Les Miserables 8: Still Miserable

[Cuculiza]

THR is in!

Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe sing -- and wage a sisyphean battle against musical diahrrea -- in Tom Hooper's adaptation of the stage sensation.
(...)But director Tom Hooper has turned the theatrical extravaganza into something that is far less about the rigors of existence in early 19th century France than it is about actors emoting mightily and singing their guts out. As the enduring success of this property has shown, there are large, emotionally susceptible segments of the population ready to swallow this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's good.

[Jonathan]

THR review!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mov.../398662?miss=1

Opening line:

"A gallery of stellar performers wages a sisyphean battle against musical diahrrea and a laboriously repetitive visual approach in the big-screen version of the stage sensation Les Miserables."

Not looking good...

[lil kid man]

Yikes.

[sleepingbeauty]

Variety is in too.

As a faithful rendering of a justly beloved musical, "Les Miserables" will more than satisfy the show's legions of fans. Even so, director Tom Hooper and the producers have taken a number of artistic liberties with this lavish bigscreen interpretation: The squalor and upheaval of early 19th-century France are conveyed with a vividness that would have made Victor Hugo proud, heightened by the raw, hungry intensity of the actors' live oncamera vocals. Yet for all its expected highs, the adaptation has been managed with more gusto than grace; at the end of the day, this impassioned epic too often topples beneath the weight of its own grandiosity.

Anne Hathaway is getting major raves though:

Hathaway's turn is brief but galvanic. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream," captured in a single take, represents the picture's high point, an extraordinary distillation of anguish, defiance and barely flickering hope in which the lyrics seem to choke forth like barely suppressed howls of grief.

[Jonathan]

Hm, McCarthy isn't even a big fan of live singing:

With Hooper's undoubted encouragement, the eager thespians give it their all here, for better and for worse. The “live” vocal performances provide an extra vibrancy and immediacy that is palpable, although one cannot say that the technique is necessarily superior in principle, as it was also used by Peter Bogdanovich on his famed folie, At Long Last Love.

And Variety is also in - lukewarm positive (ETA: Ugh, fucking school wifi...)

[crazyfists3600]

LOL, four posts with the same blurp from the Variety review...

take it easy guys...

[Aaron Leggo]

I love that everyone's so excited for actual reviews that the same stuff is getting posted in back-to-back posts!

Well, I definitely expected a more positive reaction than this. I never really believed it could take the top prizes at the Oscars, but I still figured plenty of respectful, mostly positive reviews would meet the movie. And there are still many to go, but THR and Variety both coming down on it isn't a good sign.

ETA: Hmmm... I wonder what the first paragraph of the Variety review is...

[steve4922]

Well the Variety review says that Jackman's "less at home with the higher register of Valjean's daunting two-octave range; there's more strain than soul in his performance of 'Bring Him Home,' usually one of the show's peak moments." Given the range of Jackman's voice, I wondered how on earth he would sing this, and the answer is apparently not well. I thought it was peculiar that the numerous tweets never mentioned his performance of this song, which usually brings the house down.

[russen18]

this is horrible!!!

but then again Variety and THR were mixed on Anna Karenina, so ehhh I am sure I will love this too.

This isnt winning picture or Director.

Supporting Actress, production design, and song. I am calling it for those three.

[gollum713]

Well this is unexpected. Definitely does not seem like the reviews of a Best Picture nominee, let alone a Best Picture winner. I'm leaving it in my predictions, but I don't know if this is the behemoth we all thought it was based off of early twitter reactions. Also, Hooper is getting killed in the reviews. Is it possible he misses?

[Jonathan]

SORRY, MY SCHOOL'S WI-FI SUCKS ASS.

This isn't very promising for future reviews though. The uber-positive response from those first screenings seems very premature now.

[Cuculiza]

Ok so if I'm reading well, these reviews say the film is passionately done but overdone? It all seems pretty "OK".

[steve4922]

Ok so if I'm reading well, these reviews say the film is passionately done but overdone? It all seems pretty "OK".

The Variety review is arguably somewhat OK; the Hollywood Reporter Review is pretty much a pan.

[with_one_voice]

LOL, four posts with the same blurp from the Variety review...

take it easy guys...

Lol, mine was posted first! But I'm gonna delete it, since sleepingbeauty edited the excerpt into his post.

This isn't very promising for future reviews though. The uber-positive response from those first screenings seems very premature now.

LOL, that's because that first screening was in NEW YORK CITY. Y'all know they stacked it with theatre/Les Mis fanatics

Anyway, these non-positive reviews from the big trades already are... unexpected

[raguabros]

So this doesn't look like a winner... It will still get a ton of noms, though.

[Aurelius]

Ok so if I'm reading well, these reviews say the film is passionately done but overdone? It all seems pretty "OK".

This film needs more than OK to have a chance. If this continues, Hooper can kiss his nomination goodbye, and BP is out of the question.

[Cuculiza]

It'll still be kind of a box office hit right? What are the expectations on this? The budget is apparently $61 million. I guess something in that range will be ok statesside.

[ewdot2480]

Honestly, I'm sure this film will get good reviews from many a critic. But I have been getting bad vibes for the past 5-7 days or so. I honestly think that the critics will sink this film's chances for winning Best Pic. And as of now, I could see this ending up somewhere in the 70s or even 60s on Metacritic. I don't think it will drop to 49 level (a la Nine). But this film will be quite polarizing.

[raguabros]

Ugh I hate Tom Hooper.

Greatly compounding the problem is that director Hooper, in his first outing since conquering Hollywood two years ago with his debut feature, The King's Speech, stages virtually every scene and song the same manner, with the camera swooping in on the singer and thereafter covering him or her and any other participants with hovering tight shots.

Almost any great musical one can think of features sequences shot in different ways, depending upon the nature of the music and the dramatic moment; for Hooper, all musical numbers warrant the same monotonous approach of shoving the camera right in the performer's face; any closer and their breath would fog the lens, as, in this instance, the actors commendably sang live during the shooting, rather than being prerecorded.

- THR

[sleepingbeauty]

Lol, mine was posted first! But I'm gonna delete it, since sleepingbeauty edited the excerpt into his post.

Sorry, when I edited it in, I didn't see it being posted by anyone yet. (The edit note came from my Hathaway addition). I would take it out but you already did from yours.