Thursday, January 17, 2013

Movie: Les Miserables

Not your average movie, but it passed the test of lasting impression.
I guess always going to be difficult transferred to the screen when you know a stage musical so well, with all the stereotypes to overcome.
When Jackman and Crowe appear, you automatically expect acting, but you get singing, and when Hathaway sets up to Dream a Dream, we dont get the Susan Boyle rendition we've somehow accepted as standard, we get acting! 6-8 minutes of sniffing, sobbing and face-pulling, instead of soaring glorious melody, lost in the drama.
Jackman thoroughly deserved his Golden Globe Best Actor Musical I thought, despite the cheap shot of one critic who said his voice creaked "but maybe that was just for dramatic effect". I didnt notice it.
Hathaway ditto female, well maybe because there wasnt much else in the field, the role of Fantine isnt a very big one.
Russell Crowe, likeable bugger, so-so, but he did "Stars" really well.
Some reviews have suggested a bit of license taken with the story line vs the stage show's, and this was all to the good I thought, I've never really got to grips with the stage plot, but the movie tied up the plot and sub-plots pretty good, even if they were contrived somewhat, at which stage the musical became a movie again!
Never read Victor Hugo either so dunno for certain about the story.
Another observation maybe peculiar just to me, but have been moved at almost every stage show I've been to, even the local Amdram, but never got the same level of emotion with this movie.
That Dompost reviewer Tuckett says he knows nothing about musicals, but as a movie it ticks all the right boxes, and I'd agree, camera, direction, setting etc, strong contributors to the lasting impression.
You could hardly get a better score-line in a musical than with Les Mis, and the music was always going to pull this one through.
Pity about dreaming a dream.
Still, 5 out of 5.

No comments:

Post a Comment