Les Miserables

1222325272846

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    chandleo wrote: »
    Again missing the point, I shouldn't need to be looking on YouTube video's to verify that an actor I've just seen in a musical can actually sing!
    No, I'm not missing the point. Fair do's if you thought he was miscast, personally I think he was the out and out singer/actor and completely deserves his Oscar nod, which of course he wont get as Daniel Day Lewis can start preparing a place in his trophy room for.
    Because this was the first time they'd made a musical NOT prerecorded in the studio, I just thought your statement that he cant sing was so wrong I was politely pointing out that he has a magnificent voice that you could listen to as Hugh had no control over which take was used in Les Miz.
    But I'm not going to labour the point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    have no intention of seeing Les Mis (was left nonplussed by the stage show) but this thread makes for an entertaining read! I knew when I saw the trailer that it was all-sung but there was definitely an attempt to hide this fact.

    I've always enjoyed movie musicals but not all-sung musical theatre. yes, there have been musicals that have been all sung before but they are all adaptations of musical theatre shows (Jesus Christ Superstar, Phantom, Sweeney Todd, Nine etc)

    By its nature, Les Mis is a very bombastic, in-your-face show and if you go in not realising what it's going to be like, you're going to struggle. I remember it took me years to get past the first 20 minutes or so of Moulin Rouge as it felt like i was being attacked by the film rather than watching it.

    Whatever Les Mis is, it certainly isn't easy to watch with misery upon misery and i expect the film is the same

    I do feel sorry for people who are dragged along by someone devoted to / obsessed with the show. Within 20 minutes you'll know it's not for you. Then not only do you have to sit through the rest but will then end up being argued with when you say it was a relief that it's over:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    revans9 wrote: »
    have no intention of seeing Les Mis (was left nonplussed by the stage show) but this thread makes for an entertaining read! I knew when I saw the trailer that it was all-sung but there was definitely an attempt to hide this fact.

    I've always enjoyed movie musicals but not all-sung musical theatre. yes, there have been musicals that have been all sung before but they are all adaptations of musical theatre shows (Jesus Christ Superstar, Phantom, Sweeney Todd, Nine etc)

    By its nature, Les Mis is a very bombastic, in-your-face show and if you go in not realising what it's going to be like, you're going to struggle. I remember it took me years to get past the first 20 minutes or so of Moulin Rouge as it felt like i was being attacked by the film rather than watching it.

    Whatever Les Mis is, it certainly isn't easy to watch with misery upon misery and i expect the film is the same

    I do feel sorry for people who are dragged along by someone devoted to / obsessed with the show. Within 20 minutes you'll know it's not for you. Then not only do you have to sit through the rest but will then end up being argued with when you say it was a relief that it's over:D

    Great post and a refreshing outlook about it! :D It's fine to hate it, every genre has it's obsessives, I just am a tad (Ha!) obsessive about Les Miz. Just like Harry Potter fans used to be queuing up at midnight to be the first to get their hands on a new book or film. Each to their own, eh?

    I'm perfectly normal in my views on anything else. :p Honest!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tally wrote: »
    Great post and a refreshing outlook about it! :D It's fine to hate it, every genre has it's obsessives, I just am a tad (Ha!) obsessive about Les Miz. Just like Harry Potter fans used to be queuing up at midnight to be the first to get their hands on a new book or film. Each to their own, eh?

    I'm perfectly normal in my views on anything else. :p Honest!

    i believe you!:D My Dad's been to see the stage show twice and enjoyed the film, a few criticisms echoing some of the things said on here. but he's already asked me when the dvd is coming out. oddly he doesn't like film musicals, just les mis, blood brothers and the like!

    It's clearly a great film if you already enjoy the show or are prepared for what it's like. It's just not something I think I could manage to get through comfortably and it seems quite a few people are in the same boat
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,313
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FINALLY been to see it.

    Hathaway was just sublime. Her performance was out of this world good. I really like Jackman, Seyfried, Barks and Redmayne.

    BUT

    Crowe was definitely miscast. His voice was too monotone - especially since he has the most numbers to sing. Kind of ruined it for me.

    I also really liked Helena and Sasha - nice comedic interludes.
  • ChrissieAOChrissieAO Posts: 5,141
    Forum Member
    I am a huge Les Mis fan and been to see it 7 times. I enjoyed the film a lot, I thought Hugh Jackman was brilliant if a bit young for the part of Jean Valjean, or should I say he did not seem to age at all. I thought he was supposed to be old in the end and he still only looked about 40.
    Eddie Redmayne was good but in my opinion nobody compares to the original Marius, Michael Ball.
    My only disappointment was Russell Crowe's rendition of 'Stars'. I had the good fortune to see Michael McCarthy sing it, now that man has a voice...
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Bluray wrote: »

    As I have said, I totally understand the passion and love for Les Mis, I myself am very passionate about certain genres and specific films but I certainly don't look down on people who don't immediately share the passion.

    So please enlighten me where the inverted snobbery lies within my post.

    Look down, look down,
    Upon your fellow man!
    Only joking:o:o:o
  • streetwisestreetwise Posts: 787
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    Look down, look down,
    Upon your fellow man!
    Only joking:o:o:o

    "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." ;)
  • scragendscragend Posts: 421
    Forum Member
    ChrissieAO wrote: »
    Eddie Redmayne was good but in my opinion nobody compares to the original Marius, Michael Ball.

    Agreed about Michael Ball.

    To be fair to Redmayne though, his performance was the one that I was most surprised about (in a good way). When he played Stephen Wraysford in Birdsong I didn't rate him as an actor, but I thought he was excellent in Les Mis.
  • scragendscragend Posts: 421
    Forum Member
    streetwise wrote: »
    "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." ;)

    In their multitudes...
  • tracystapestracystapes Posts: 3,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I adore 'On My Own',
  • SCD-ObserverSCD-Observer Posts: 18,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ChrissieAO wrote: »
    I am a huge Les Mis fan and been to see it 7 times. I enjoyed the film a lot, I thought Hugh Jackman was brilliant if a bit young for the part of Jean Valjean, or should I say he did not seem to age at all. I thought he was supposed to be old in the end and he still only looked about 40.
    Eddie Redmayne was good but in my opinion nobody compares to the original Marius, Michael Ball.
    My only disappointment was Russell Crowe's rendition of 'Stars'. I had the good fortune to see Michael McCarthy sing it, now that man has a voice...

    They did make a (rather good) attempt at making him look significantly older and more haggard towards the end. Wonder if you've been paying attention to his 'make up' after all?:p
  • Mystical123Mystical123 Posts: 15,811
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They did make a (rather good) attempt at making him look significantly older and more haggard towards the end. Wonder if you've been paying attention to his 'make up' after all?:p

    I don't think that made much difference to be honest, even in the sewer scenes just before that he didn't look much older at all.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    scragend wrote: »
    In their multitudes...

    scarce to be counted;)
  • SCD-ObserverSCD-Observer Posts: 18,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think that made much difference to be honest, even in the sewer scenes just before that he didn't look much older at all.

    You need to watch it again. I've watched the film twice now and the second time I made it a point to see how the make-up of Hugh went, and he did visibly age over the 'years' the film was depicting.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    You need to watch it again. I've watched the film twice now and the second time I made it a point to see how the make-up of Hugh went, and he did visibly age over the 'years' the film was depicting.

    However, he didn't look like a bloke who was going to suddenly die a few weeks after carrying someone for 'miles'
  • Mystical123Mystical123 Posts: 15,811
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You need to watch it again. I've watched the film twice now and the second time I made it a point to see how the make-up of Hugh went, and he did visibly age over the 'years' the film was depicting.

    I have watched it twice as well, and I stand by what I said. He looked ill, but not aged as such. But it's a common criticism of Valjeans in the stage show as well.
  • ChrissieAOChrissieAO Posts: 5,141
    Forum Member
    I have watched it twice as well, and I stand by what I said. He looked ill, but not aged as such. But it's a common criticism of Valjeans in the stage show as well.

    The Jean Valjean's I have seen on stage have looked and acted older, grey hair, etc and to be fair it is easier in the theatre because unless you are right at the front you cannot make out in detail the faces of the actors.
    But even with make up in his last few scenes Hugh Jackman did not look an old man.
    He looked like he was dying from a heart condition and in the book he actually dies of old age.
  • SCD-ObserverSCD-Observer Posts: 18,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    However, he didn't look like a bloke who was going to suddenly die a few weeks after carrying someone for 'miles'

    He became sick after he carried Marius, did you consider that as the plot?
  • SCD-ObserverSCD-Observer Posts: 18,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have watched it twice as well, and I stand by what I said. He looked ill, but not aged as such. But it's a common criticism of Valjeans in the stage show as well.

    He looked older (more grey hairs on the side) and ill of course towards the end, esp. after he carried Marius through the sewers.
  • GalindaGalinda Posts: 695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Agree with all who have said Hugh didn't seem to age much. They didn't even make him go grey.

    For anyone who has read the book (it's on my to do list!) does victor Hugo say how old valjean is during any point of the novel. Also does he describe valjean as having a beard? I'm used to him having a beard cos of the musical I find it weird he doesn't have a beard through out the film!
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    He became sick after he carried Marius, did you consider that as the plot?

    As a fan of Les Mis, I just think that it's strange
  • timebugtimebug Posts: 18,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I believe Valjean's age is never mentioned in
    the book:BUT...he had served 19 years in
    prison before his parole.Assuming he was
    18 or 20 when he was originally convicted
    that makes him around 40 at the start of
    the story. He becomes the mayor and runs
    the factory (no timescale given in the book)
    BEFORE rescuing Cosette from the Thenardiers.
    She then grows to adulthood.So,depending how
    long he was mayor/building up the business etc,
    that puts him nearer sixty by the end.
    I don't know what the average lifespan of a man
    was in those days,but given his hard times in the
    prison,not an unreasonable age to die,given the
    circumstances?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I sat in the fourth row of the stalls the first time I ever saw it and while (obviously) I utterly adored and loved it from the start, the one off putting thing was the greasepaint aging which looked so fake up close.
    As it was Colm Wilkinson it didn't make me cry less, but you so couldn't age like that on film, they have much better makeup for screen. I thought they could have gone a bit more with the grey, but it didn't make a wit of difference IMO.

    On the Marius IS Michael Ball, I thought the same, Colm was the definitive JVJ and Philip Quast the best Javert ever.
    I have now conceded after several watches and listenings, that Alfie Boe sings just as well if not better than Colm Wilkinson, but can he act as well? Same with Marius. I thought Eddie was fantastic and as Michael Ball said "Marius is a wimp" Eddie was allowed and scripted to make him a much deeper character and his singing was great.

    :D I think Philip Quast is safe as my No 1 Javert, however.
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He looked older (more grey hairs on the side) and ill of course towards the end, esp. after he carried Marius through the sewers.

    I assume going through that amount of sewage would make anyone ill.

    Also Valjean not having the beard makes sense in the film as I assume he wouldn't want anyone like Javert recognises him, indeed Javert doesn't suspect anything until he lifts the cart,
Sign In or Register to comment.