Les Misérables: The Motion Picture

[246015]

I am really surprised that there is not already a thread on here for this. I have just got back from seeing the film and for the most part I really enjoyed it.

HOWEVER...

My two BIG reservations are the leads – Hugh Jackman as Valjean and Russell Crowe as Javert. They are TOTALLY and UTTERLY miscast! Crowe is just vocally out of his depth for Javert, which hinders his acting ability. He comes across as wooden and shows no particular nuance or colour throughout the film. It is like he has to spend so much time concentrating on his singing that he forgets to act!

Jackman was wrong both physically and vocally for the part of Valjean, and for me, seemingly lacking in any sort of charisma. He just sounded AWFUL throughout the film! His voice was strained and uncomfortable, murdering “Bring Him Home” which I have never heard sung in such a vile way. He cannot float the voice at all and so creates a very muscular sound which does not work, instead of using the breath in the right way. It is strange to think that the keys were transposed for some parts of the score but not others . “Bring Him Home” for example was in the stage key (A major) which was far too high for him, so why didn’t he just get it transposed down a tone or two? I’m sure it would have come across much better. As it was, he totally destroyed the moment! In the finale when he sang to the tune of “Bring Him Home”, which I think was transposed down, he sounded much better.

Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen really failed to make any sort of impression as the Thénardiers.

Anne Hathaway was good and seems to have some control over her voice, but in my opinion, her performance is not worthy of the hype or indeed the award nominations with which she is being bestowed. For me, all of the “Supporting Actress” noms for this film should be given to Samantha Barks as Eponine, who really gave a stand out performance. She was very, VERY good - great acting, great singing and wonderful nuance of characterisation. It’s a shame that she is not getting more recognition. I had not taken much notice of her work before this, but I am now a fan, and actually, a little bit in love with her. It’s amazing really that Marius went for Amanda Seyfried’s sap of a Cosette!

In fact, the theatre “names” far out-shone their Hollywood counterparts (with the one exception being Eddie Redmayne as Marius, who really surprised me with how good he was). It was great to spot all of the West End talent throughout the film (such as Michael Jibson, wonderful as Addison in the Menier’s “Road Show” making a notable cameo as the factory foreman). Aaron Tveit was wonderful as Enjorlas. Really great singing!

I liked the score’s orchestrations. They really helped create subtext and highlight specific moments to which the audience were to take notice. It is also great to hear the score played by such a full orchestra.

I also liked the alternative order of some of the songs, particularly “I Dreamed A Dream”, which really worked dramatically. “Do You Hear The People Sing” stood out for me as well. It was brilliantly put together and really drove the dramatic moment. It gave the piece an added poignancy, particularly with the reprise started by Gavroche to boost morale at the barricade. It is a shame that this is not on the Soundtrack recording.

I didn’t like some of the cuts. In parts, it just made the film choppy and it did not always flow as a cohesive whole. I also thought that most of the lyric changes seemed rather arbitrary – they did not add anything at all and were not particularly needed.

“Suddenly”, the new song is pretty but nothing to write home about. It serves no purpose dramatically and sticks out like a sore thumb! It just seems thrown in so they can be eligible for a “Best Original Song” award. I’m sorry if that sounds cynical, but that it is just my opinion. They should have got rid of it and restored some of the cuts instead!

The cinematography was beautiful and I really liked the use of extreme close-up. There were also some beautiful touches in the film. A particular moment between Javert and Gavroche really got to me as it was so well done. I liked the Bishop's re-appearance in the epilogue as he made such a lasting impact on Valjean's life and his finding of religion was given much more prominence in the film. It certainly made much more sense than Eponine re-appearing as in the stage show. However, I found the very fact the Bishop was played by Colm Wilkinson bordered on cheesy. Overall, I felt that the film actually improved on the show in a lot of ways, certainly in regards to clarifying story and fleshing out some of the more two-dimensional characters.

I wish that Cam Mack wouldn't have been so concerned with getting Marquee names who do a second-rate job in the leads, and rather have been more concerned with getting people who could do this wonderful piece the justice it deserves. Surely "Les Misérables" is a name in itself by now? Despite my reservations, it is a good film, and I look forward to seeing it again.

[songanddanceman2]

Regarding Hatahaway i think your insane. I thought it was the best i have EVER seen that acted, such strength and fragility at the same time, it was painfully honest, i'm shocked you cant see why that is Oscar worthy.

Jackman i thought was great, Bring Him Home was strained but i thought his performance was very beautiful, not over the top, simple and effective, this is not the stage.

I agree in part regrading Crowe and his singing but i thought he acted the role pretty well actually.

Banks was very good but did not have the emotional range that Hathaway had, she was very theatre.

[Phantom of London]

Haven't seen it yet, bit early want to wait for the performances to get tighter.

[Stewart A]

I went to see the Les Miz this afternoon and I say thank goodness that at last somebody has made an excellent film musical as most of the ones in the last 20 years have been nothing to get excited about. I enjoyed Hairspray and Mamma Mia was good fun, although hardly a work of art. But Phantom was a let down, Evita was murdered by Madonna and Nine was a disaster. And I'm probably in the minority for not liking Chicagio much either.

I know that theatre and film are two totally different art forms but I felt that Les Miz is the first film to do a stage show any real justice. I think a major factor that made Les Miz work on film is the live singing as when a score is pre-recorded and the actors then lip sync when they are filmed it falls totally flat and is unconvincing. Singing live allows the actors to act properly and put in feeling, emotion, passion and conviction amongst other things.

Overall I enjoyed Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Valjean. I thought most of his singing was quite good but Bring Him Home was the big let down. I don't know about musical keys but did feel that Mr Jackman started too high and struggled to maintain it. I guess we have to remember that these are Hollywood actors in this film and not West End performers (although Mr Jackman has performed in the West End and Broadway) but he has more of a pop voice than the tenors we are use to singing this role.

Russell Crowe was not as bad as I was expecting. I think the two main problems were that Mr Crowe just wasn't menacing enough as the 'baddie' and he didn't have the vocal chops to play Javert. Mr Crowe had more of a rock voice which sounded out of place. The Soliloquy was okay but Stars was pretty bad - at the end the music just got louder as if to drown out Mr Crowe as he couldn't hit the final note (he couldn't get many notes if I'm honest).

I thought Anne Hathaway was stunning as Fantine as was Eddie Redmayne as Marius, Samantha Barks as Eponine and Aaron Tveit as Enjolras. Amanda Seyfried was good but it was a very small part so I don't know why she was in the top four billing of the movie along with Jackman, Crowe and Hathaway as she's not that big a name. Redmayne and Barks had much meatier roles and were on screen longer. Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thenadiers were adequate but didn't bring enough humour to their roles and were a bit too polished and not squalid enough. The actors playing the young Fantine and Gavroche were very good.

I've seen Les Miz on stage three times but not since 1992 so can't remember everything about it but I don't think any songs were cut from the film (cutting songs from stage shows when they are made into films is one of my gripes as I always feel short changed). I think changing the order of some of the songs worked well but not sure some of the dialogue changes were necessary. I liked the new song, Suddenly, but not sure it was necessary. I think the film was visually stunning and orchestrated very well. I was gripped from beginning to end and really enjoyed this film and it is without a doubt the best film musical I have ever seen. I also enjoyed seeing so many familair faces from musical theatre playing smaller or ensemble roles.

I always compare the film musical with the stage show, which I know is wrong, but Les Miz is definitely one that has transferred well from stage to screen and not been a disappointment. Hopefully any future film musicals will adopt the idea of live singing as it makes an enormous difference to the performances and makes it more believable.

Well done to all involved - I can't wait for the DVD and might go and see the film again.

[WestEndAndy]

OK here goes.

First of all I think it is worth remembering that this is not a film of the stage version. That may sound obvious but a lot of the comments I have read have been direct comparisons with this or that favourite performance on stage.

Musicals are a strange hybrid between theatre and music and very hard to pull off successfully. I have lost count of the number of failed new musicals I have seen.

A good film musical is even harder to achieve. The aim must be to create a seamless whole, without the necessary ups and downs and star turns that we expect in a stage show. Films have a totally different flow. They build slowly and need time to cast their spell. Realism is essential. Whereas theatre relies a lot on our imaginations, everything must be there in plain sight on screen or we feel cheated.

I thought the decision to film the songs in close-up was a good one as it draws the audience into the mind of the characters. Obviously it depends on top quality performances, and for the most part this film gets them. The weakest for me was Barks as Eponine, whose face in close-up lacked expression compared with Hathaway or Jackman, although her singing was good.

I actually found Hugh Jackmann's Valjean completely convincing dramatically. He brought a strength combined with sweetness in a way that touched me greatly.
Funnily enough the two numbers that made we want to cry were 'Suddenly' and 'Bring Him Home'. I don't mind the fact that he can't quite sing in tune the whole time and his voice can sound scratchy. What matters is that I believed totally in his character and in the emotion truthfulness of the songs.

Crowe's Javert was much more successful than I expected, and I loved the transition on the last note of 'Stars' into the funeral scene. He gives a different quality of sadness to his performance which moved me. In a way he and Javert are two lonely people who are destined to meet and change each other for better or worse.

The Thenadiers were fine and Redmayne is a real star in the making. The camera loves him, and he can sing.

Lastly, I loved the orchestrations, with their use of soft chamber music strings in the quiet passages. The arrangement of 'Do You Hear the People Sing' is thrilling and the chorus singing quite wonderful. From my seat in the rear stalls of the Odeon Leicester Square the balance was perfect. The applause at the end was spontaneous and quite justified.

You can always find faults if you want but I cannot see how a film of this fabulous show could be better done. And I think Hugo would agree.

[Stewart A]

As I said, I know it's wrong to compare stage musicals with the film versions but I think a lot of people will find it hard not to. Les Miz is the 'worlds most popular musical', it has been on in the West End for 27 years, played in dozens of countries, there are countless recordings and two DVDs of filmed concert versions. I think a good majority of people who go to see the film will have either seen it on stage, seen the concerts on TV or DVD or have one of the CDs, so be familiar with the show to some extent. So it is very hard to watch the film objectively. It's a bit like reading a favourite book and then seeing the film version - a person will have expectations.

I mostly agree that a film version of Les Miz could not have been done much better but think one or two of the roles could have been better cast.

[Parsley]

Enjoyed it despite the poor vocals of Crowe although he acted Javert very well. And yes the moment with gavroche was powerful. Just wish he had been dubbed as javert's suicide did not have anything like the impact it should have had with the weak lead-up vocally.

Sam Barks was good if a bit too stagey and obvious. Redmayne was excellent and a million miles away from the utter travesty that was Jonas in the concert. Empty chairs was beautiful and heart wrenching. Jackman was vocally sound but acted convincingly with much screen presence. Aaron T barely made an impact at all sadly. And Amanda s was serviceable. But even in the stage show I have barely seen a Colette who shines or even rises above bland.

Hathaway was quite acceptable as fantine. Nice version of her song but her performance was enhanced more by the filming and direction that her vocals and acting (both of which were good)

A well made film and I felt the cuts mostly worked well to make it a very different experiience to the stage show and once I got over the somewhat low key delivery of many of the songs initially it worked for me

[Stewart A]

Where here any notable cuts? It's been 20 years since I saw Les Miz on stage - maybe I need to go again. I don't think any songs were cut were they?

Oh and don't even get me started on Nick Jonas in the 25th anniversary concert! Eddie Redmayne shows how it should be done.

[Jonwo]

Dog Eat Dog was cut but in terms of length, it's only slightly shorter than the stage show. I thought it was a great film although I did some issues with the direction such as the use of closeups which worked brilliantly in some numbers but fell flat in others.

I did enjoy playing spot the West End performers although I think the film needs a rewatch just to see who I missed out.

[turquoisefish]

I saw the film yesterday and loved it. Booking was interesting when the popcorn and ticket seller said it was very long with lots of singing, he didn't think it needed so much singing! (I tried explaining the previous 'straight' versions).
I liked all the casting, especially that film meant the cast could be so big!
I think it is really hard not to compare this to the versions that have gone before and the direction and casting IS different to on the stage. It has to be. I didn't understand why they made so many minor lyric changes, obviously some were needed due to different order or setting but some seemed like change for change's sake.

I would like to pick up on Russell Crowe. I don't think he was a particularly bad singer but it was sung in a different way to what I am used to. This is the first time that I have really 'got' the character of Javert from the performance, especially the scene where he admits to the false report. It is clear that his conviction to right and wrong is so strong. Yes a little is lost as the final note of his suicide is over before he jumps but that is rather a 'stagy' thing anyway. The moment between Javert and dead Gavroche got me right in the feels.

I just want to find another chance to see it again in the cinema!

[246015]

I just wanted to clarify a few things from my initial post.

I would not want a film to be a replica of the stage production. That would not work at all; in the same way I do not expect the actors in the film to be stunning singers. Belting out a tune as you would on the stage, would just be too much on screen. However this is still a MUSICAL film and I want at least some vocal prowess. That way, it would seem more natural for these characters to be singing, and as an audience member you can buy them and their motivations more easily, so much so that you may forget they are singing. With Hugh Jackman, I was constantly thinking throughout the film about his inability to sing the score, and so I felt instantly disconnected from his character and did not believe him as Valjean. That is why, when musical theatre performers were on screen, the film instantly lifted to another level entirely for me, and there was nothing remotely "stagey" about their performances.

I also found some of the performances too "act-erly". In other words, it was almost as if they were saying "look at me, I am acting", rather than LIVING and BEING the part.

I felt that Hathaway was helped by the direction more than by her own performance (that is not to say I thought her performance was bad, because it was indeed very, very good, just not as good as the hype would suggest). The very fact that it was just a close-up of her with no cutting during “I Dreamed a Dream” for example created a stillness and therefore made it that much more powerful.

I however liked the gritty, realism of the film and the emphasis on the poverty of people at this time, rather than the blatant heroism that is in the original production.

[rockyhorrorfan]

I thought the film was great. I didn't have any problem with Crowe's voice. Some have compared him to Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. Crowe has a low range but was never flat like Brosnan.

Hathaway's I Dreamed A Dream is certainly the most moving version I've ever seen as was Redmayne's Empty Chairs At Empty Tables (which I've never found particularly moving on stage).

I thought Jackman was excellent as Valjean (although nobody can match Colm Wilkinson).

The only letdown casting wise for me was Sacha Baron Cohen as Thenardier. His voice sounded quite flat a lot of the time. Helena Bonham Carter was better as Madame Thenardier.

[SoonerOrLater]

I'll not write much as many points have already been made.

I think the way the film has been made is a real innovation in musical films, the direction/approach to filming the music and the emphasis on the performances is something to counter the perceptions of Jazz hands and sequins (or Pierce Brosnan on a Greek Island) many people may have. Visually I thought the film was stunning too.

My main issue, like many was Crowe. He may have a perfectly deccent voice (he's in a band isn't he?) but it isn't the right voice or power for Javert. Some acting he got spot on (the confession about the false report one example) but others completely missed the mark for me.

Jackman was great I thought, though the style of direction (or maybe the takes used at least) meant for some songs I expected more from his voice, but I think that was a directorial/performance choice than any slight on his singing.