Les Miserables

Run do not walk to see this movie as soon as possible! It was fantastic and very moving.

Quote: FrGamble

Run do not walk to see this movie as soon as possible! It was fantastic and very moving.

I keep hearing the same thing from others as well.

We were required to read the book in grade school (or middle school?). I don't remember anything from the book,
except that I hated it. I'm tempted to see it one afternoon, since EVERYONE says it's fantastic; but I just don't know.

As a veteran of many visits to see Broadway's Les Miz, my fellow traveler, who just saw the film told me to wait for the musical to come back to Broadway.

:)

Here's some of his critique:

The Gladiator can't sing. "Stars" was ruined.
The Thénardiers were not the comic relief that they are supposed to be.
Anybody who dies while singing swallows their dying line so that it's incomprehensible.

Other than that, it was okay.

I'll wait for the DVD.

Quote: s2dbaker

The Gladiator can't sing. "Stars" was ruined.
The Thénardiers were not the comic relief that they are supposed to be.
Anybody who dies while singing swallows their dying line so that it's incomprehensible.

Other than that, it was okay.

Hmm, maybe try Lincoln.

I enjoyed that more than I thought I would.

[spoiler, he dies]

Quote: s2dbaker

As a veteran of many visits to see Broadway's Les Miz, my fellow traveler, who just saw the film told me to wait for the musical to come back to Broadway.

I don't think you can ever expect a movie to live up to a book or a theatrical performance. That's why you only pay $10 for a movie versus hundreds of dollars for the trip and the cost of the tickets to a show.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think you can ever expect a movie to live up to a book or a theatrical performance. That's why you only pay $10 for a movie versus hundreds of dollars for the trip and the cost of the tickets to a show.

Nothing will ever be better than a book.

But movies eat theater shows as a pre-breakfast snack. The reason theater shows are more expensive than movies is simple: 1) you produce the movie only once, but you produce the play anew each performance. 2) You can show the movie in as many theaters as you want, while you can show the play only in one theater at a time.

Quote: FrGamble

Run do not walk to see this movie as soon as possible! It was fantastic and very moving.

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I heard rumblings that Russell Crowe was the equivalent of Pierce Brosnan in "Mamma Mia". Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with having actual singers perform the songs in movies, and I would actually prefer it if the actor doesn't have the chops. "West Side Story" is one of my favorite musicals, and I didn't miss Natalie Wood's real singing voice at all.

Tom Hooper, the director, made some bold choices in this film. The look is gritty and hyper-realistic. It appears that many of the actors/actresses are not wearing makeup. Shots are tight, and cuts are few during many of the solo musical numbers. This forces the audience to focus on the individual's face as they wring the emotion out of the lyrics. I think this is why I enjoyed it more than I expected. It was not a stage production captured on film, it was grander because it could be.

However, if you love the music, buy a Susan Boyle CD to listen to on the way home. Russell Crowe's singing voice in the film will give you fits. My wife declared him, "The Weakest Link". I didn't think he was that bad, but I was more into the acting and the film as craft, than the music.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with having actual singers perform the songs in movies, and I would actually prefer it if the actor doesn't have the chops. "West Side Story" is one of my favorite musicals, and I didn't miss Natalie Wood's real singing voice at all.

Back in 1961 they still thought it was important to overdub a good voice over an actress. Besides Natalie Wood was really the only one who couldn't sing.

I think the critical junction was 1972 when they released the film version of Man of La Mancha with movie actors (Peter O'Toole and Sophie Loren) who not only played the roles, but tried to sing them as well. The result is basically horrific.

But it seems as if that failure was not enough to convince producers to cast all stage performers for future musicals.

Evita had three good candidates for the movie. Julie Covington did the original album recording. Elaine Paige played her in the original London cast. Patti LuPone originated the role on broadway. Instead they went with Madonna.

So basically, I can expect to cringe when I hear Russel Crowe and Hugh Jackman sing their great duet.

Quote: Pacomartin

Evita had three good candidates for the movie.

So? All "serious" musicals are basically ridiculous anyway. I mean, people suddenly singing is absurd. And one is supposed to believe the songs are real, spur of the moment things. Come on. To this day, I can't see a "serious" musical without laughing when the singing starts. It works well on Disney cartoons because, well, cartoons are already fantasy anyway. So, sure, Jaffar can sing rather than talk. it's still silly, but in the context it works. It's also ok in a commedy, like The Producers, becasue that, too, is supposed to be absurd or fantastic anyway (if anything The Producers lays it on too thick with the actual dialogue).

But in a serious work it just spoils the story. Even if the songs make sense, and even if they're good songs. about the only one I can half buy, in some aprts, is The Sound of Music. Specifically when Maria is teaching the children music by singing. But the rest, that's just hilarious.

Quote: Nareed

So? All "serious" musicals are basically ridiculous anyway...

I think they call it "Opera", and many folks consider it "high art". I'm not a fan, and agree with you regarding how silly it would be if folks burst out into musical numbers in real life, but when it is done right, I think the music adds to the drama, and can be quite enjoyable and effective.

If characters are not actually singing lines, music is still such a powerful part of film, that the score, and even the ambient background music is given a huge amount of attention in every major motion picture.

Can you imagine Alfred Hitchcock's, "Psycho" without music?