Les Miserables 55: Oh wait, that's the Metacritic score

[Blasty]

I disagree. Evita was the first Major Studio Musical offering of any kind that I can remember in like a decade at the time? Unless you count what, that Disney bomb Newsies? Or one of those Muppets movies? I can only remember Little Shop of Horrors before that. In fact, I just looked it up. It basically WAS the only real musical (live-action), for the most part, of any note in a DECADE. And it did get people excited for movie musicals again. I know, I was there.

[Largo]

I still can't believe Chicago revived the modern musical, on account of the fact that it's awful.

[steve4922]

I still can't believe Chicago revived the modern musical, on account of the fact that it's awful.

If you think Chicago was awful, stay away from Mama Mia, Phantom and Rent.

[Blasty]

I still can't believe Chicago revived the modern musical, on account of the fact that it's awful.

While I wouldn't call it awful, it is very disappointing When you consider the stage musical Chicago truly is one of the greatest musicals of all time (yes, better than Evita, the stage musical!) But Evita ended up a much more successful adaptation than Chicago did, mostly because Rob Marshall, as we all know, is a hack and due to some miscasting.

[steve4922]

While I wouldn't call it awful, it is very disappointing When you consider the stage musical Chicago truly is one of the greatest musicals of all time (yes, better than Evita, the stage musical!) But Evita ended up a much more successful adaptation than Chicago did, mostly because Rob Marshall, as we all know, is a hack and due to some miscasting.

Chicago (the movie) >>>>>>>>>>>Evita (the movie).

[Blasty]

Because of Rene Zellwegger, Richard Gere and misguided direction, I will have to disagree with you there. It could have been the musical some pretended it was but the Emperor has no clothes there I'm afraid.

[Melllvar]

For what it's worth, I think Once is far and away the best musical of the last decade or so. Certainly the most innovative.

[russen18]

wow Sam Barks sounds horrible! So disappointed.

[Thomas]

Chicago is not a good film, and the cinematography is atrocious.
Sweeney Todd, Lagaan, A Mighty Wind, 8 Femmes, The Saddest Music in the World, Romance & Cigarettes are the best decent attempts at musical films the past ten years.

[BTN]

Madonna was attached to the Chicago movie for a long time. A big part of that movie being put on track to be made was not only its successful revival but also Evita.

[Blasty]

Chicago is not a good film, and the cinematography is atrocious.
Sweeney Todd, Lagaan, A Mighty Wind, 8 Femmes, The Saddest Music in the World, Romance & Cigarettes are the best decent attempts at musical films the past ten years.

YES!! I remember having it difficult to find people who agreed with me at the time about it's cinematography - I really, really hated it.

Also, there was another great musical in 1996, that I believe Thomas mentioned it earlier and I'm a great fan of it, as is McTeague, and that is, of course, Everyone Says I Love You. But, to me, that's different in that it's not really a Broadway musical - I mean having characters sing Gershwin and Cole Porter tunes is not really this huge risk the way adopting a famous Broadway musical to the screen is. Also, Woody Allen was persona non grata at the time (mostly) with Hollywood awards and at the box office and this film was met with pretty limited response at the time, generally speaking. But it is a great film. I'd say it's a bit better than Evita actually. but both are on my best list for the year.

[steve4922]

Because of Rene Zellwegger, Richard Gere and misguided direction, I will have to disagree with you there. It could have been the musical some pretended it was but the Emperor has no clothes there I'm afraid.

Translating musicals to the screen is a dicey business at best, but I thought Marshall did a fine job with Chicago. The songs were presented in a way that really worked for me--the movie preserved the spirit and feeling of the show in a way that I thought was original. I know most people here hate Zellwegger, but I liked what she did with Roxie. Gere was OK as Billy. Most of the critics liked it, and it obviously did very well at the box office.

Evita, on the other hand. I still don't think Madonna can act her way out a paper bag, and vocally she's not strong enough to sing the role properly. And Evita without, well, Evita is problematic, to say the least. Critics generally didn't care much for the movie, but it did OK at the BO I suppose.

[Donezo]

LOL. I agree with the sentiment behind the statement, but didn't Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe wrote My Fair Lady specifically for Rex Harrison? (he created the original role on the Broadway debut of this in 1956. The London producton had to wait until 1958.) The reason Lerner created those now infamous "talk-speech singing" numbers was that he was fully aware Harrison couldn't sing a note to save his life!

That's actually true, and therefore maybe my comparison wasn't the best. Maybe Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd is better. I actually love him in that film even though he can't really sing. However, that score is dark and not melodic. It's the anti-Les Miz in that sense.

[Blasty]

I know people who actually PREFER how Madonna sang it to the Tony winning Patti Lupone, I kid you not. Madonna really worked on her strengthening her voice for the role and I thought she was believable at selling the songs and hitting them (in a lowered key) super successfully. Some people find Lupone too shrieky and over the top (not saying I do but I understand what they're saying). Madonna more than held her own with her singing - most critics gave her credit for that, and anyway, Lloyd Webber's songs are really only faux-broadway operatta - there is more "pop" in them than anything else, they're just dressed up in musical stylings, so it really was perfect for Madonna. It was not, like, distracting, which is how I would describe non-singers Gere and Zellwegger were in Chicago - their "voices" took me entirely out of the story.

[City Lights]

I know people who actually PREFER how Madonna sang it to the Tony winning Patti Lupone, I kid you not. Madonna really worked on her strengthening her voice for the role and I thought she was believable at selling the songs and hitting them (in a lowered key) super successfully. Some people find Lupone too shrieky and over the top (not saying I do but I understand what they're saying). Madonna more than held her own with her singing - most critics gave her credit for that, and anyway, Lloyd Webber's songs are really only faux-broadway operatta - there is more "pop" in them than anything else, they're just dressed up in musical stylings, so it really was perfect for Madonna. It was not, like, distracting, which is how I would describe non-singers Gere and Zellwegger were in Chicago - their "voices" took me entirely out of the story.

Zellweger's voice was FINE for the role she was playing -- a no-talent hack who gained fame by way of doing something horrible (like the Kardashians).

[siowafc]

What you all have forgotten in this "Chicago is trash!" discussion is that it also contains Catherine Zeta-Jones' performance, which is basically a showstopper far beyond anything that Anne Hathaway could ever dream of.

[Donezo]

I know people who actually PREFER how Madonna sang it to the Tony winning Patti Lupone, I kid you not. Madonna really worked on her strengthening her voice for the role and I thought she was believable at selling the songs and hitting them (in a lowered key) super successfully. Some people find Lupone too shrieky and over the top (not saying I do but I understand what they're saying). Madonna more than held her own with her singing - most critics gave her credit for that, and anyway, Lloyd Webber's songs are really only faux-broadway operatta - there is more "pop" in them than anything else, they're just dressed up in musical stylings, so it really was perfect for Madonna. It was not, like, distracting, which is how I would describe non-singers Gere and Zellwegger were in Chicago - their "voices" took me entirely out of the story.

I agree with this and really prefer the Julie Covington take on the role on the concept album to Patti LuPone's histrionics. Madonna took the Covington approach and it worked out well.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like to sit through a night of Patti LuPone AND Mandy Patinkin hamming it up for two and a half hours. Jesus.

[erikdean]

I know people who actually PREFER how Madonna sang it to the Tony winning Patti Lupone, I kid you not. Madonna really worked on her strengthening her voice for the role and I thought she was believable at selling the songs and hitting them (in a lowered key) super successfully. Some people find Lupone too shrieky and over the top (not saying I do but I understand what they're saying). Madonna more than held her own with her singing - most critics gave her credit for that, and anyway, Lloyd Webber's songs are really only faux-broadway operatta - there is more "pop" in them than anything else, they're just dressed up in musical stylings, so it really was perfect for Madonna. It was not, like, distracting, which is how I would describe non-singers Gere and Zellwegger were in Chicago - their "voices" took me entirely out of the story.

Patti LuPone is a menopausal hag.

[Blasty]

Zellweger's voice was FINE for the role she was playing -- a no-talent hack who gained fame by way of doing something horrible (like the Kardashians).

So should we take back Liza Minelli's Oscar for Cabaret because she's supposed to also be playing a no-talent hack but she chose to sing her songs brilliantly instead of terribly?

I mean, come on now. She was just miscast plain and simple. She didn't need to sing outstanding but she needed to be able to SING them and sell them and express them with theatricality and musicality and she don't have an ounce of that in her body. The actress who played the original Sally Bowles on Broadway actually doesn't have an outstanding voice, it's gravely and rough around the edges, her name is Jill Hawarth but she sold the shit out of the songs and belted them brilliantly - you believed she wasn't a flawless singer but she still sang em great.

[Elessar]

After watching the new clips, I'm quite excited for this on Tuesday (or whenever I get to see it). But, yeah, casting Crowe looks like it was a misfire. I love everything the man's done on screen, and I'll probably love his acting in this - but the voice just isn't there for this type of stuff. Too bad. Everything else looks great, though.

That short snippet of Colm Wilksinson is enough to make one wish he'd been cast as Valjean in the film, regardless of age (even though I think Jackman looks quite good in this). The man's just phenomenal.