Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I love Les Misérables. It is the musical of my childhood; although being young, not grasping the incredible story of the characters until years later, I still adored the music as a child. I would play on the floor and listen as my parents watched the "10th Anniversary: Dream Cast". Since then I have read Victor Hugo's masterpiece several times, despite its length, and even created a crossover of videos on YouTube combining the 10th Anniversary cast with Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to make a 90 minute mini-musical-movie (and to introduce people who don't like Les Mis to the amazing story that it is). That being said, I was both eager and apprehensive for this film adapation of the musical. The SINGING: Everyone seems to sing in one key. There is no variety, no scale of music as they all speak in a monotone during sentances that are meant to be "sung", but they are barely coherent, do not ennunciate their words, and it sounds ridiculous. Volume control is unheard of by the leading roles in this movie.It felt like watching a really bad high school performance of Les Miserables, where you wince and cringe and feel sorry for them as they attempt to sing. Amanda Seyfreid's (Cosette) voice was so shrill that when she warbled through songs like "A Heart Full of Love" it hurt my ears. When Hugh Jackman began screeching out "Bring Him Home", I was ready to leave. Far from bringing emotion to the songs, most of the cast (with a few exceptions, eg. Samantha Barker as Eponine, or the child actors) spent more time trying to reach the notes. I'm sorry to say, but Hugh Jackman's Broadway days have been over for some time, and it clearly shows. The soft songs, eg. "Bring Him Home" are belted out, and the loud songs are whispered, eg. "Master of the House", as sung by Helena Bonham-Carter. Apparently the idea is to follow characters around with a camera and film them in one long scene. As if we couldn't get this on stage? It would have been nice to see some soaring artistic cinemaphotography. Show some soft flashbacks during "I Dreamed a Dream", because Fantine HAS a backstory and we never have time to see it in film adaptations. Instead we have to watch them sing in an extreme close-up, and this has been previously avoided for a good reason. People claim that it is "more personal, more intimate", but there is nothing redeeming about getting stuck watching someone's face in this "magnifying-glass" detail. And because most of the songs are done in one take, the actors can sing what-ever way they choose, ignoring important rhythms, time signatures, beat cues, and thus be unfaithful to the original song. (Hugh Jackman does this a lot). The CHARACTERS: Anne Hathaway held her own as Fantine, she did a decent job singing the role (she cried way too much though, making it over-dramatized). But she did not portray Fantine correctly: in Hathaway's version, she is timid, suffering, and pitiful from start to finish. But the true Fantine is a golden-haired, courageous woman who is trying to keep her pride, while making choices to earn money to send to her little girl. We see none of that inner lioness. Any actor/actress should know, it is all about colouring contrast within characters. For white to appear, you must show black, and vice versa. If you want to show the horrible conditions of Fantine's circumstance, you must show her valiant spirits trying to uphold her pride as her dignity is stripped away. You do not see her desperation in begging Javert to free her, at first standing up to him and then pleading with him. The Thénardiers, I feel, were poorly cast as well. None of the vocal range, and it seemed as if the whole "Master of the House" were a re-enactment of Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street" as both Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were in "Sweeney Todd", and in this show they chop tails off of live cats and toss them into meat grinders as well. Instead of the typical Victor Hugo cynicism that depicts the conniving Thenardiers, we get a grisly duo that appears from time to time as an attempt for some morbid comedy. And what screen-play writer thought that throwing Santa into "Master of the House" and having him go at it with a whore was a good idea? In 1800s France, he would have been thought of as St. Nicholas. Yet we have a scene of debauchery that depicts a childhood icon, St. Nicholas, having sex with a prostitute as she shouts his name, "Santa", a name that he would not even have been called in 19th century France? Are we adults supposed to see this as "comedy"? Russell Crowe has an extremely difficult time singing/ acting the role of Javert. He brings no life to one of the most complex villains in literary history. There is no passion, force, fire, ice, or power to his performance. He is flat, offering no conflict or passions to illustrate the brutality of justice within his character, and why he is pursuing Jean Valjean. He just... pops up from time to time. "Oh yeah there's that one convict..I should go chase him". Javert's cold vindication that the law is the ultimate authority drives the story. He is too important to be one-dimensional. In the book and in the 10th Anniversary, we see the progression of the Chief Inspector as his world is stripped away. The two greatest rivals in literature share the same tune in their soliloquies. Both are shaken by a crucial devastation that destroys what they thought they believed. Yet while one chooses life, the other chooses death. At least... we missed where it happened somewhere in the movie... The EDITING: A warning: they CUT OUT vital pieces of music that explain the story and the characters. The exchange between Javert and Valjean in the first few minutes in dramatically shortened (explaining why Valjean is in prison, and showing how the concept of forgiveness and redemption is unthinkable to Javert, which is essential for his character). Valjean: My sister's child was close to death, and we were starving- Javert: You'll starve again, unless you learn the meaning of the Law! Valjean: I know the meaning of those 19 years, a slave! - of the Law. All this, and even more following, was left out. A great deal is OMITTED from the Bishop of Digne and the candlesticks, and they skip the awesome theme of the Policemen as they capture Valjean. This was one of the worst edits, because Jean Valjean's conversion and decision to turn his life around is the most important catalyst in the story. When Thenardier and his gang attempt to rob Valjean's house, and Eponine screams, the Director cuts out bit where Cosette, afraid that Marius may be discovered, tells Valjean that it was her that screamed and that she saw 3 men outside. Valjean fears that Javert has discovered him, and makes plans to leave. In the MOVIE, they cut that all out, so Valjean hears a woman scream, and assumes that Javert is after him? How paranoid it that? In addition, they cut out bits of JAVERT'S SUICIDE, a terrible travesty. I cannot imagine anyone who is not familiar to the story understanding why Javert throws himself into the Seine. Buhh? Caught between his iron, relentless duty to the law, and by the mercy of a convict, in despair Javert takes the only way out he knows: death. YET WE GET NONE OF THIS. Ahh, Phillip Quast, how I miss you. The CINEMAPHOTOGRAPHY: Or the lack of it? Here was the chance to do a MAJESTIC, incredible and epic-sweeping edition of Les Mis. And what we get instead: actors singing a'capella in front of a camera. Unlike a stage production, where you are confine to a small space, a FILM can explore new heights, grand artistic themes and combining motifs of the story to bring it all together. Is this too much to imagine? The "Phantom of the Opera" (2004) did it, and it was a fantastic film adaptation. The broad scope, the pallette of colours available to the producers was wasted. Only once in the WHOLE film did I feel that they captured "Les Mis" in the glory that it was imagined, and that was with "Do You Hear the People Sing". The STORY: What story? The only "story" I got out of it was that some students were starting a revolution. They simply did NOT CONVEY any compelling story between Valjean and Javert. They skip essential moments that build character and instead attempt to insert additional lines that aren't necessary. The prelude to "Javert's Suicide" was horribly missing, the turning point for the villain is wanting. They did not include any kind of bonding between Valjean and Fantine, or Valjean and Cosette. I did like the new song "Suddenly" that Jean Valjean sings after he rescues Cosette, but sadly we did not see a very strong paternal connection between him or Cosette later on. It's kind of sad that a stage musical can pull this off, but with the near-3-hour movie you feel as if connections are missing. I did admire how Hugh Jackman was able to convey Valjean's fear of losing Cosette, the one person he cares about, but there wasn't really a loving connection on Cosette's part. And it was somewhat confusing that they switched out the prison chain-gang at the quarry for ... dragging in a ship? I'm guessing that's why they omitted the lines in "Look Down" such as "The sun is strong / it's hot as hell below". They wanted to be different, apparently, but it did not convey the hellish conditions in which Jean Valjean was living. I was very disappointed. There were additional, un-needed insertions of sex (a full silent 10 seconds so that you can hear the ship captain touching Fantine and what-not at the end of "Lovely Ladies") and instead of drowning, Javert miscalculates his suicide in the river and smashes on some cement (whaa...?) so you can hear the bones crunching. (How many of us SAW that coming when you saw the layers in the river? Predictable...) Time could have been better spent in so many different areas. I did not feel happy after seeing this movie. It lacked so badly; even the 1998 adaptation with Neeson and Rush was far better than this waste of time. The only reason to see this movie is for Samantha Barks, who portrays Eponine very well, but she is in the 25th Anniversary already so you might as well watch that instead.