[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

Sorry folks. It is such a horrible title that it puts me, and I suspect many others, right off it. Now I hear it is mostly sung, that is the death knell. Why couldn't they do it properly and just have a better title? And of course dump that X factor song.

I realise this is probably stupid, and I have probably missed some good things, but that is just how it is, for me anyway.

"I dreamed a dream" was done by Sue-Bo on Britain's Got Talent not X factor. Also the film version is sung so completely and utterly different from the version she did that it's no comparable. (However, not exactly happier!)

So let's retitle it "Carry On Up Your Frogs Legs" and only feather songs Justin Bieber would do about being really in love for 12 year olds.

Film finishes with the great sing along number "We're having a gang bang"

And only 3 songs allowed with the spoken words not even allowed to rhyme.

Good luck at the cinema when they show that as you will be the only one there!

[bacchantic enigma]

Originally Posted by tally

Um, you do realise that "X Factor Song"....actually Britains' Got Talent. was composed in the 80's and is an essential part of the 27 year old musical.It'd had been a huge hit for 20 odd years before SuBo went viral and brought it to a whole new generation. Yup surprise, it's a multi award winning MUSICAL. So, guess what, there's music, lots of it! As for the title, guess you'd better go back a couple of hundred years and blame the author.

I have no problem with people hating musicals, or indeed any type of film, but sometimes it's better to say noting at all than prove you have absolutely no inkling of what you're on about. I howled with laughter at the idiocy of it.

I'd stick to cartoons if I were you. But you do get "post of the thread" for me. I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

I demand Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is retitled to S^d it!

That Ron and Julie's balcony scene should be cut too.

[sixtynotout]

Originally Posted by bacchantic enigma

I demand Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is retitled to S^d it!

That Ron and Julie's balcony scene should be cut too.

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

"I dreamed a dream" was done by Sue-Bo on Britain's Got Talent not X factor. Also the film version is sung so completely and utterly different from the version she did that it's no comparable. (However, not exactly happier!)

So let's retitle it "Carry On Up Your Frogs Legs" and only feather songs Justin Bieber would do about being really in love for 12 year olds.

Film finishes with the great sing along number "We're having a gang bang"

And only 3 songs allowed with the spoken words not even allowed to rhyme.

Good luck at the cinema when they show that as you will be the only one there!

Two briliiants posts. I'm still laughing my head off!

[BastardBeaver]

Woo have finally just been to see it and I'm a bit lost for words by how great it was.

The first 10 minutes I was a bit unsure - the sound didn't seem great and I thought some lines were getting lost in the action. But when we got to At The End Of The Day, it really picked up and I was absorbed from then till the finish.

Anne Hathaway was truly amazing. I haven't been so moved by a performance at the cinema in a long time.

Hugh Jackman blew me away. I haven't really followed his career but his turn as Jean Valjean has now made me want to check out his back catalogue.

Russell Crowe, yes perhaps was the weak link, but he was by no means awful.

I went to see it with a Les Mis virgin, and she was in tears about 6 times during the film. I cried twice and at the exact same points that I cried watching the stage version.

The younger cast were outstanding also.

Ahh, I can't really put into words how much I loved it. Gonna go and see it again, and can't wait for the DVD.

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

Sorry folks. It is such a horrible title that it puts me, and I suspect many others, right off it. Now I hear it is mostly sung, that is the death knell. Why couldn't they do it properly and just have a better title? And of course dump that X factor song.

Why couldn't you take a little time to research what Les Misérables actually is?

The title comes from the Victor Hugo novel that's been around for 150 years now.

The other source for the film is the eponymous musical which is sung-through entirely.

The song you so disparagingly refer to is from the original score of the musical, and one of most iconic songs from it. (and it was sung on Britain's Got Talent, by the way, not the X Factor)

In other words, they did do it properly. And it's not hard to find that out


ETA: This is the serious, annoyed version of the far more amusing replies you've already got - I can't top those

[tally]

Originally Posted by sixtynotout

Two briliiants posts. I'm still laughing my head off!

Me too.

But I'm finding I'm laughing in agreement at Kolin's posts more and more. They're witty and spot on. Stop it KK. Too much laughter is bad for my image

[Pamthehound]

Just seen it , very good indeed and would reccommend it. Mind you not as good as in the west end on stage.


Russel Crowe was awful and weak.Whoever cast him must have been on the wacky baccy , also Cohen as Jardiner the innkeeper was badly cast as well. The guy who does the west end versions for both characters were far better. I also thought that the screenply and general overall story line excellent.

So all in all very good film, if Crowe and Cohen had been replaced it would had been excellent.

BTW Redmayne was brillant as Marius as was Couisette and Fantizne ( who I believe plays the same part in the west end).

[tally]

Sorry, being anal, but Thenardier Cosette and Fantine have been played by so many different actors it's impossible to keep track. I've seen 13 totally different casts, some better than others, some outstanding.

So you cant tag a character to one particular actor. Were Amanda Siegfried and Samantha Barks even born when it opened? Indeed were most of the students and whores?

I have my dream cast, but as many of them are way too old for their original parts it's never going to happen. And with finds like Samantha Barks, it doesn't matter - the future looks bright.

[Gort]

Originally Posted by Mystical123

Why couldn't you take a little time to research what Les Misérables actually is?

ETA: This is the serious, annoyed version of the far more amusing replies you've already got - I can't top those

Judging from his Pan's Labyrinth is torture porn posts in the thread dealing with that excellent Spanish fantasy film, I suspect he's on the wind-up. But, yeah, I suppose there is some comedy distraction to be had.

[M. Tourette]

Oh dear I can see I am in the minority here...
I really didn't like it, I thought it was very dull, The direction was really awful and apart from six moments in the whole film very little else lived on in my brain after seeing it.

I liked the boat pulling at the beginning,
ValJean in the graveyard on the mountain Tearing the paper.
The workers in the factory with their blue costumes and white stripped background (but then that gets used in every set! as if sponsored by nitromoors paint stripper)
The State Funeral,
Gavroche on the back of the carriage,
Cosette, Epinone and Marius's threesome when she kills the butterfly on the gate.

Otherwise it was all close ups of faces and dull direction.
When you consider I Dreamed A Dream could have been as good as Carol Reeds work in As Long As He Needs Me in Oliver, you then realise how boring the film is and does nothing to give an insight into the characters. Maybe given a better director Crowe would not have seemed so weak.

Don't get me wrong, The musical is great, the story is good, Hugh Jackman gives a really good performance but there was so much that was lifeless and It could have been brilliant in the right hands... but this will hardly have any shelf life at all, I bet we will have forgotten about it by next year.

[bacchantic enigma]

Originally Posted by sixtynotout

Two briliiants posts. I'm still laughing my head off!

Originally Posted by M. Tourette

Oh dear I can see I am in the minority here...
I really didn't like it, I thought it was very dull, The direction was really awful and apart from six moments in the whole film very little else lived on in my brain after seeing it.

I liked the boat pulling at the beginning,
ValJean in the graveyard on the mountain Tearing the paper.
The workers in the factory with their blue costumes and white stripped background (but then that gets used in every set! as if sponsored by nitromoors paint stripper)
The State Funeral,
Gavroche on the back of the carriage,
Cosette, Epinone and Marius's threesome when she kills the butterfly on the gate.

Otherwise it was all close ups of faces and dull direction.
When you consider I Dreamed A Dream could have been as good as Carol Reeds work in As Long As He Needs Me in Oliver, you then realise how boring the film is and does nothing to give an insight into the characters. Maybe given a better director Crowe would not have seemed so weak.

Don't get me wrong, The musical is great, the story is good, Hugh Jackman gives a really good performance but there was so much that was lifeless and It could have been brilliant in the right hands... but this will hardly have any shelf life at all, I bet we will have forgotten about it by next year.

Ah but that is an informed decision and at least you don't think Cosette, Marius and Eponine should be using their reet Northern names Rita, Bob and Sue

[blacksuit42]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

Sorry folks. It is such a horrible title that it puts me, and I suspect many others, right off it. Now I hear it is mostly sung, that is the death knell. Why couldn't they do it properly and just have a better title? And of course dump that X factor song.

I realise this is probably stupid, and I have probably missed some good things, but that is just how it is, for me anyway.

Wow, just, wow. I'm actually speechless at the stupidity of this post.
"That X factor song" wasn't sung on X factor, and wad famous WAY before SuBo came and ruined it. You really should think before opening your mouth! Try going and banging some stones together or something.
Les Miserables is named after a book written in the 1850s... so whilst you're at it, why don't you petition to get Oliver Twist renamed, or War and Peace.

[guestofseth]

I liked it but it felt like it was missing something to me, I just felt that it could have been much better than it was. The performances were all there, great from all involved (Russell Crowe was the weak link, yes, but not dire) with Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks (she's got big things ahead of her) and the actors playing the young Cosette and Gavroche as standouts. Despite that, the film just didn't come together as it should, the orchestra seemed weak in places, and the direction was poor and mundane imo.

It's a shame these big musical films always have one thing that stops them being brilliant, Chicago had Catherine Zeta Jones, Les Miserables has Tom Hooper.

I know I'm being rather vague, but normally my film criticism comes down to either "good" or "bad" , also I probably need to watch it again to realise what exactly was missing.

Oscars wise - Anne Hathaway should win and probably will, and I hope Suddenly wins over the awful Skyfall, but that's it. I don't think it'll win any more or deserves to, Hugh Jackman was great, although tbh I was slightly disappointed, but from the trailer before the film Daniel Day Lewis seems so much better.

[SULLA]

Originally Posted by allthatyouwant

The only slight negative I have is with Eddie Redymane, yes his solo song was good but I thought overall he was wooden and showed no emotion especially in the scene where Jean Valjean is bearing his soul to him, he was smiling!!

Eddie did have rather silly hair

Originally Posted by Verence

I've always thought Eponine is far too good for a drip like Marius

Good point

Originally Posted by archie2000

J
My really big bug-bear though is Sacha Baron Cohen and Helen Bonham-Carter were totally miscast as the Therniers.
Why did he start talking and singing in a foreign sounding accent at the beginning and for the rest of the film, no hint of an accent?

That's surely the fault of the director

Originally Posted by tally

This is where the decision to film the singing live had to be balanced against the inevitable strains on the vocals. Take after take for up to 12 hours is naturally going to affect the pitch, but it gives it such raw emotion that, for me, it paid off. Just watching Anne and Hugh's faces with their superb acting made the movie for me.

I am puzzled as to how it can be described as live when they do so many takes. You only get one chance on stage.

Originally Posted by ironjade

This is cringemakingly awful. I managed about 15 minutes but I couldn't stand any more.

Originally Posted by ironjade

It the first 15 minutes made a steam iron to the genitals look like an attractive alternative why on earth would I want to see any more?

Originally Posted by Lucy Lou

...ouch was it really that bad?

No. He just went in the wrong screen

Originally Posted by grimtales1

I'm unsure about seeing the film as I'm a real Les Mis virgin. I've never seen the stage show, but I know a few of the songs

Give it a go if you like the songs you know.

[M. Tourette]

Originally Posted by SULLA

Eddie did have rather silly hair

Ah well, horses for courses,
I thought his hair was good as it was historically correct which all too often gets overlooked in modern films and usually dates them.

[M. Tourette]

Originally Posted by guestofseth

I liked it but it felt like it was missing something to me, I just felt that it could have been much better than it was. The performances were all there, great from all involved (Russell Crowe was the weak link, yes, but not dire) with Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks (she's got big things ahead of her) and the actors playing the young Cosette and Gavroche as standouts. Despite that, the film just didn't come together as it should, the orchestra seemed weak in places, and the direction was poor and mundane imo.

It's a shame these big musical films always have one thing that stops them being brilliant, Chicago had Catherine Zeta Jones, Les Miserables has Tom Hooper.

I know I'm being rather vague, but normally my film criticism comes down to either "good" or "bad" , also I probably need to watch it again to realise what exactly was missing.

Oscars wise - Anne Hathaway should win and probably will, and I hope Suddenly wins over the awful Skyfall, but that's it. I don't think it'll win any more or deserves to, Hugh Jackman was great, although tbh I was slightly disappointed, but from the trailer before the film Daniel Day Lewis seems so much better.

I totally agree with you, The orchestrations were weak until the end when it started to get a bit of oomph but even then it felt half hearted.

(Chicago in my opinion was also let down by bad direction, it was a poor pastiche of Cabaret and had no real style of its own.)
I got fed up with the dark lighting but I did like the use of the warm and cool light used inside and out.

And then there were the Thenadiers, This confirms my feelings about Helena Bonham Carter, she is limited, has very little wit and will drain a character of any power. Her Mrs Lovett ruined Sweeney Todd as it didn't balance with Depps performance and they should be a duo, In this she was one note and boring.
Sasha Baron Cohen could have been fine if given a better director but as it stands there was very little warmth to the characters which would make their actions seem even more vile.

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by SULLA

I am puzzled as to how it can be described as live when they do so many takes. You only get one chance on stage.

Recorded live, not dubbed. The number of takes is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by M. Tourette

When you consider I Dreamed A Dream could have been as good as Carol Reeds work in As Long As He Needs Me in Oliver, you then realise how boring the film is and does nothing to give an insight into the characters.

That's your opinion, I certainly feel it gives far more insight into the characters (Javert excepted, but that's Crowe's fault) than the stage show (which I love as well). And Anne Hathaway is every bit as good as Carol Reed was in Oliver.

but this will hardly have any shelf life at all, I bet we will have forgotten about it by next year.

I agree with all your criticism of Tom Hooper, but I can't agree with this statement at all. This will have the same sort of shelf life as Chicago and Mamma Mia - highly talked about at the time, huge DVD sales and still occasionally mentioned afterwards.

[shelleyj89]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

Sorry folks. It is such a horrible title that it puts me, and I suspect many others, right off it. Now I hear it is mostly sung, that is the death knell. Why couldn't they do it properly and just have a better title? And of course dump that X factor song.

I realise this is probably stupid, and I have probably missed some good things, but that is just how it is, for me anyway.

Baffling.

[tally]

Originally Posted by SULLA

I am puzzled as to how it can be described as live when they do so many takes. You only get one chance on stage.

I really dont understand your point. Take after take is normal for film. You literally cant compare film with stage, it's like comparing art galleries of paintings with photographs. Singing take after take is completely gruelling , which is why I said you have to divorce the stage and film versions from each other.
I'd agree there's nothing like a live audience in a stage setting. Film is a totally different beast. Every flaw is magnified 100 times.
It's really grown on me, I have to admit on the first watching I felt it was a bit iffy in places ( though not the divine Hugh and Annie) but now I've grown to love it and appreciate it as a movie.

There's nothing wrong with hating it, (this isn't in answer to your post ) Lots of people loathe musicals in the way I hate sci-fi and fantasy. You wouldn't catch me dead at any version of Harry Potter (I managed 20 minutes in the first one ) or the likes of The Hobbit, Lord of The Rings etc. That puts me in a tiny percentage of the population, but that's just my preference.
I'm not going to criticise those films, they're just not my genre. Likewise pps who hate musicals. Completely understandable and Les Miz is not for them.

But not to acknowledge that take after take so they can emote in lots of different ways, like any spoken word film, is to deny the cast the unbelievable stamina they showed. It's never been done before and, as I say, the level of acting made up for the vocals for me.

Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by M. Tourette

Ah well, horses for courses,
I thought his hair was good as it was historically correct which all too often gets overlooked in modern films and usually dates them.

I loved him. He's up there with Michael Ball for me.

Originally Posted by Mystical123

Recorded live, not dubbed. The number of takes is irrelevant.

That's your opinion, I certainly feel it gives far more insight into the characters (Javert excepted, but that's Crowe's fault) than the stage show (which I love as well). And Anne Hathaway is every bit as good as Carol Reed was in Oliver.

I agree with all your criticism of Tom Hooper, but I can't agree with this statement at all. This will have the same sort of shelf life as Chicago and Mamma Mia - highly talked about at the time, huge DVD sales and still occasionally mentioned afterwards.

^ ^ ^ This. It's getting so much repeat visits as people see it over and over again, it's already broken box office records.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by BastardBeaver

...The first 10 minutes I was a bit unsure - the sound didn't seem great and I thought some lines were getting lost in the action. But when we got to At The End Of The Day, it really picked up and I was absorbed from then till the finish.

...Ahh, I can't really put into words how much I loved it. Gonna go and see it again, and can't wait for the DVD.

Yes I found that at the cinema as well and I blame their sound system. The first bit seemed slow to me and like you, some lines where just lost in a mush.

However, on the current DVD version, cough, the sound is clear as a bell and that whole first act zips though wonderfully as it should do and is great.

I have come to the conclusion that sitting in front of my 47" LG TV watching it is a vast improvement on my local cinema!

[tally]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

Yes I found that at the cinema as well and I blame their sound system. The first bit seemed slow to me and like you, some lines where just lost in a mush.

However, on the current DVD version, cough, the sound is clear as a bell and that whole first act zips though wonderfully as it should do and is great.

I have come to the conclusion that sitting in front of my 47" LG TV watching it is a vast improvement on my local cinema!

*cough* Awful how we cant stop coughing isn't it? But you're spot on.

[Lady Spice]

Originally Posted by tally

*cough* Awful how we cant stop coughing isn't it? But you're spot on.

Damn good thing we're not at the cinema, with all this "coughing" going on.....

[tally]

Originally Posted by Lady Spice

Damn good thing we're not at the cinema, with all this "coughing" going on.....

I'm actually going to see it on screen this afternoon.

And if any idiot sings along I'll strangle them.

[Electrat]

I saw it a couple of day s ago and having thought about it as a fan of the stage musical I did really enjoy it. I felt emotionally battered and bruised by it, more so than the show, I think this is because it's much more 'up close and personal', there are so many tight close-ups on tear streaked faces. Tom Hooper has certainly made and spectacle and he's also very brave introducing the live singing, but for me the jury is still out on having stars be so emotionally rought whilst singing that it detracts from their performances.

Ann Hathaway was amazing, but I was worried that she would make all the notes with the amount of tears and snot flying around, luckily she got there but it wasn't an easy listen. I found Hugh Jackman very nasaly and I felt he didn't do justice to 'Bring Him Home' which is such a defining song, it felt almost like a filler instead of a stand out piece. I'm afraid Russel Crowe leads the miscast line up, closely followed by Sasha Baren Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. I didn't care about their singing, they just weren't funny, 0 comedy relief.

But the positives were definately Samantha Barks, (but then she is the real pro) and the real surprise was Eddie Redmayne who I thought was outstanding. In fact when all the students finally arrived the film was suddenly lifted to another level. Sadly, for me, Amanda Seifried just sounded like she was on helium.

For me it was a really mixed bag of singing talent but a valiant effort by all concerned.

[guestofseth]

Originally Posted by Mystical123

I agree with all your criticism of Tom Hooper, but I can't agree with this statement at all. This will have the same sort of shelf life as Chicago and Mamma Mia - highly talked about at the time, huge DVD sales and still occasionally mentioned afterwards.

I agree, I may have been disappointed but, thanks to excellent performances from most of the cast, I can still see myself watching it over and over again. It's perfect for when the weathers like this, shame there's no way to watch it at home...