Comments on Les Miserables movie- Page 3

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 1:51am

Agreed. I don't think DJANGO will be a frontrunner to win, though I'm sure it'll be nominated. I would imagine the frontrunners at this stage are ARGO, LINCOLN, LES MIZ, and ZERO DARK THIRTY. Granted, the last two are just a shot in the dark, based on the creative teams behind them and early buzz for LES MIZ. I am very, very excited to hear how the first screening of ZERO DARK THIRTY goes though.

[MattDe]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:07am

The master got great reviews surly it will get the Oscar

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:30am

So did Lincoln, and it's a) more mainstream, b) in more recent memory.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:32am

The Les Mis fan reaction is probably going to be overwhelmingly positive. I really can't see anyone thinking this is a bad movie. Even the most die hard Les Mis should be happy that anyone attempted to bring LES MIS to the screen.

I'm curious to know what the non-musical theater, average Joe in Kansas thinks about it. I know, in the last 25 years (give or take), everyone has probably seen LES MIS once so they should know what they're going into...

But there's always that one.

[kyl3fong2]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:34am

I've been reading on blogs after today's LA screenings that Eddie Redmayne is now a major contender in the Supporting Actor category too. Glad to hear that as he is a phenomenal actor!

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:34am

I was at the Academy / SAG screenings of Rent, Phantom, and Nine. All of which received thunderous response at these showings and all of which went on the tank.

Updated On: 11/25/12 at 02:34 AM

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:47am

I almost walked out of RENT. My exboyfriend wouldn't let me leave.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 2:53am

I guess I never realized that people did not like DREAMGIRLS. I'd never put it near the same company of RENT, THE PRODUCERS, and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. I'd rank it with HAIRSPRAY, maybe even CHICAGO.

DAME, when you went to those screenings, did they give any major Oscar buzz to these films? Just curious.

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 3:11am

The reason they have those screenings is to get guild and academy members to vote.

Updated On: 11/25/12 at 03:11 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 3:22am

People really clapped at Nine? Did you get them all high first, Dame?

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 3:22am

Gotcha. Let me kind of rephrase that: did the audience think these were Oscar-worthy films, like people are saying about LES MISERABLES? Or was it just positive reactions because they were crowd-pleasers, like for MAMMA MIA?

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 3:39am

At these screenings cast and creative are usually there for questions after. So usually the crowd is pumped. Hard to say what influence it has. That's why buzz from the screenings is not reliable.

And Phylilis, people did clap. And yes .. My row had a attitude adjustment before the movie.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 3:59am

I am confused by the reaction to Dreamgirls here. The academy seemed to like it quite a bit. It was nominated eight times, with two of the nominations in major categories. It took home two awards of the eight nominations, one in a major category. Why are so many here considering this to be some sort of a critical flop?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 8:18am

I don't think Dreamgirls was a critical flop, only that few would consider it a great film on the scale that Les Mis is being touted by some (and, more to the point, on the scale to which many were touting Dreamgirls). it wasn't a particularly good movie in my opinion. And certainly was not favored to win a best picture oscar; it was not nominated for best picture, direction or screenplay and received nominations in music and technical categories and supporting actress and actor. Its wins for sound mixing and supporting actress were expected.

On another note, if the pretentious, overblown The Master wins best picture, I will personally (fill in vague threat of your choice).

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 9:39am

We were at last night's Academy screening in North Hollywood, along with a packed enthusiastic industry audience. In broad strokes, we'd call it a major triumph AND disappointment, as any stage-to-screen adaptation is bound to be.

THE TRIUMPHS: 1. Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne leapt off the screen with spectacular turns, making Fantine and Marius far more honestly moving than I had ever seen onstage. Stunning, both. 2. The opening 40 minutes of the film: from the first image up till the escape to Paris, the screen was magnificently alive, blasting through great scenes one after the next, crammed through with rich character, plot and song at such breakneck speed, it left us breathless. 3. The finale: one brilliant and beautifully inspired stroke from Tom Hooper lifted that tired final reprise onstage into something moving and new onscreen, which I won't spoil here. 4. The live singing: Tom Hooper told the audience nearly 99% of the singing was sung live onscreen, and boy, was he right to insist on it-- a brave new way to make movie musicals come to life again. Every movie musical to come should take notes. 5. The design work: production design, costume, lighting were altogether spectacular ideas and radically different than the choices made onstage. Ravishing and idiosyncratic.

THE PARTS THAT ONLY MET EXPECTATIONS: 1. Hugh Jackman, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter. Exactly as gaunt/ passionate/ comical/ looneytunes as we've come to expect of these folks. All in good voice (though Jackman sings the part less than any onstage ValJean has), all nailing their bits, but they fade from view thinking back.

THE DISAPPOINTMENTS: 1. Regrettably... there's no avoiding that Russell Crowe simply can't play Valjean's antagonist if he isn't equal to Jackman vocally, which he is not. Opaque, passionless, and misdirected throughout (footsteps on a ledge early on to foretell his end are real embarrassments), Crowe doesn't have a chance here. 2. Tom Hooper (or his editors) seemed unable to hold 2 singing characters onscreen at once. "A Heart Full of Love" should be a duet (and then a trio), but is chopped into a barrage of close-up single shots, one after the other. This inability to give us wider takes suggests Hooper was not staging his scenes so much as placing characters in fixed spots and locking cameras to points on the floor to cover them. Where's the swirling camera work of a Joe Wright when you need him? 3. Once we get to Paris, the story slows to a crawl, the song order gets jumbled to smooth over the loss of the intermission, ("Can You Hear the People Sing" slides later and later in the show) and forward momentum all but disappears from the screen. A shame, because the stage show always snowballed to an Act I finale that gave goosebumps every time. 4. "Suddenly", the new song. Oh please. A waste of screen time that stops the show cold.

BOTTOM LINE? Every musical committed to film is reason for rejoicing. Flaws and all, this one is closer to being a great work than most. Gives new meaning to Thanksgiving weekend.

Updated On: 11/25/12 at 09:39 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 10:34am

Great analysis.

There is a distinct possibility that Les Mis will become a victim of its own mounting hype.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 10:50am

I can't wait for this. As a jewish girl, I can't remember looking forward to xmas day more! I'm certainly hoping that, like Someone in a Tree's review, I am more pleased than disappointed. (Thanks for your detailed thoughts without spoiling!)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 11:47am

DREAMGIRLS was so well received by most audiences -- I saw a pretty ordinary house go wild at the Zigfield, about 10 days into the run -- the quibbles now seem almost petty. It's not a great film, or a great show (Bennett made it seem like one) but it entertained many. More than can be said about the bottomless pit that was NINE or the in-your-face, laugh-free PRODUCERS. What sticks is the bizarre idea that Effie is a supporting role, when it had won a Best Actress Tony for The Other Jennifer. (Kind of like saying Rose is supporting because the show is about this girl named Gypsy.) Whatever.

Stage musicals are notoriously difficult to translate, and my guess about the "mix" in the reviews of LES MIZ is a focus on a different subject: the score. It's so demonstrably pop-infused, watch for the knives to come out in some high-falutin' circles. In the theater, such a meld/stylization is accepted. It won't be a problem for some critics, besotted with its use of live singing. But the pop lyrics can run to the banal ("...only been pretending!" crammed into music that doesn't fit always bothers me). For all of the show's fans, there's always been a well of reservations, going back to Frank Rich, whose review was positive but with a kind of snobbishness about the show's uplift and pop-ishness.

Updated On: 11/25/12 at 11:47 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 11:59am

A valid point, Auggie, and probably worth remembering that a lot of the critics in their negative reviews for the film version of NINE took major issue with the source material (of the Broadway musical) ripping in particular the score, which is generally well regarded in theatrical circles.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 12:00pm

DREAMGIRLS was definitely not considered a critical or financial flop at the time it was released. There was so much buzz around Jennifer Hudson and people were excited to see what was supposed to be "the next CHICAGO." It got the most Oscar nominations that year and the Best Picture snub was a huge surprise. I think, however, that time has not been kind to that movie. Regardless of what each person thinks about the movie, what I've gathered from reading different Oscar-related websites and even this board, is that people generally view the movie as largely unsuccessful. Jennifer Hudson's performance hasn't exactly lived on either, yes she does amazing things with her big song and her voice is unbelievable, but she's hardly a brilliant actress and her film career in the years that came after DREAMGIRLS proved that (remember THE SECRET LIVES OF BEES? ).

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 12:08pm

DREAMGIRLS: Domestic Total Gross: $103,365,956, Worldwide: $154,937,680. Ranked 19th for the year in b.o.

It cost $80 million to make, modest today, but expensive in light of its return.

But RENT (this startled me): Domestic Total Gross: $29,077,547, Worldwide: $31,670,620

RENT cost $40 million to make. It was a major flop.

Updated On: 11/25/12 at 12:08 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 12:18pm

Tree, We are also seeing at the tv academy. Wasvwondering if they were separating the lines by Guild and how early did you have to be there?

[tazber]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 12:34pm

Someone in a Tree, how does Samantha Barks come across?

[dreaming]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 12:57pm

Kad-

I think Lincoln will take Screenplay, actress (Sally Field will be in leading I'd think), and maybe director.

I think it's Les Mis v. Lincoln for best picture.

Best actor is a tough category:

Daniel Day-Lewis
Hugh Jackman
Russell Crowe (unless they put him in supporting)
Bill Murray (he has gotten excellent buzz for "Hyde Park on Hudson" and many voters may feel it's his turn)


And I think Tommy Lee Jones will win for his BRILLIANT performance as Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln (supporting).

So, Kad, I agree that gold derby is underestimating Lincoln. (It was a wonderful film.) I'm sure Les Mis will do well with critics and pick up awards. I tend to wonder if politics could play a role here... (not that Lincoln MIGHT not deserve to win). I think Field and Jones will win for sure. Day-Lewis was amazing; however, he has recently won 2 Academy Awards. Voters may want to spread the wealth.

We shall see.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/25/12 at 1:10pm

For what it's worth, both Sally Field and Russell Crowe are being promoted for "supporting" consideration, not "leading."

I haven't heard much (if any) remarks about Barks, Taz.

Is she not much of a presence or did they whittle her part down or a bit of both? (I admit I am not a fan of her work on the concert taping, but that doesn't mean she couldn't be wonderful in the film with the right direction.)