised.

Eddie is the other revelation of this film for me. I'm a little biased because I adore this actor and everything about him just makes me happy, but IMO (and in the opinion of the people I went to see the film with) every scene he's in is perfection: his voice is beautiful and his acting is pitch-perfect. I think he may actually replace Michael Ball as many people's favorite Marius. Having Marius' grandfather appear in the film adds a sense of depth to this character that has been missing from the stage version. "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" (which, like "I Dreamed a Dream" begins a capella) is as good as any stage performance I've ever seen. Hooper gets up close and personal with his actors, and you can literally count the freckles on this guy's face. But it's a passionate, inward performance.

Hugh is excellent. He didn't blow me away like the previous two mentioned, but he does an amazing job of holding thsi film together. Hooper's direction basically telescopes the story to focus on Valjean. It's his world. Everyone else is just living in it. It feels far less of an ensemble production than the stage version. The one moment that I disliked: "Bring Him Home." Hugh cannot sing pianissimo in this part of his range. He basically squeezes out and muscles his way through the initial "God... On... High...", which would have been much better served by singing falsetto. It just sounds labored, sinewy, and makes no sense dramatically. What is supposed to be a heartfelt prayer becomes... I don't even know. It just makes no sense. Luckily, as the song crescendos, this isn't a problem anymore. But that was the one vocal mistep, IMO, of what is an excellent performance.

Sasha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter were excellent. HBC’s singing is much better here than in Sweeney Todd (and she’s far less anemic in general) and SBC is hilarious. I’ve given up on expecting the musical’s Thenardiers to represent the evil, nihilistic misanthropes of the novel. In fact, that might have been too much for this film, which is otherwise wall-to-wall misery (which the novel wasn’t). The comic relief offered by these two is welcome. “Master of the House”, one of my least favorite songs in the stage version, is raucous and hilarious here. My one gripe is SBC’s French accent in some of the verses why?), and the unnecessary mugging during one of the most beautiful bits of music, cut from the stage version, restored here. Valjean sings of his promise to Fantine and how he comes in her place to raise Cosette. The Thenardiers’ shtick is laid on pretty thick here, and undercuts the soaring beauty of what Valjean is saying in that moment.

Samantha Barks' performance is pretty much the same as what her stage conception of this character is like. It's the same Eponine from her O2 concert performance. Her performance seemed the most "familiar" to me. This is the character that is changed the least from stage to screen. Something that may annoy a few fangirls: the introduction to "On My Own" ("and now I'm all alone again...") is cut, starting directly with "On my own, pretending he's beside me..." Also, I was surprised to find Samantha doesn't take the high note in "All my life, I've always been pretending" as she does (and most other Eponines since Kaho Shimada has done) in the concert version. She sings it as it appears in the score, as Lea Salonga and Frances Rufelle sing it.

Amanda Seyfried won me over. I, like many, was concerned about her voice, but her acting makes up for it. She's like a little ray of innocent, ethereal sunshine in what is a pretty bleak, gritty, and overall very dirty (literally... the sewer scene is... intense) film. She feels very much like the lark Hugo describes her as: a 16-year-old girl who has been living in a convent for the last eight years. She actually manages to make the character sympathetic and interesting, which is a Godsend because I have really felt Cosette was the most underdeveloped character in the stage version.

Aaron Tveit sings very well... at least, of the material they gave him. Some of his lines have been reasigned to the ensemble. I think he and Nicholson made a conscious decision to "democratize" the student revolution. This makes sense, both dramaturgically and in light of the Hugo's republicanism (with a small "r"). Sometimes in the stage version, when you get a particularly charismatic Enjolras, it can sometimes seem like Enjolras is this overbearing blowhard and everyone else is an unwilling participant. That is not the case here. Hooper seems to have been very insistent on emphasizing how small, underpowered, and ultimately quixotic this little student revolt was. There's a sense of haplessness about this group. You pretty much know from the beginning they don't have much of a chance. I think it was a valid decision on Hooper and Nicholson's parts, but I still maintain that many people will find Enjolras' role scaled down from the stage version (and, indeed, the novel).

Basically, with a few rare missteps, none of the vocals bring attention to themselves. The singing feels organic and Hooper manages to effectively meld together this motley assortment of different voices and stylings into a cohesive whole.

Russell Crowe was the weak link for me. However, it had nothing to do with his singing, which I had no problem with. I simply found him miscast. He wasn't bad. No one in this film is bad. He does his best with what he's been given, and you can see evidence of real thought behind his delivery when he's face-to-face with Jackman. However, he lacks a certain gravitas and sense of clinical calculation that is required to make this character feel like a decent threat to Valjean. Javert in the novel feels like this inexorable force of nature, always around the corner, always one step ahead. Crowe's Javert, by contrast, feels much more human-scale. I hate to say it, but I think it has to do with Crowe's face. He simply looks too kind; his eyes have a warmth to them (probably why many people thought he would make a better Valjean than Javert) and his singing voice, though perfectly serviceable musically IMO, actually had a vulnerability to it that was just inappropriate for the part. You get the sense that this Javert is suicidal from the very beginning -- he comes across as psychologically very fragile.

As for his big solos, "Stars" is beautifully done. It comes earlier than in the stage version, but the new placement works very well. Crowe's voice is at its best here. He sings it standing on a ledge (a bit heavy-handed foreshadowing, and further exacerbating the sense of psychological fragility surrounding this Javert) next to a giant statue of an imperial eagle. I don't know what building this is meant to be, but it's directly across from the cathedral of Notre-Dame. Also, the orchestration here is beautiful and different, and closer to what Roger Allam got in the OLCR than the current version. I enjoyed it more than "Javert's Suicide", which I found underwhelming by comparison. Again, Crowe holds his own vocally, and here his fragility finally seems appropriate. But in an odd choice by Hooper, he sings his final "No way to go onnnnnn!!!!" while still standing on the bridge. It's horribly anticlimactic. He literally just stands there stock-still. THEN he jumps (which is followed by a pretty brutal shot of his body hitting the reservoir). It felt like a grotesque and undignified end for this character, and has more to do with Hooper than with Crowe.

Specific Questions Answered for Diehard Fans:

Are the original orchestrations used?
No, and neither are the 25th anniversary orchestrations. The entire score has been reorchestrated. “I Dreamed a Dream” stands out in particular: it begins a capella, then slowly a single harp comes in and plays the countermelody, following by strings. It captures the dreamlike, reflective quality of this song beautifully, letting you hear the song in a new way, while being close enough to the original Cameron orchestrations to be familiar. “Stars” (as mentioned) is another highlight. The orchestrations are gorgeous.

How does this film compare with other adaptations of the novel?
I would rank this the second-best adaptation of the novel I have seen. It captures more of the tone and content of the novel than most other versions. In order, my top five are:

1.) 1934 (Harry-Bauer as Valjean)
2.) 2012
3.) 1957 (Jean Gabin as Valjean)
4.) 1982 (Lino Ventura as Valjean)
5.) 1978 (Richard Jordan as Valjean)

It's MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than the 1998 version with Liam Neeson.

What songs have been cut or changed from the stage version?
The only full song that has been cut is “Dog Eats Dog”, apparently because Sacha Baron-Cohen lost his voice while filming. The cuts are mostly unobtrusive and within songs. Here is a list. Songs marked with an asterisk (*) have been moved to a different place than in the stage version.

Songs that have essentially stayed the same as in the stage version:
- “Valjean’s Soliloquy”
- “Who Am I?”
- ”I Dreamed a Dream”* (moved to after “lovely Ladies”)
- “The Confrontation”
- “Master of the House”
- “The Bargain”/“Waltz of Treachery” (Valjean’s verse about the promise he made to Fantine restored)
- “Stars”* (moved to before “Look Down”)
- “The Robbery”
- “Eponine’s Errand”
- “In My Life”
- “A Heart Full of Love”
- “Attack on Rue Plumet”
- “Red and Black”
- “One Day More”
- “Do You Hear the People Sing?”* (moved to right after “One Day More”)
- "Javert's Arrival" (although "Little People" is cut)
- “Bring Him Home”
- “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”
- "Every Day"/"A Heart Full of Love (reprise)" (added harmony for Marius' grandfather)
- “Valjean’s Confession”
- Javert’s Suicide
- “Epilogue/Finale”

New Material:
- Javert’s introduction to Mayor Madeleine (new music and lyrics)
- Javert apologizes to Mayor Madaleine (mostly new music, with some lines incorporated here from the cart scene)
- “Suddenly” (new song for Valjean)
- Valjean arrives at the convent (nuns singing vespers to the tune of "Come in sir for you are weary", really beautiful use of this music; Valjean reunited with Fauchelevent)
- “Suddenly (reprise” (sung by Marius to Cosette when she discovers Valjean has left her; very nice use of the new melody)

Songs that either have been lengthened/added to, or are mostly complete but have lyric changes:
- “Prologue” (many small changes that bring prologue closer to the novel; some pieces, such as Valjean’s attempts to find work/shelter and his capture after stealing the silver are changed to dialogue)



- - “At the End of the Day” (added verse for female factory workers about Mayor Madeleine)
- “Lovely Ladies” (added verses for the dentist and head whore)
- “Fantine’s Arrest” (exchange with Bamatabois is trimmed)
- “Come to Me” (trimmed, and some completely new lyrics have been written for Fantine and Valjean’s back-and-forth)
- “The Bargain”
- “Look Down” (an excellent extra verse for Gavroche, and some of Enjolras/Marius’ lines have been shifted around slightly Marius' grandfather appears but does not sing)
- “A Little Fall of Rain” (introduction [“There’s something wet upon your hair...”] has been cut, for the better)

Songs that have been shortened noticeably:
- “Castle On a Cloud” is trimmed as in the 25th Anniversary version
- “On My Own”* (the introduction [“And now I’m all alone again...”] has been cut; moved to immediately follow “Attack on Rue Plumet”)
- “Beggar at the Feast” (I believe only the last verse is sung)
- “A Night of Anguish” (changed to diologue? I may be misremembering)
- “Drink With Me” (trimmed a bit)
- “Turning” (only one verse appears)
- "The Wedding" (trimmed; only a verse of the opening chorus is heard, and exchange between Marius and Thenardiers appears)

Songs that do not appear in the film:
- “I Saw Him Once”
- “Little People” (however, Gavroche sings his "Good evening dear inspector verse" and his refrain before his death)
- “Dog Eat Dog”

There are many tiny changes in the lyrics throughout the film. I don’t remember them all, but I do remember thinking that all of them were improvements. One small example: Marius in “Drink With Me” sings “Would you weep, Cosette, should Marius fall?” (why is he talking in third person?) becomes “Would you weep, Cosette, if I were to fall?”

Jo

[jo]

Very apt metaphor --


>>>Alan Fletcherþ@doctorkk
Recovering from the intensely emotional masterpiece that is #LesMis. @realhughjackman is the Sun in a galaxy of stellar talent. Oscar must.


Jo

[mamaleh]

That's good to read--especially after some of the vitriol being spewed on other sites.

Ellen

[jo]

An Australian fan of Les Miserables ( who was also lucky to have seen Hugh in Beauty and the Beast and Sunset Boulevard - dragged by her grandmother to the theatre ... and she never posted that she was a fan of Hugh ) said she had lukewarm expectations going to see the movie.

But look at what she wrote on IMDB re Bring Him Home --

>>>The biggest surprise for me was that Hugh Jackman was as good as he was. I've only ever seen him play stock standard belty baritone type roles, so kind of just trusted that Valjean was in his vocal range otherwise they wouldn't have cast him. But he was very, very good and this is definitely the role that will get him recognised by whoever's opinion in Hollywood it is that matters, that he's a good serious dramatic actor as well as Wolverine. This is not a musical theatre type performance, do not expect a soaring effortless performance of 'Bring Him Home' a la Alfie Boe or John Owen-Jones where you want to lie back and let the sweet sweet golden head voice notes wash around you and you applaud at the end. There is rawness and pain in this performance of the song. It's not just a beautiful soaring anthem to wow the audience with how long an actor can hold a note, it's the moment when an aging man who the world has repeatedly kicked in the face realises that he has found a state of grace, is willing and able to put his daughter's emotional needs before his own, and is prepared to rescue the young guy who's taken his place as the most important man in Cosette's life, even to the point of offering up his own life instead. <<<

Her full review is on this thread --

www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/board/nest/208547449


Jo

[klenotka]

Not really a fan review but I read on some movie forum (where they still discuss if Hugh is in the final 5 for the Oscar nomination or not), that he will "charm the shit out of everyone". Not sure if it is a compliment or not but I think that is excatly what Hugh does

[birchie]

Merry Christmas everyone! In 2 1/2 hours I'll be watching Hugh & Les Miserables...2 favorites at the same time with some of my family. Best Christmas ever. I'll write about it tomorrow!
Sue

[jo]

Your review ( and others, too) is eagerly awaited, Sue


Jo

[birchie]

Long day yesterday and I'm feeling it today! The afterglow of Les Miserables is keeping me going and every few minutes I find myself smiling. Our group for the movie ended up being a small group of 4 but that was fine. It was playing in several cinema complexes in the area but we chose, and bought advance tickets for the first showing at a mall thinking it would be the least crowded. We were right about that, hardly anyone there but everyone clapped at the end! When we were leaving the lobby was full of ticket buyers so I'm sure the later shows had a larger attendance.

I absolutely loved the movie!!! I thought it was beautifully filmed and don't understand the hoopla about the filming style. Glad I don't believe much in reviews anymore because the negative ones were so off base. Right from the opening scene it took my breath away. I was immediately swept away by the suffering of the convicts and the cold detachment of Javert. The scene with Hugh lugging the huge flag mast was incredible. My 16 year old grandson told me later that he didn't realize it was Hugh in the opening scenes. Tom Hooper & Hugh would be pleased that they succeeded in their quest to make him unrecognizable.

Colm Wilkinson was perfect as the Bishop. Much better than the smart aleck portrayal in the '98 version. The torment of Jean Valjean as seen through the Soliloquy was done just right to set the tone for his journey to becoming a better/saintly man.

I really like the way they did our introduction to the town of Montreuil-sur-Mer (At The End of the Day). Showing the poor, downtrodden that still exist and Javert riding roughshod (literally) through them on his way to introduce himself to the Mayor, juxtaposed with the clean conditions of the factory. I'm glad they added the scene with Javert introducing himself to the Mayor as in the book. Explaining the new prosperity of the town as signalling the authorities in Paris of the need for a better police presence. This is slightly less jarring than in the stage version where he just happens to be there out of the blue. This was a good trend throughout the film for those of us who have read the book and were relegated to "grin & bear it" with the stage version which we love and we understand that the stage could not show all the little transitions but what we end up with are a multitude of coincidental quirks. Also, I think for the completely uninitiated, the movie makes good use of these transitions to provide context.

All the performances are good to fabulous! Anne & Hugh are fabulous! I also think that their performances are evenly matched but with the edge going to Hugh as he most astoundingly and lovingly carries us through the entire movie. All the other characters are there in service to the story of Jean Valjean and we can clearly understand in the movie that this is his story! I'm sick to death of hearing so much about Anne's 20 minutes and so little about Hugh's wonderfully layered performance. He's amazing and absolutely deserves every best actor award that is available! Anne also deserves the best supporting actress award but a lot of the reviews act like her brief time in the movie is all you need to see. Ugh!

Russell...I have mixed feelings about his performance. He was very good as Javert for the most part. He didn't take the totally evil approach that Geoffrey Rush did in the '98 film but I thought he leaned a little too much in the other direction. I did read and hear several interviews where he indicated that he didn't like Javert as written (I think he even alluded to as written in the book) and HE decided to make a couple of changes. (This was confirmed by Tom.) The problem is that he is no longer the Javert of Victor Hugo. While the scene after the barricade is touching, especially with Gavoche, it isn't really something that Javert would do. When he was first cast it was his singing that gave me pause but I thought he would probably by fine. He was fine in terms of being on pitch etc. but the I thought he sang his two big numbers to softly, quietly, tenderly...not quite sure how to put it but there was no oomph there! So, a good performance over-all with a modicum of disappointment for me, but not enough to spoil the movie.

The Thenardiers were also a tiny bit of a mixed bag for me. Over-all they did convey the very unpleasant nature of the couple, and their numbers were mostly fun tinged with evil. I think there was almost too much going on in Master of the House but it was funny and the crowd laughed out loud a few times. The biggest laugh and for me, the part that they did the best, was at the end of the wedding scene. Just hilariously done. I won't elaborate here, even though this thread is meant to have spoilers, but this scene was such a pleasant surprise to me that I'd like to leave it that way for the rest of you.

I'm very glad I waited to see One Day More in the theater. It was so good! Now I have to find the one that was posted online so I can watch it over and over. I loved it!

The children...young and old!
Isabelle Allen was probably the best little Cosette I've seen or heard. She was precious and just feisty enough to make us believe that she could have survived the treatment she received from the Thenardiers. I just loved her scenes with Hugh. And the new song worked so well to totally define that relationship and what it meant to Jean Valjean.

Daniel Huddleston? was very good but not as impressive as Issy. He almost had too much of an accent. I think it may be close to the way he actually speaks after hearing a couple of lines in interviews. They included him in more numbers with the barricade boys which was kind of sweet and I was very moved by his death scene. I'm glad they did the notes as they were in the book. Eponine gets the note from Cosette to Marius and Gavroche gives Marius' note to Jean Valjean.

Samantha Barks was excellent as Eponine. I hope she gets more movie offers because I think she could be a movie star. Maybe she'll be like Hugh and have to juggle both film and stage work but she definitely has a future ahead of her.

Amanda brought more to the role of Cosette than is shown on stage. She may have even improved on the Cosette in the book. I loved her gentle, sweet singing which mirrored the gentle, sweet young woman she was, and she also had just that bit of the feistiness that we saw with Issy's performance that makes them both worthy of being Fantine's daughter. The instant love thing between her and Marius didn't feel quite as instantaneous and unreal as it does on the stage version, so I appreciated that. Also the added lines after Jean Valjean disappears from her life were perfect, and according to Tom Hooper were actually written by Amanda. It was always one of those WTF things for me that she seems so oblivious in the stage show...like "oh well, now lets get on with the wedding"...

Eddie Redmayne may be my next favorite actor after Hugh hangs up his spurs. For now he's in contention for the #2 spot! LOL! He brought much more depth to Marius and coupled with Amanda's deeper Cosette gives us more reasons to cheer them on as a couple and believe in their romance. He has a beautiful singing voice and Empty Chairs At Empty Tables was amazing. I would definitely cheer for him getting a best supporting actor nomination.

The barricade boys were all terrific. Aaron hasn't gotten nearly enough praise for his performance. He's barely even mentioned! He was excellent. It may be because his part seems to have been cut a little shorter. I was also a bit disappointed that they made Grantaire so much less of a character in this version. I liked that they showed them making bullets etc in preparation for their rebellion. Those scenes were very short but added realism. I enjoyed the fighting scenes & the deaths of the different individuals all seemed quite gritty and realistic.

The sewer scene was OMG so gross you just want to take a bath when it's done! I mean that in a good way! LOL! I liked the way they did the way Javert halfheartedly tries to stop Jean Valjean and JVJ just basically calls his bluff. Slightly different from the book but effective and leads to Javert's death scene very nicely. The leap is quite astounding in this film. In most other versions he just kind of falls in the river so this one stood out for me and my son really like it too. I remember when they re-shot the scene in Bath so when I saw how it turned out I was very pleased!

The epilogue and finale...Hugh was wonderful in his death scene and it was all done beautifully by everyone involved. (including Tom Hooper's direction) The finale seems to have been cut from both the screenplay version and a later version that was talked about somewhere (don't remember who or where) but I mostly enjoyed the way it was done.

I think a lot of the cuts that were made for time were things that many people who aren't familiar with the book or the stage show won't notice. For me I noticed for instance some of the recitatives in the early scenes between JVJ leaving prison and meeting the Bishop. I'm not sure if I really missed them so much as just noticing they weren't there. If that makes sense...It was acted out so well showing his mistreatment and the scorn of the townspeople he met so I guess it wasn't necessary to sing it. One thing I did miss seeing was something that was in the screenplay and I was happy about it because it was like it was written in the book...Just as Jean Valjean is about to steal from the Bishop he stops and looks upon his saintly face and something stirs within him in that minute or two that he watches the Bishop sleep. I hope they show that scene in the BluRay/DVD and anything else that was cut for time.

I can't think of any other specific things right now but if I do I'll come back and add some more thoughts as they occur. The movie was just wonderful and I can't wait to see it again. I may have a chance to see it 1 or 2 more times in the theater and will definitely go if given the opportunity! I think it will be even better the second time because I can let it all just wash over me and fill me with emotion. The first time I think I was paying too much attention to how it was done and what was in and what was out. Hence my little nit-picks! Even with my little nit-picks, they aren't enough to diminish the movie in any way for me so I still see it as a 10!
Well done one and all!! > :-/ > :-/
Sue

[mamaleh]

Thanks for your incisive review, Sue. I agree with most of your points. I think the movie made plot points clearer than the stage show did, but some questions remain for me: Valjean has informed the court of his address after revealing himself to be "24601!" So how can he tell Fantine immediately afterwards on her deathbed that "Cosette will want for nothing."? His being jailed would certainly put a crimp in that plan. Shortly after, he jumps into the river to avoid arrest. Was someone storing his resources and valuables so he could provide for his new little charge? And I guess neither Fantine nor the Thenardiers ever taught Cosette not to walk off with strangers in the woods, LOL. Later, one minute he's carrying Marius on his back; very soon after he's suddenly weak and presumably near death. Near the end, Valjean asks Marius not to tell Cosette of her father's past, as that knowledge would devastate her. Yet Valjean writes a tell-all confession and gives it to Cosette moments before his death.

Of course, I don't let logic interfere with a good story--especially one as beautifully conveyed as this one. I never read the novel, so some things will remain esoterica to me in perpetuity. But that's OK. Hugh and co. do such a splendid job, the little things don't matter. I just hope all the negativity from the professional critics doesn't sway the AMPAS voters from considering Hugh for Best Actor.

This 'n' that: I saw no reason why "Bring Him Home" had to be sung in that very high tenor-falsetto that was the hallmark of Colm Wilkinson and some others. It was originally written to Wilkinson's voice, which was fine. I did not have a problem with the way Hugh approached that song--I found it heartfelt and tinged with audible fears for Cosette's future--but granted, fewer negative comments might have arisen if the key had been lowered a bit, so that everyone would not ceaselessly be comparing him to Wilkinson. I do find the unchanged key puzzling, especially since the songwriters wrote their new song with Hugh's voice range in mind. Why not tailor "Bring Him Home" to his bari-tenor strengths? Since it was in the style of, presumably, a Catholic prayer, it could even have been whispered, much less belted, especially as there was no need to reach the back row. He was great throughout, but in the opening and the death scene he was beyond masterful. So annoying how many are glossing over his accomplishments in favor of either negativity or praise of only the 20-something performers.

Redmayne sounded great, but I must admit every time the camera focused on his mouth, the image of a cartoon duck's bill would come to mind. He's a fine actor, but it's hard for me to erase that persistent mental image.

How did Samantha Barks achieve the waist measurement of a No. 2 pencil? Even a corset can't do that! Yikes!

I really hope the film becomes a huge hit.

Ellen

[birchie]

Dec 26, 2012 14:14:40 GMT -5 mamaleh said:

Thanks for your incisive review, Sue. I agree with most of your points. I think the movie made plot points clearer than the stage show did, but some questions remain for me: Valjean has informed the court of his address after revealing himself to be "24601!" So how can he tell Fantine immediately afterwards on her deathbed that "Cosette will want for nothing."? His being jailed would certainly put a crimp in that plan. Shortly after, he jumps into the river to avoid arrest. Was someone storing his resources and valuables so he could provide for his new little charge? And I guess neither Fantine nor the Thenardiers ever taught Cosette not to walk off with strangers in the woods, LOL. Later, one minute he's carrying Marius on his back; very soon after he's suddenly weak and presumably near death. Near the end, Valjean asks Marius not to tell Cosette of her father's past, as that knowledge would devastate her. Yet Valjean writes a tell-all confession and gives it to Cosette moments before his death.

Of course, I don't let logic interfere with a good story--especially one as beautifully conveyed as this one. I never read the novel, so some things will remain esoterica to me in perpetuity. But that's OK. Hugh and co. do such a splendid job, the little things don't matter. I just hope all the negativity from the professional critics doesn't sway the AMPAS voters from considering Hugh for Best Actor.

This 'n' that: I saw no reason why "Bring Him Home" had to be sung in that very high tenor-falsetto that was the hallmark of Colm Wilkinson and some others. It was originally written to Wilkinson's voice, which was fine. I did not have a problem with the way Hugh approached that song--I found it heartfelt and tinged with audible fears for Cosette's future--but granted, fewer negative comments might have arisen if the key had been lowered a bit, so that everyone would not ceaselessly be comparing him to Wilkinson. I do find the unchanged key puzzling, especially since the songwriters wrote their new song with Hugh's voice range in mind. Why not tailor "Bring Him Home" to his bari-tenor strengths? Since it was in the style of, presumably, a Catholic prayer, it could even have been whispered, much less belted, especially as there was no need to reach the back row. He was great throughout, but in the opening and the death scene he was beyond masterful. So annoying how many are glossing over his accomplishments in favor of either negativity or praise of only the 20-something performers.

Redmayne sounded great, but I must admit every time the camera focused on his mouth, the image of a cartoon duck's bill would come to mind. He's a fine actor, but it's hard for me to erase that persistent mental image.

How did Samantha Barks achieve the waist measurement of a No. 2 pencil? Even a corset can't do that! Yikes!

I really hope the film becomes a huge hit.

Ellen

This gave me a few chuckles! It's true while the movie did address some of the multiple coincidences and time lapse issues from the stage version some still remain. Most of your questions are answered in the book with time! Like he does bury his money and give instructions to his banker about the factory etc. In the movie they show him packing his money and papers and driving a carriage to court. It could be assumed that he put the money somewhere on his way. I just presumed he drove the carriage back to town to say goodbye to Fantine in the hospital. In the book not only does he promise to take care of Cosette he makes Fantine believe that she's in the next room so she can die thinking she's about to see her daughter. The court knows where to find him because they know him as the Mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer and he does, in fact go back to jail for a time but escapes and actually retrieves Cosette almost a year after Fantine's death. I think they did the scenes well enough in the movie to allow people to 'go with it' and suspend disbelief. Or maybe I'm wrong and just know the story so well that it's easier for me.

Valjean writes his last confession as a way to put his affairs in order before he dies. Now that Cosette is settled he probably thinks it's okay for her to know the whole story. All of that is done in more detail in the book. And Cosette & Marius end up knowing how he made his fortune as well as his convict past.

As for Cosette being taught not to go with strangers...LOL! If I was raised by the Thenardiers and a lovely smiling man tipped his hat to me and spoke in a gently way, I'd drop that pail and go off with him in a flash. 8-)

Sam's waste is is a mystery to me. When I saw stills from the movie I thought she was the size of a pencil too. Then when I saw the premiers pix of her next to Anne an Amanda she didn't seem that tiny! Mystery!

I'm so glad to see that the movie opened well. I hope it continues to gain momentum and finishes as a huge box office hit and sweeps the awards. Maybe a dream but I think it deserves it.
sue

[carouselkathy]

I was nervous about, "Bring Him Home", because I knew it was high. People are used to that falsetto sound made famous in the stage productions. However, the way Hugh sang it was gut wrenchingly fantastic. His grief and desperation came as a wail, authentically expressing the plea of one who is begging for God's intervention. It was a wail instead of a whisper, and it worked.

Hugh was so completely transformed into this role that I forgot he was Hugh Jackman.

Russell Crowe did a fine job. His songs were not belted to the balcony, but were thoughtfully delivered as if inside his head.

Eddie Redmayne deserves a nomination along with Hugh and Anne. "Empty Chairs" was heart breaking. Amanda gave more depth to Cossette than I expected, and the little Huddleston and Allen were great. Gavroche's death had an even more tragic and uncomfortable impact because of recent news events.

Samantha was just wonderful.

Colm Wilkinson absolutely glowed as the Bishop. He expressed a joyful forgiveness in passing along the certainty of redemption to the troubled Valjean.

The choral diction was sometimes messy, but added to the realism of the mob mentality.

Tom Hooper is one of my favorite directors, so I have no problem with his camera work. For this story, the camera needs to be close.

[jo]

Your reviews are all very reassuring -- not that I think that I would have given a different reaction to yours when I finally see the movie ;D

I am too much an adoring fan of the show and Hugh

Sue - I am glad that I have re-read the book and we have had all those discussions on IMDB - they will fill all those gaps mentioned by Ellen. LOL - we even know how much money he brought to the bank and which bank he dealt with. And how he came about to becoming such a successful " costume jewelry" ( or more stylishly called "fashion jewelry" nowadays) maker.

My CD is supposed to arrive any moment now ( according to the tracking, it has already cleared Customs and was probably delayed only because of the holiday) -- but I have heard the YouTube upload of Suddenly, Bring Him Home, and the Epilogue -- so my anticipation level has been pitched even higher for the movie.

I think what is going to come out of this movie re Hugh's film career are two things --

*That he has proven his dramatic chops -- which should put all those cynical comments about his mutant film career to the side

*That he is arguably the most versatile film actor now

That this movie means a lot to him -- in terms of his interest in the storyline and the music ...and how much he has invested himself in the making of the movie -- I am glad he has had that chance of the role of a lifetime. Not too many actors get that! I am never overly impressed by biopic portrayals because I don't think copying how someone who lived before to the letter is impressive acting to me. But to breathe life into a role that started from a literary pen -- that is something else, even if there have been other precedents in other mediums.

Okay - I have 20 days to go -- such an interminable wait

It is a good thing I enjoy the vicarious thrill of reading all your incisive and heartfelt reviews!

Merci!


Jo

[mamaleh]

Thanks for filling in the info gaps, Sue. I like to read everyone's takes on the finished product, their favorites moments, etc.

But I do wish this movie had been made and released last year. Much as I liked THE ARTIST, I think LES MIZ would have taken home numerous prizes in a walk. Hugh, too. This year is an embarrassment of riches, unfortunately. I wonder how next year's fare will be. Maybe Universal will wish it had withheld LES MIZ until January or mid-year.

Ellen

[birchie]

Dec 26, 2012 16:57:30 GMT -5 carouselkathy said:

I was nervous about, "Bring Him Home", because I knew it was high. People are used to that falsetto sound made famous in the stage productions. However, the way Hugh sang it was gut wrenchingly fantastic. His grief and desperation came as a wail, authentically expressing the plea of one who is begging for God's intervention. It was a wail instead of a whisper, and it worked.

Hugh was so completely transformed into this role that I forgot he was Hugh Jackman.
<snip>

I'm glad you said that! Thanks for pointing it out...I had felt the same way but forgot to mention it. There were several moments when it sort of occurred to me that I was watching his performance as if I'd never seen him before and had to remind myself that it was Hugh. I too loved the way he did Bring Him Home.

There are so many layers he gives to this role...and not just that he ages, but because this is a man who is changing and growing on the inside. How many actors could have played that so beautifully? I don't seriously see how Daniel Day Lewis could play someone like Lincoln with as much subtlety and emotional resonance as Hugh has done with this role of Jean Valjean. I really hope the fix isn't in for DDL because Hugh deserves the Oscar.
Sue

[birchie]

Dec 26, 2012 17:55:06 GMT -5 jo said:

Your reviews are all very reassuring -- not that I think that I would have given a different reaction to yours when I finally see the movie ;D

I am too much an adoring fan of the show and Hugh

Sue - I am glad that I have re-read the book and we have had all those discussions on IMDB - they will fill all those gaps mentioned by Ellen. LOL - we even know how much money he brought to the bank and which bank he dealt with. And how he came about to becoming such a successful " costume jewelry" ( or more stylishly called "fashion jewelry" nowadays) maker.

My CD is supposed to arrive any moment now ( according to the tracking, it has already cleared Customs and was probably delayed only because of the holiday) -- but I have heard the YouTube upload of Suddenly, Bring Him Home, and the Epilogue -- so my anticipation level has been pitched even higher for the movie.

I think what is going to come out of this movie re Hugh's film career are two things --

*That he has proven his dramatic chops -- which should put all those cynical comments about his mutant film career to the side

*That he is arguably the most versatile film actor now

That this movie means a lot to him -- in terms of his interest in the storyline and the music ...and how much he has invested himself in the making of the movie -- I am glad he has had that chance of the role of a lifetime. Not too many actors get that! I am never overly impressed by biopic portrayals because I don't think copying how someone who lived before to the letter is impressive acting to me. But to breathe life into a role that started from a literary pen -- that is something else, even if there have been other precedents in other mediums.

Okay - I have 20 days to go -- such an interminable wait

It is a good thing I enjoy the vicarious thrill of reading all your incisive and heartfelt reviews!

Merci!


Jo

Jo, I wish I could speed up time for you. I know the last week was agony for me (relatively speaking of course) so I can't imagine having to wait 20 days longer!

Do enjoy the soundtrack. I did listen to it once before the movie but the songs actually impress more when watching the scene being played out. I guess for stage versions the songs stand out by themselves but, for me, I really enjoyed them more when I was watching the movie. Not sure if I'm being clear or not.

I think reading the book does make the experience of watching the film richer. I believe Tom Hooper did a Napoleonic feat combining the two mediums into one great, artistic film! (no pun intended) I can't wait till you see it and bring your thought home to us! Okay, I'm tired and I'm being silly...but sincere none the less!
Sue

[jo]

I have just listened to the complete soundtrack for the first time!

I had some early reservations about listening to it before seeing the movie, but I decided that it is going to heighten my anticipation for the film even more!

I was completely right...even more so!

It was like listening to a delightful radio show -- your imagination fills in the gaps but you get the soul and the heart of the whole musicalized story line and characterization!

Hugh sounds incredible -- I cannot believe his vocal range !

*from a broken man who sees redemption at the end of the line
*to a powerful character of repute
*to a man whose confrontations with his pursuer hints at his determination to avoid a clash with him
*to a man who sings tenderly to a sleeping child
*to a man conflicted by his love for his daughter and the evolving events around them...
*to someone who sends a strong plea to heaven for mercy for a man-child loved by his daughter
*and finally a broken man who finally finds peace!

Too sad that the iconic Who Am I was left out. I wonder why they chose to do that, instead of cutting down a few of the other songs?

But Hugh's changes in vocal delivery was astounding! I cannot believe how old he made himself sound at the end! And how embittered and then reformed he sounded in his first soliloquy!

Re the whole CD --

*This is an ensemble movie -- revolving around a central character -- and the singing reflects the particular strengths of the supporting casts. Everyone pulled the ship to the shore!

*The film musical score sounded so fresh and did not overwhelm the singing parts. It is a film score, not the overwhelming sound of an orchestra in a concert! The dramatic, the sweet, and the powerful scenes were so skillfully accompanied by the orchestral sounds.

*I love the orchestrations! They are new even if they hark back to the original strains sounds of the first recordings.

*It is an excellent introduction to the movie!


Jo

[Jamie]

Jo,

I hope you are putting some of this in a blog that can be shared on Twitter or Facebook. If not, I've got a place. A whole lot of people should be reading this.

[birchie]

Jo,

Glad you enjoyed the CD!
I'm enjoying it again in hindsight waiting for my next chance to see the movie.

Too sad that the iconic Who Am I was left out. I wonder why they chose to do that, instead of cutting down a few of the other songs?

I thought the same thing especially when I listened to the Final Battle? I thought why is this here and not Who Am I???

But Hugh's changes in vocal delivery was astounding! I cannot believe how old he made himself sound at the end! And how embittered and then reformed he sounded in his first soliloquy!

Just an astonishing performance! best soliloquy I ever saw in terms of emotional impact! The final scene also astounding...he not only sounds old but looks like a tired worn out old man on his death bed.

*The film musical score sounded so fresh and did not overwhelm the singing parts. It is a film score, not the overwhelming sound of an orchestra in a concert! The dramatic, the sweet, and the powerful scenes were so skillfully accompanied by the orchestral sounds.

*I love the orchestrations! They are new even if they hark back to the original strains sounds of the first recordings.

So glad you brought up the score & orchestration! With so much to love about the movie I forgot to mention how much I loved the beautiful way the music was added. With so much work being done to the score and orchestrations and such a novel approach, adding it in after the filming was completed, it's a travesty that only the original song will be eligible for an Oscar!

The good news is that you will still be amazed, thrilled and emotionally enveloped when you see the songs performed in context as you watch the movie.
The bad news is...it's not soon enough!
Sue

[njr]

Loved it! Cried more than once! Went yesterday at 2:30 pm with my daughter and Mom. Everyone clapped at the end. Hugh definitely deserves an Oscar for his performance!

Nancy

[jo]

Friend Ivanka Trump thinks it, too ;D

Ivanka Trumpþ@IvankaTrump
If you haven't seen #lesMis yet you must go! @realhughjackman should take home the #Oscar. He was incredible as was the whole cast! #movie


Jo

[jo]

I came across this one on the Feedback section of Deadline Hollywood --


I am a man 65 years old and a veteran of the Viet Nam war. I let my wife and daughter talk me into going and experiencing the movie “Les Miserables” Was I shocked! I who hate musicals was so moved by this movie!! Absolutely wonderful story, music, and acting. I love the detail and the sets. Very cool.
Comment by steve mcfadden

Jo

[birchie]

Dec 27, 2012 20:33:18 GMT -5 jo said:

I came across this one on the Feedback section of Deadline Hollywood --


I am a man 65 years old and a veteran of the Viet Nam war. I let my wife and daughter talk me into going and experiencing the movie “Les Miserables” Was I shocked! I who hate musicals was so moved by this movie!! Absolutely wonderful story, music, and acting. I love the detail and the sets. Very cool.
Comment by steve mcfadden

Jo

My favorite type of comment. Let's hear it for all the converts! :-/ :-/

[meredith]

I went this afternoon!
I was absolutely blown away. It was nothing at all like I had expected. Completely raw and startling at times. I cried at least 8 times and really couldn't stop afterwards. Had to sit in the theater a few minutes to re-group at the end. I basically loved everything about it with very minor quibbles. Hugh and Anne were incredible and Oscar-worthy. Eddie is an amazing Marius and I just fell in love with him. I thought Tom Hooper did a fabulous job. I cannot understand why some are complaining about the filming and editing. I loved the way it was filmed! The close-ups, unusual angles and framing, shaky camera, etc. in my opinion all added to the feeling of unease necessary particularly within the first hour of the story and gave the entire movie a gritty and artistic edge that I found brilliant! I can't wait to go again hopefully on Saturday. It really is a unique experience that has changed my perception of movie musicals forever. ;D

The theater was 90% full for a 2:45 afternoon showing. Everyone applauded at the end. I'm not sure if anyone else was crying, I was too caught up in the story and my own tears :'( Afterwards, I did hear quite a few people saying how much they enjoyed it.

[klenotka]

Some of the theater fans sound so bitter to me. It is as if they were jealous or angry that Hugh IS a successful movie actor while many of their theater idols are not. I am not saying they don´t deserve to be but not every theater actor can and will make it and some just are not good for a movie and vice versa. I mean, Hugh, from all people, who is at home on stage, seems to be hated for some reason. That he acts first and sings later? As the others? For some reason, some people are just too focused on the singing, forgetting it´s a movie.


I read the name "Alfie Boe" more times than I would like to and I just don´t get it. Yes, we are all fans of someone but even though he sang beautifully, he was stiff and I can´t imagine him doing what Hugh did. Also, to leave the theater and dedicate 6 months of it into a movie that may or may not be successful? With his name on the poster? When 90% of people have never heard of him (me among them, I found him after I read about the movie casting and I like Les Miz very much but I didn´t get to see the 25th Concert before that)

*Rant over*

BUT, two of my musical theater fans friends went to an advanced screening (I can´t go because I am at work through the holidays) and they were excited. They loved it. Both are huge fans of the theater version and they loved Crowe (thought he was one of the best) but hated Anne for a terrible overacting. I guess different strokes for different folks but some people just hate too much and gladly that they can forget how to love something...