Comments on: Review: Bloated ‘Les Miserables’ Still Falls Short Despite Strong Performances, Anne Hathaway & Cinematic Grandeur

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

The complaints here are just strange. You wish that Jackman and Croweâs âacting sparksâ can âtake flightâ but oops thereâs singing getting in the way? In the first sentence of the Wiki page for Les Mis youâll find that it says this is a âsung-through-musicalââas in itâs all singing! I understand that some people want a âfreshâ perspective or whatever so theyâll go and see a film completely uninformed (I did so a few months back with Beasts of the Southern Wild; it made for an enjoyable experience), but when youâre reviewing a film that is the latest iteration of something that has been around 25 years (150+ years if include the book! Victor Hugo gave Valjean that âexorbitantâ 20 year sentence, bro), do some research. Complaining about being barraged with music at Les Mis is equivocal to watching Toy Story and wishing things didnât look so CGI and Pixar-y.

This review feels like the critic has never seen a musical at all because musicals are all overwrought and garish–that's why people love 'em! I could see that this particular musical may attempt to take itself more seriously ("we're all singing live because emotions!") than the classic MGM sing-and-dance-athons of many decades ago, but that's because it was birthed in the eighties, and this musical has meant a lot to people in a lot of ways both large (the song "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" was used in AIDS awareness activism!) and small (how many times do you think a preteen Anne Hathaway sang "Castle in the Cloud" and dreamed of playing Cosette before growing up and playing her slutty mom insteadâprobably a lot! I know I did! Sighâ¦).

Look: I donât expect much of this musical movie, but thatâs because I know what to expectâsinging (lots of it!) and some unnecessary drama (yo, Jalvert, calm the fâ down, bro) and strange stoicism and a little bit of preachy spiritual and moral stuff (itâs there, I know, because Iâve seen the live musical), and Iâm looking forward to seeing the additional things that the stage cannot displayâincluding some seriously overwrought and garish pre-Revolution sets and dress and some close-up famous people facial expressions while singing these already overwrought and garish songs (again, this is originally from the eighties!), and I just wish this critic had some sort of understanding of what to expect as well because most of this review is wasted on problems that could have been solved if he had been, well, any type of informed.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

The characters are not "swept up in the French revolution". Aargh. Why does everyone always think this. The story is set decades after the Revolution, climaxing with an otherwise-forgotten uprising in 1832.

By: Rico Zamora

Rico Zamora — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

This reviewer obviously knows nothing about the source material on which this film is based. Therefore, his "review" provides no context. And, if he think he does provide context, it is brusquely brushed aside by the evident lack of knowledge about what he's reviewing. Mr. Perez proclaims that this film is "obviously based on the musical adaptation of [the] novel…," and then complains about the film's "unrelenting…barrage of music…." What is to be expected from a "musical" adaptation, a book-on-tape narration of the plot? The mere fact that he refers to the backdrop of this story as being during the "French Revolution" immediately invalidates any opinions he states either before or after arriving at that stunted conclusion.

By: DG

DG — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

Not too surprising. If I see this at all it'll definitely be for Anne otherwise nothing I've seen or heard feels too exciting

By: Corvo

Corvo — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

Bad review. It seems the author wanted so bad to blast the movie that he had to make up anything to succeed. A waste of effort. Reading between the lines we understand that he's writing about a GREAT movie. Even if he doesn't want to admit it.

By: You Will Win An Oscar And Rob Amy Adams

You Will Win An Oscar And Rob Amy Adams — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

So basically, cast Anne Hathaway in 10-20 minutes max of your movie and you WON'T want to punch her in the face? Basically as long as she's a supporting actress, she's tolerable. Take TDKR for instance. Yes, Rachel Getting Married and the first Princess Diaries is an exception but it seems like between Brokeback and this film- she's much better suited to be a supporting player than an actual lead actress. Never forget the shitacular crap she starred in- Love and Other Drugs, One Day, etc. Lead actress, you are not Annie.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

I haven't been impressed with Tom Hooper's 'filmmaking genius' to date. Expected this.

By: [A]

[A] — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

I'm not familiar with the play or anything like that, but I feel like all the people praising this movie to death (on twitter) was actually doing it some harm.. not to mention calling it "Les Miz" which is rock-bottom level of cheap.

By: Samuel ogbadu

Samuel ogbadu — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

No matter what anyone says about this movie, it is sure going to be epic. Whoever is attacking Anne Hathaway is just a hater. Let her be. She certainly gave the performance of her career and though I love Amy Adams and I think she is long overdue for an Oscar win, I just believe Anne has got this one in the bag. And if anyone is familiar with the musical, you will know that songs make a much better part of the movie than actual dialogue. So quit complaining about the music being too much.

By: Cate

Cate — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

I just want to point out that this is a sung-through musical, which in fact is a sub-genre of musical theatre: the closest thing to dialogue-as-we-think-of-it in the show are the recitatives, which lie somewhere between full-blown balladeering to the balconies and lines that are simply spoken. I haven't seen the film yet but various people associated with it have made mention of the fact that spoken dialogue was added and recitatives were revised or trimmed, in order to streamline things after further character development was brought in from the novel. So that one line re: "endless barrage of music" I feel is a bit unfair, as it relates more to the substance of the musical than something unique to the film — removing any of the 49 songs is essentially the equivalent of gutting the substance from a scene in a script. And while a case can be made for judicious cuts (hey, people slice and dice Shaksepeare all the time…) and using another art form to elevate the original, I think it fair to say that if you take the sung-through nature out of Les Mis then it won't even be Les Mis anymore.

Appreciate the measured review, though! I am a fan of the novel and the musical so emotional resonance would hardly be an issue, and it feels like enough goes right with the performances and the overall experience that I won't mind the things that go wrong with Hooper's approach.

By: Mpzz

Mpzz — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

Having every line in the movie -not songs, lines- sung, in the most droning and tuneless way, makes this movie unwatchable.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

Here we go. It looks like the Dark Knight Rises all over again. First bad review. Everyone goes bananas. Some people are going to like and some aren't. I bet you can find someone who doesn't like the Godfather. It's their opinion.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

This review made me feel…………..wait for it…………………Miserable.

By: LA2000

LA2000 — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

It is interesting to see how emotionally invested some people seem to be in the success of a film they have yet to see.

I am reminded of how the Romney folk shrieked endlessly about biased and skewed polls that showed their candidate losing. It simply couldn't be…because how could that be!? It had to be bias! The polls were out to get them!

By: Alex P

Alex P — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

On the money. This movie is terrible.`

By: Heath

Heath — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

Just wondering, if the 'middle-and-the-meat' of the film didn't come anywhere near Hathaway's "I dreamed a dream" vignette and the Finale, does that mean "Stars", "Bring him home", "One Day More", "A little fall of rain", "On my own", etc. just fell short!? I mean, some of the musical's most classic melodies are in those songs and others I haven't even listed…

By: Abinas Jagernauth

Abinas Jagernauth — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

I was planning to see "Les Miserables" but after reading this review I'm having second thoughts.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

This movie critic is a major douchebag. This movie is not the type of movie I like, but if I did like these types I wouldnt listen to this gomerpile's review. This guy thinks hes some kind of Ebert and Roeper caliber critic.

By: Aaron M

Aaron M — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:58:02 +0000

The author's final statement "There is no doubt an abundance of passion and commitment in âLes Miserablesâ but when the musical isnât connecting emotionally — which is at least half the time — itâs a lot of blustering sound and fury that could either use a dialogue break or an edit." sums it up perfectly!!! The whole movie is in song and the director's choice of a non-prerecorded soundtrack makes all the songs sound the same and the movie just goes on and on. Only positive is that Anne Hathaway is awesome but, still, her screen time is limited.