Les Miserables

Hope I spelled that right...

I've been hearing this touted as "the greatest story ever told" and similar praise of late. Probably a bit too high-brow for me, I think, but I'd like to hear some opinions from fans of the story/movie as to what it's about and why it's so great.

Its a 19th century sappy story about the poor pathetic stuggles of an ex-con. Its typical French stuff. I suffered through the play, I'm not about to suffer through the movie... Although I am told that Russel Crowe kind of blows in this movie but the other actors carry the show.

The movie is based on the theatrical musical, which is based on a book written in the 1860's. The book, via wikipedia, "is widely considered one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century", and the musical is one of the most popular ever produced (ranking up there with The Phantom of the Opera. The London production began in 1985, and has run continuously since.

In short, among theater-goers, it's one of the top shows you can see. I'm not a fan of cinema productions of theater masterworks, especially since there will be an element of society that will think a 30-year old musical and 150-year old book are based on a movie they saw last week. And producing a show for cinema loses some of the greatness of the theater. (For instance, RENT in a live action theater is one of the most incredible experiences I think you can have, and completely immerses you in the story and production, using a bare-bones set. The movie, on the other hand, while good, is just another movie with a lot of singing.)

I don't really know anything concerning the play or the movie, but the book is quite good.

Rick

headbanger said:

Hope I spelled that right...

I've been hearing this touted as "the greatest story ever told" and similar praise of late. Probably a bit too high-brow for me, I think, but I'd like to hear some opinions from fans of the story/movie as to what it's about and why it's so great.

Click to expand...

Yes, my words.

I'm very biased since I've read the book twice (no small feat), seen it performed on stage 3 times, listened to the soundtrack an embarrassing number of times, and of course seen the various movies including the latest.

The description above by BigB is about right. It's a sappy story of an ex-convict who makes good. It is epic in that the story follows this man through his life, and especially focuses on his efforts to raise the daughter of one of his employees.

It's a great, great story. It's also very leftist as it parallels a French revolution and is always from the point of view of the working class. I highly recommend reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right after this to get yourself back to the center

The latest movie was REALLY sappy, but it also was essentially the stage play on the screen. Same music, nearly the same lyrics. and the story remained untouched from the play. All the characters are represented VERY well except the character of Inspector Javert, played by Russell Crowe. Crowe acts well, and played the part well, but this was a musical and Russell Crowe fell down there. Next to the amazing voice of Hugh Jackman, Crowe sounds like me singing. Use your imagination.

I've seen phantom a couple of times too. I like this show better.

For anyone interested in the movie, there was a previous one starring Liam Neeson and Clair Danes. No singing. If you are really interested, just pick up the book and get started. It's long, with too much french military history in it, but the whole unabridged story is there. Victor Hugo also wrote Hunchback of Notre Dame which is a great read.

I was dragged to it during the Christmas break....and really enjoyed it. It even has Sacha
Baron Cohen.

I was drug in also. After the first 15 or20 minutes I was ready to walk out. By the end of the movie I really liked it. My 10 year old step daughter felt the same way. I would recommend it without reservation.

Jboyles123 said:

I was drug in also. After the first 15 or20 minutes I was ready to walk out. By the end of the movie I really liked it. My 10 year old step daughter felt the same way. I would recommend it without reservation.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Definitely drag a chick to it

My wife went with me. She surprising really liked it, and she wasn't a fan of the stage production.

At least 4 couples left in the first hour. It's probably not for everyone. All that singing. No dance numbers though, in case anyone was wondering.

The stage play is one of my favorites. Les Mis was the first date for the wife and I and we've seen it at least twice since then. So we were very hopeful going into the movie. Disappointed is probably the wrong word for it as I think it was still a good movie, but I'm not sure if it was going to be possible to live up to our expectations. Russell Crowe is definitely a big part of that. Javert's songs can be so great and it's not that his voice is bad, but it's just wrong for the part. For the most part I thought the rest of the cast ranged from very good to great and Hugh Jackman was awesome. I think our biggest disappointment was what seemed like a lack of energy in a lot of the movie. While the freedom of not being confined to a stage helped in some parts, I think it also kept me from being drawn in as much as I have been when seeing it live.

Probably the biggest problem is the number of times we've watched and listened to the 10th anniversary celebration concert. That will cement in your brain how the songs are supposed to sound and it sets a very high bar.

I was first turned on to Les Mis (as the Hipsters call it) with the Liam Nieson version, which quickly became one of my favorite movies. It was a great movie.

I soon saw the stage version of Les Mis and it was--coming from a person who doesn't like pretentious stage actors--****ing awesome.

I have NOT seen the new version, but judging from my like/love of the Liam Nieson move plus the fact that S. B. Cohen plays the Master of the House (vis-a-vis the stage play) I'm sure I'll like it. I haven't read the book because I'm a pretentious American and I haven't found an un-abridged version at my locan B & N.

Anyways, yes, high-brow, but only because they're french. You can like the movie/story; and anyone who isn't a communist will.

So, here'e my take on it.

Valjean (Jackman): just amazing. Jackman has range, can hold a note, and can act at the same time as singing. I don't know his background but there must be some serious broadway there. Who am I: 24601.

Monseigneur Sumthing: This is the priest who Valjean stays with when he cannot find work. Gives candlesticks to Valjean, and buys his soul for God. This guy looked and played the part perfectly. This scene is the pivitol inflection point in the movie. "Another story must begin"!

Fantine (Hathaway): great acting, a bit over the top but consistent with the stage production, excellent singing, very nice at the end of movie (with old Valjean).

Cossette - Young (?): excellent little actress, great little voice.

Cossette - Adult (?): excellent acress, great pixie-voice with appealing vibrato; plays great with Valjean and Marius

Marius (?): This guy can sing. Looks more irish than french, but played the part well.

Gavroche (sp?): This kid was dynomite. Hard to understand in his first appearances, but played his final scene with touching perfection.

Javert (Crowe): Turd. Acted well enough, but man he just can't sing. Ruined many of the signature songs in the movie. The confrontation scene with Valjean, the "fall" at the bridge, etc. If the rest of the cast wasn't so, so strong, he could have sank this movie.

Who'd I miss?

So, here'e my take on it.

Valjean (Jackman): just amazing. Jackman has range, can hold a note, and can act at the same time as singing. I don't know his background but there must be some serious broadway there. Who am I: 24601.

Monseigneur Sumthing: This is the priest who Valjean stays with when he cannot find work. Gives candlesticks to Valjean, and buys his soul for God. This guy looked and played the part perfectly. This scene is the pivitol inflection point in the movie. "Another story must begin"!

Fantine (Hathaway): great acting, a bit over the top but consistent with the stage production, excellent singing, very nice at the end of movie (with old Valjean).

Cossette - Young (?): excellent little actress, great little voice.

Cossette - Adult (?): excellent acress, great pixie-voice with appealing vibrato; plays great with Valjean and Marius

Marius (?): This guy can sing. Looks more irish than french, but played the part well.

Gavroche (sp?): This kid was dynomite. Hard to understand in his first appearances, but played his final scene with touching perfection.

Javert (Crowe): Turd. Acted well enough, but man he just can't sing. Ruined many of the signature songs in the movie. The confrontation scene with Valjean, the "fall" at the bridge, etc. If the rest of the cast wasn't so, so strong, he could have sank this movie.

Who'd I miss?

Oh yea, forgot about the Thenardiers

Madame (Helen Boname Carter): Ok. I like her a lot, and she played the part, but I couldn't understand her. Probably me.

Monsieur (Borat guy): I hated Borat. So, I went in with poor expectations. But this guy was great.

And he and Madame played the parts perfectly together. I think there were a few extra lines thrown into the score that I didn't recognize for them. They were very entertaining (in a different way than in the play). Very funny these two. That's their role in the play too.

Note: they were not funny in the book. They were low and completely evil.

SpacemanSpiff said:

I think our biggest disappointment was what seemed like a lack of energy in a lot of the movie. While the freedom of not being confined to a stage helped in some parts, I think it also kept me from being drawn in as much as I have been when seeing it live.

Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY my complaint with the RENT movie. The stage show is an in-your-face, loud, rock concert disguised as a musical that feeds on the intimacy of the live show - bumping up against and somewhat breaking the fourth wall*. You feel the emotions, heck, the band is right there on stage rocking out the whole time. The movie, it's background music, and you're a spectator.

*In theater, the Forth Wall is the invisible plane at the front of the stage, separating the actors from the audience that is typically treated like it's one-way glass; we (the audience) can see what's on stage, but to those on stage, the audience doesn't exist. When a performance calls for an actor to interact with - or even acknowledge the presence of - the audience, he/she is said to be breaking the fourth wall.

Jboyles123 said:

I was drug in also. After the first 15 or20 minutes I was ready to walk out. By the end of the movie I really liked it. My 10 year old step daughter felt the same way. I would recommend it without reservation.

Click to expand...

The night I went you wouldn't have needed a reservation anyhow.

passedpawn said:

Oh yea, forgot about the Thenardiers

Madame (Helen Boname Carter): Ok. I like her a lot, and she played the part, but I couldn't understand her. Probably me.

Monsieur (Borat guy): I hated Borat. So, I went in with poor expectations. But this guy was great.

And he and Madame played the parts perfectly together. I think there were a few extra lines thrown into the score that I didn't recognize for them. They were very entertaining (in a different way than in the play). Very funny these two. That's their role in the play too.

Note: they were not funny in the book. They were low and completely evil.

Click to expand...

I'm not gonna comment on Les Mis since I've seen the play too many times and Liam Neeson movie too many times that I don't want to watch it ever again, but if all you know Sasha Baron Cohen as is Borat, you need to watch Hugo at least, guy is awesome. I personally love Ali G and Borat, but even if you hate them you have to love him in Hugo.

passedpawn said:

Monseigneur Sumthing: This is the priest who Valjean stays with when he cannot find work. Gives candlesticks to Valjean, and buys his soul for God. This guy looked and played the part perfectly. This scene is the pivitol inflection point in the movie. "Another story must begin"!

Click to expand...

He was the original Valjean on Broadway. Colm Wilkinson I believe.

passedpawn said:

So, here'e my take on it.

Valjean (Jackman): just amazing. Jackman has range, can hold a note, and can act at the same time as singing. I don't know his background but there must be some serious broadway there. Who am I: 24601.

Monseigneur Sumthing: This is the priest who Valjean stays with when he cannot find work. Gives candlesticks to Valjean, and buys his soul for God. This guy looked and played the part perfectly. This scene is the pivitol inflection point in the movie. "Another story must begin"!

Fantine (Hathaway): great acting, a bit over the top but consistent with the stage production, excellent singing, very nice at the end of movie (with old Valjean).

Cossette - Young (?): excellent little actress, great little voice.

Cossette - Adult (?): excellent acress, great pixie-voice with appealing vibrato; plays great with Valjean and Marius

Marius (?): This guy can sing. Looks more irish than french, but played the part well.

Gavroche (sp?): This kid was dynomite. Hard to understand in his first appearances, but played his final scene with touching perfection.

Javert (Crowe): Turd. Acted well enough, but man he just can't sing. Ruined many of the signature songs in the movie. The confrontation scene with Valjean, the "fall" at the bridge, etc. If the rest of the cast wasn't so, so strong, he could have sank this movie.

Who'd I miss?

Click to expand...

Boy, I've got to say I really disagree with your review of Hugh Jackman's singing--I thought it was totally amateurish. Agree with everything else--good to great performances by the no-names (and by Anne Hathaway, who did much better than either of the other Hollywood big names, I thought), but the two male leads absolutely could NOT carry their singing parts, and made it hard to listen to at points. Jackman I was especially surprised by, since he's done so much Broadway, I was expecting better. Crowe, I expected him to not be terrific, and my expectations were met.

Overall, I thought the movie was really tedious, and strangely shot (something line 2/3 of the movie is all close-up face shots of the actors singing...it's really discomfiting). It doesn't give you a good sense of scene for much of the movie--one exception I thought was the scene at the inn ("Master of the House") with Sacha Baron Cohen and Tim Burton's wife (can't remember her name), which I thought was very nicely shot.

I have to say, I wasn't keen on going to see this--I enjoy musicals and plays, but almost never like plays adapted for the screen (except Chicago--terrific!). I've seen Les Mis on the stage and have read the book (in French and English), but didn't enjoy the earlier film adaptation either. With this one, I brought a flask into the movie and was, unfortunately, sobering up by about half way through. It's so plodding and long that by the end I just wanted to be put out of my misery. If I had been there by myself I wouldn't have stayed for the whole thing.

I know a lot of people liked it, so maybe I'm judging it too harshly, but I didn't find it entertaining--just tedious, sung by mediocre leads, and poorly shot/directed. And SOOO long!

Life sucks.
Then you die.
Oh, your principles suck too.

OTOH, I liked it, great sets, and good time transitions. The movie was very good in increasing the size of the crowd, giving you France rather than just a stage.
Crowe, not anywhere near as bad as the music EACs make him out to be. You wouldn't want him on a soundtrack, but was a very good believable Javert.
Overall, Les Mis rates a light 4 stars out of 5. Think Samuel Adams Boston Lager, a crowd pleaser.