shape
carat
color
clarity

Les Miserables

So??? Who went and watched it on Christmas! I was trying to but got stuck at my parents then my in laws for far too long! Hubz is taking me this Saturday tho. I cannot wait!
 
I also cannot WAIT to see this, Les Mis is my favourite too. I saw it when I was a child and loved it, learnt all the songs. I saw it again ( and dragged my boyfriend along too) in London a few years ago. So excited to see the movie, from the trailer I think Anne Hathaway looks great!
 
Not us -- we splashed out for the luxury of Gold Class (the catered, cushion recliners, 26 people in the theater deal), so won't be going until the 3rd. I worked at a cinema for 5 years at home -- the only criticism I've heard from my movie crew is regarding Russell Crowe's performance perhaps being a bit weak. Overall, glowing reviews. :))
 
SO, my sister and I watched this Xmas Eve :) loveddddd it! Haha but I had no idea Borat was in it! I kept imagining he'd pop into Borat character and kidnap a child bride or something.
 
Madelise, I didn't know Sacha Baron Cohen was in it either until I saw him giving an interview the other day.

My family's going to see it today but my husband has to work so he can't go. I'll probably see it again with him next weekend.
 
I wish I could see this in theathers as I think it will be much better then when it comes out on DVD, but with little kids it is hard to get a sitter this time of year :nono: Plus when DH and I do get out we typically do dinner or something where we can talk.

I'm sort of on the fense about this movie. I have seen it in theater many times, which is probably why I feel I have OD'ed on it. I loved it the first time- even the 3rd or 4th time but after that I was ready to move on. However the cast on this seems really interesting and I'm super excitied to see Huge Jackman in it. And though it doesn't seem very popular here on PS I'm actually excitied to see Amanda Seyfried as well. I didn't like her in Mamma Mia but I loved her role in Letters to Juliet.
 
I'm going on Saturday too and I CANNOT WAIT!!!

Before becoming a mom (and very part time now too I guess) I made a living producing theater so I love seeing how many PSers like theater too!
 
Sarahbear621 said:
I wish I could see this in theathers as I think it will be much better then when it comes out on DVD, but with little kids it is hard to get a sitter this time of year :nono: Plus when DH and I do get out we typically do dinner or something where we can talk.

I'm sort of on the fense about this movie. I have seen it in theater many times, which is probably why I feel I have OD'ed on it. I loved it the first time- even the 3rd or 4th time but after that I was ready to move on. However the cast on this seems really interesting and I'm super excitied to see Huge Jackman in it. And though it doesn't seem very popular here on PS I'm actually excitied to see Amanda Seyfried as well. I didn't like her in Mamma Mia but I loved her role in Letters to Juliet.
Have you seen Chloe? If not, don't watch it... You will be traumatized forever. I liked her before that movie. Same as I liked Diane Lane before Unfaithful. Traumatized...
 
I saw it yesterday. It was quite good. People in the theatre clapped at the end. lol

I will agree with reviewers that Russell Crowe cannot sing, although I enjoyed his character. And for all the fabulous press on Anne Hathaway, her character does not really appear in all that much of the movie. She did do a great job though.

I have never seen the musical, and read the book only when I was in school. So I was going in relatively green.

Anne
 
anne_h|1356537701|3340015 said:
I saw it yesterday. It was quite good. People in the theatre clapped at the end. lol

I will agree with reviewers that Russell Crowe cannot sing, although I enjoyed his character. And for all the fabulous press on Anne Hathaway, her character does not really appear in all that much of the movie. She did do a great job though.

I have never seen the musical, and read the book only when I was in school. So I was going in relatively green.

Anne

I'm quite annoyed she got all that publicity. Hello? No one was screaming about Hugh Jackman or Russel Crowe? and I had no idea Helena Bonham Carter or Sacha Cohen were in it at all.. and I rather LOVE HBC. But I think her character in this was too similar to when she played Mrs. Lovett. It was almost exact. I almost pictured Sacha Cohen turning into Sweeney Todd when they were grinding up random meats for their guests. :rolleyes:

Ginger: You have Gold Class cinemas down there, too? I wish I had watched this movie in a Gold Class. I loved it, but my bum hated it. I readjusted my seat over and over again. It was long ;(
 
So, so, so good! We just saw it and it was amazing. Everyone clapped when it ended and you could hear sniffles throughout the theater. I loved Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman but I wasn't crazy about Russell Crowe or Amanda Seyfried's voices. I give them a lot of credit for doing it though.
 
YayTacori|1356535964|3340002 said:
Sarahbear621 said:
I wish I could see this in theathers as I think it will be much better then when it comes out on DVD, but with little kids it is hard to get a sitter this time of year :nono: Plus when DH and I do get out we typically do dinner or something where we can talk.

I'm sort of on the fense about this movie. I have seen it in theater many times, which is probably why I feel I have OD'ed on it. I loved it the first time- even the 3rd or 4th time but after that I was ready to move on. However the cast on this seems really interesting and I'm super excitied to see Huge Jackman in it. And though it doesn't seem very popular here on PS I'm actually excitied to see Amanda Seyfried as well. I didn't like her in Mamma Mia but I loved her role in Letters to Juliet.
Have you seen Chloe? If not, don't watch it... You will be traumatized forever. I liked her before that movie. Same as I liked Diane Lane before Unfaithful. Traumatized...

Hehe, I had forgotten about Chloe! Yeah, it turned me off AS for a while. Then I saw Mama Mia again and she was back in my good graces. :cheeky: I think I'm the only one who likes her in that movie. Sarahbear, if you haven't seen Chloe, take YayTacori's advice and skip it. I had the same thought about the movie version of Les Mis that I think you did. I've seen the show in the theater about 4 times I think and after the last time, I thought, okay, that was good but I'm done now. I've had my fill of Les Mis. I didn't get all the hype about the movie when I first heard about it. I'm SO glad I saw it though. It's definitely worth seeing it, especially on the big screen.

Madelise, I LOVED HBC and SBC! They did a really great job!
 
Zoe|1356571575|3340361 said:
Madelise, I LOVED HBC and SBC! They did a really great job!


I concur! But it just reminded me way too much of Sweeney Todd! The hotel, the "meat" grinding.. same actress.. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but it definitely made me scratch my head.

Reminds me of how Oz and Wonderland both have almost exactly the same posters: http://i.imgur.com/UFbzf.jpg
 
Well, I finally went and watched it... I likes it. But I cannot stand Russell Crowe as a singer. Every time he sang, I wanted to rip my ears out.
 
So...I didn't like it. Actually, I was pretty pissed off by the end of it. There were high points- Anne Hathaway surprised me in the best way, and Eddie Redmayne was fantastic. Gavrosh- no words are necessary, he was brilliant. I had no issues with the acting at all (except for Russell Crowe- you could have put a 2x4 in his place for as much expression as he gave the role. And that voice. Urg.), but I didn't care for about 99% of the choices made by director Tom Hooper. I hated the pacing and timing, especially of the music, but of everything really. I disliked the camera work and I hated the addition of the half-sung dialogue.

The two lowest of the low points for me were 'Bring Him Home', which did make me cry- because it was so awful- and Javert's death, which was lifeless to start with and appalling in the end.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line for me was that it felt like they deconstructed the show- which is so brilliantly and tightly crafted to take the audience on an emotional rollercoaster-for the new medium, which is all well and good. But when they put it back together again they forgot to include all the brillant. It was flat, and stale, which is quite a feat for a show as dramatic as Les Mis. I give it a C, at best.
 
I wept like a baby!!! Love the stage production, LOVE the anniversary concert, and loved the movie! I agree that Russell Crowe could have benefited from some studio backing to strengthen his voice, but I prefer the live singing - there was such emotion in it! I just loved it from start to finish.

And for all my fellow theatre nerds - Les Mis is returning to Broadway in 2014!!!! :appl: :appl: :appl:

http://broadwaytour.net/les-miserables-returns-to-broadway-in-2014
 
WHOA! I'll be booking my NYC airfare NOW. :appl: I've always wanted to see it on Broadway - think I've seen it on stage 6 times now, but Broadway is a league of its own.

I saw the movie last week. It was excellent...but different. For me, you just can't bring the raw emotion and production of a live musical on to the big screen. The interpretation was good though, in terms of the songs and emotions being darker than most of the versions I've seen. For example, "Lovely Ladies" on stage is a colorful, intense, raucous song. The movie brought out much more despair and angst. I enjoyed seeing it this way.

I found Russell Crowe's singing and acting bad enough that it was actually a distraction from the rest of the movie. I really, really, really disliked him in this role. :nono:
 
I haven't seen it, but I'm getting many giggles out of the general "Crowe sucked" vibe. I made a point of listening to each "singer" beforehand, and had that boy nailed as the worst from the git go. The reason I haven't gone is HIM (and HBC, who appalled me with her singing in Sweeney Todd). I'm not sure I could actually sit and listen to someone butcher "Stars" and survive, or not throw tomatoes at the screen....

The world is brimming with attractive, excellent singing stage actors who could transition to film with no problem, and who could use the break. Picking non-trained singers for singing roles just because of their names, doesn't sit well with me. People constantly criticize opera singers for being bad actors (not always the case), but the reverse criticism can easily be lobbed.
 
ksinger|1357642478|3350126 said:
I haven't seen it, but I'm getting many giggles out of the general "Crowe sucked" vibe. I made a point of listening to each "singer" beforehand, and had that boy nailed as the worst from the git go. The reason I haven't gone is HIM (and HBC, who appalled me with her singing in Sweeney Todd). I'm not sure I could actually sit and listen to someone butcher "Stars" and survive, or not throw tomatoes at the screen....

The world is brimming with attractive, excellent singing stage actors who could transition to film with no problem, and who could use the break. Picking non-trained singers for singing roles just because of their names, doesn't sit well with me. People constantly criticize opera singers for being bad actors (not always the case), but the reverse criticism can easily be lobbed.

HBC was entertaining - her role didn't require excellent singing, unlike that of Javert. Her eclectic acting and googly eyes were a good fit for Mme Thenardier.
 
justginger|1357644046|3350135 said:
ksinger|1357642478|3350126 said:
I haven't seen it, but I'm getting many giggles out of the general "Crowe sucked" vibe. I made a point of listening to each "singer" beforehand, and had that boy nailed as the worst from the git go. The reason I haven't gone is HIM (and HBC, who appalled me with her singing in Sweeney Todd). I'm not sure I could actually sit and listen to someone butcher "Stars" and survive, or not throw tomatoes at the screen....

The world is brimming with attractive, excellent singing stage actors who could transition to film with no problem, and who could use the break. Picking non-trained singers for singing roles just because of their names, doesn't sit well with me. People constantly criticize opera singers for being bad actors (not always the case), but the reverse criticism can easily be lobbed.

HBC was entertaining - her role didn't require excellent singing, unlike that of Javert. Her eclectic acting and googly eyes were a good fit for Mme Thenardier.

I will always give HBC her due as a superior actress, character or otherwise. I'm sure her acting was spot on and covered for her singing deficiencies, although as you say, her part was a character singer's part and as such had more leeway in the singing quality area. I just will contend that there is a depth of talent out in the entertainment world to choose from that makes unnecessary the selection of huge acting names who can't really sing, for roles that require the entire voiced part to be sung. Hugh Jackman? Sure, he's the real deal - an established crossover singing actor. Redmayne? I noticed him in The Good Shepherd, and found out later that really WAS his singing, and so yeah, he's the real deal too. Even Hathaway is pretty decent, although her strength is more character roles, from what I've seen - her voice isn't that strong. But Crowe? What were they thinking?? He's going to be living this one down for a long time, I bet.
 
ksinger|1357647382|3350164 said:
justginger|1357644046|3350135 said:
ksinger|1357642478|3350126 said:
I haven't seen it, but I'm getting many giggles out of the general "Crowe sucked" vibe. I made a point of listening to each "singer" beforehand, and had that boy nailed as the worst from the git go. The reason I haven't gone is HIM (and HBC, who appalled me with her singing in Sweeney Todd). I'm not sure I could actually sit and listen to someone butcher "Stars" and survive, or not throw tomatoes at the screen....

The world is brimming with attractive, excellent singing stage actors who could transition to film with no problem, and who could use the break. Picking non-trained singers for singing roles just because of their names, doesn't sit well with me. People constantly criticize opera singers for being bad actors (not always the case), but the reverse criticism can easily be lobbed.

HBC was entertaining - her role didn't require excellent singing, unlike that of Javert. Her eclectic acting and googly eyes were a good fit for Mme Thenardier.

I will always give HBC her due as a superior actress, character or otherwise. I'm sure her acting was spot on and covered for her singing deficiencies, although as you say, her part was a character singer's part and as such had more leeway in the singing quality area. I just will contend that there is a depth of talent out in the entertainment world to choose from that makes unnecessary the selection of huge acting names who can't really sing, for roles that require the entire voiced part to be sung. Hugh Jackman? Sure, he's the real deal - an established crossover singing actor. Redmayne? I noticed him in The Good Shepherd, and found out later that really WAS his singing, and so yeah, he's the real deal too. Even Hathaway is pretty decent, although her strength is more character roles, from what I've seen - her voice isn't that strong. But Crowe? What were they thinking?? He's going to be living this one down for a long time, I bet.

HBC was good, not even hard to listen to, singing wise. I actually think HBC and SBC were better, acting and characterization wise, than the director showed them. All the material was right there, and I didn't feel like it was used to it's best advantage.

But you're absolutely correct- 'Stars' was a DISASTER. Cringe-inducing. Even worse? 'Bring Him Home'; Jackman is a legit Broadway singer, but I don't think he's actually a tenor. It was difficult for me to listen to, and that note, you know the one...not even an attempt. Which was probably the right choice given the nasal, closed quality of his performance throughout.

If they wanted the name, and the chops, why didn't they go with someone like Gerard Butler for Javert? He sang Phantom for goshsakes! Not like Michael Crawford, of course, but at least he had some power and expression!
 
justginger|1357636431|3350111 said:
WHOA! I'll be booking my NYC airfare NOW. :appl: I've always wanted to see it on Broadway - think I've seen it on stage 6 times now, but Broadway is a league of its own.

I saw the movie last week. It was excellent...but different. For me, you just can't bring the raw emotion and production of a live musical on to the big screen. The interpretation was good though, in terms of the songs and emotions being darker than most of the versions I've seen. For example, "Lovely Ladies" on stage is a colorful, intense, raucous song. The movie brought out much more despair and angst. I enjoyed seeing it this way.

I found Russell Crowe's singing and acting bad enough that it was actually a distraction from the rest of the movie. I really, really, really disliked him in this role. :nono:


I completely agree about the darker feel of the movie, and it's a valid interpretation. But, for me, what got left out was the juxtaposition of the misery and the hope. There was no hope; she didn't even make a cameo. :twirl:
 
aviastar|1357670289|3350383 said:
ksinger|1357647382|3350164 said:
justginger|1357644046|3350135 said:
ksinger|1357642478|3350126 said:
I haven't seen it, but I'm getting many giggles out of the general "Crowe sucked" vibe. I made a point of listening to each "singer" beforehand, and had that boy nailed as the worst from the git go. The reason I haven't gone is HIM (and HBC, who appalled me with her singing in Sweeney Todd). I'm not sure I could actually sit and listen to someone butcher "Stars" and survive, or not throw tomatoes at the screen....

The world is brimming with attractive, excellent singing stage actors who could transition to film with no problem, and who could use the break. Picking non-trained singers for singing roles just because of their names, doesn't sit well with me. People constantly criticize opera singers for being bad actors (not always the case), but the reverse criticism can easily be lobbed.

HBC was entertaining - her role didn't require excellent singing, unlike that of Javert. Her eclectic acting and googly eyes were a good fit for Mme Thenardier.

I will always give HBC her due as a superior actress, character or otherwise. I'm sure her acting was spot on and covered for her singing deficiencies, although as you say, her part was a character singer's part and as such had more leeway in the singing quality area. I just will contend that there is a depth of talent out in the entertainment world to choose from that makes unnecessary the selection of huge acting names who can't really sing, for roles that require the entire voiced part to be sung. Hugh Jackman? Sure, he's the real deal - an established crossover singing actor. Redmayne? I noticed him in The Good Shepherd, and found out later that really WAS his singing, and so yeah, he's the real deal too. Even Hathaway is pretty decent, although her strength is more character roles, from what I've seen - her voice isn't that strong. But Crowe? What were they thinking?? He's going to be living this one down for a long time, I bet.

HBC was good, not even hard to listen to, singing wise. I actually think HBC and SBC were better, acting and characterization wise, than the director showed them. All the material was right there, and I didn't feel like it was used to it's best advantage.

But you're absolutely correct- 'Stars' was a DISASTER. Cringe-inducing. Even worse? 'Bring Him Home'; Jackman is a legit Broadway singer, but I don't think he's actually a tenor. It was difficult for me to listen to, and that note, you know the one...not even an attempt. Which was probably the right choice given the nasal, closed quality of his performance throughout.

If they wanted the name, and the chops, why didn't they go with someone like Gerard Butler for Javert? He sang Phantom for goshsakes! Not like Michael Crawford, of course, but at least he had some power and expression!

Funny you should say that about Jackman, that he's legit. Kinda cross-meaning, but that has always been my only complaint about him, that all the performances of his that I've heard, are hard belt style, which is fine when the role requires a brassy sound. I've never heard him sing very "legit" (not even in Oklahoma!), which I think would have served him better in this role, than a brassy belt, especially on "Bring Him Home". I'm sorry to hear you say he did it in Le Mis. And nasal you say? Gads. Hugh, Hugh...sigh. A week of hanging with Josh Groban might be good for him, to remind him there are other modes of vocal production.

Sigh, at some point though, I'll actually have to sit through it, much like I forced myself to sit through Glenn Close in the remake of South Pacific, long past the point of the onset of my intense disappointment.

Yes, I know I'm a snob in all this, but dammit, I see a musical for the fact that it has music. And when a production is a MUSICAL, then the MUSIC needs to be the primary vehicle to advance the story, and in that situation, if the well-known and beloved music is poorly executed, it's so distracting and disappointing that it might as well just be a straight play or movie, IMO.
 
ksinger|1357674148|3350434 said:
Funny you should say that about Jackman, that he's legit. Kinda cross-meaning, but that has always been my only complaint about him, that all the performances of his that I've heard, are hard belt style, which is fine when the role requires a brassy sound. I've never heard him sing very "legit" (not even in Oklahoma!), which I think would have served him better in this role, than a brassy belt, especially on "Bring Him Home". I'm sorry to hear you say he did it in Le Mis. And nasal you say? Gads. Hugh, Hugh...sigh. A week of hanging with Josh Groban might be good for him, to remind him there are other modes of vocal production.

Sigh, at some point though, I'll actually have to sit through it, much like I forced myself to sit through Glenn Close in the remake of South Pacific, long past the point of the onset of my intense disappointment.

Yes, I know I'm a snob in all this, but dammit, I see a musical for the fact that it has music. And when a production is a MUSICAL, then the MUSIC needs to be the primary vehicle to advance the story, and in that situation, if the well-known and beloved music is poorly executed, it's so distracting and disappointing that it might as well just be a straight play or movie, IMO.

Weeeellllll....legit meaning that he does perform on Broadway, with success, and that there are vocal roles that are a fit for his voice, especially considering the acting skills he brings with them, which are different for the stage than the screen. I didn't see it on Broadway, but his Tony performance from The Boy from Oz was perfectly suitable for the role. Jean Valjean is not one of these roles. It wasn't a bad idea to consider him for the role; it was a bad idea to choose him. I think of it much like Natasha Richardson in the revival of Cabaret; she is not even close to a classical singer, but it worked well in that role- a little rough and tumble, full of vim and vigor, excellently timed and acted. I would never, however, have considered her for any part that required any kind of range or depth of technique.

Personally, I am not a fan of the belting; so few people can do it well. Some music is written for it (Rent comes to mind), and I tend to not prefer those shows, myself. Obviously, this is a taste thing; Rent is hugely popular, just not my cup of tea.

I admit to being a snob outright; it's all that classical performance training I have. I just can't watch without deconstructing. :rodent:
 
aviastar|1357676691|3350478 said:
ksinger|1357674148|3350434 said:
Funny you should say that about Jackman, that he's legit. Kinda cross-meaning, but that has always been my only complaint about him, that all the performances of his that I've heard, are hard belt style, which is fine when the role requires a brassy sound. I've never heard him sing very "legit" (not even in Oklahoma!), which I think would have served him better in this role, than a brassy belt, especially on "Bring Him Home". I'm sorry to hear you say he did it in Le Mis. And nasal you say? Gads. Hugh, Hugh...sigh. A week of hanging with Josh Groban might be good for him, to remind him there are other modes of vocal production.

Sigh, at some point though, I'll actually have to sit through it, much like I forced myself to sit through Glenn Close in the remake of South Pacific, long past the point of the onset of my intense disappointment.

Yes, I know I'm a snob in all this, but dammit, I see a musical for the fact that it has music. And when a production is a MUSICAL, then the MUSIC needs to be the primary vehicle to advance the story, and in that situation, if the well-known and beloved music is poorly executed, it's so distracting and disappointing that it might as well just be a straight play or movie, IMO.

Weeeellllll....legit meaning that he does perform on Broadway, with success, and that there are vocal roles that are a fit for his voice, especially considering the acting skills he brings with them, which are different for the stage than the screen. I didn't see it on Broadway, but his Tony performance from The Boy from Oz was perfectly suitable for the role. Jean Valjean is not one of these roles. It wasn't a bad idea to consider him for the role; it was a bad idea to choose him. I think of it much like Natasha Richardson in the revival of Cabaret; she is not even close to a classical singer, but it worked well in that role- a little rough and tumble, full of vim and vigor, excellently timed and acted. I would never, however, have considered her for any part that required any kind of range or depth of technique.

Personally, I am not a fan of the belting; so few people can do it well. Some music is written for it (Rent comes to mind), and I tend to not prefer those shows, myself. Obviously, this is a taste thing; Rent is hugely popular, just not my cup of tea.

I admit to being a snob outright; it's all that classical performance training I have. I just can't watch without deconstructing. :rodent:

LOL! Same here! And I don't always deconstruct with big criticisms. Some performers just awe me and I can just sit back and relax into the stellar performance. And appreciate it more since I know something of how they do it and how much effort and time was required.

Oh and my favorite belter who can turn it off at will? Kristen Chenoweth. I just love watching her do "Glitter And Be Gay". Fun stuff. A big fan of Audra McDonald too - great blended voice.
 
ksinger|1357677287|3350487 said:
aviastar|1357676691|3350478 said:
ksinger|1357674148|3350434 said:
Funny you should say that about Jackman, that he's legit. Kinda cross-meaning, but that has always been my only complaint about him, that all the performances of his that I've heard, are hard belt style, which is fine when the role requires a brassy sound. I've never heard him sing very "legit" (not even in Oklahoma!), which I think would have served him better in this role, than a brassy belt, especially on "Bring Him Home". I'm sorry to hear you say he did it in Le Mis. And nasal you say? Gads. Hugh, Hugh...sigh. A week of hanging with Josh Groban might be good for him, to remind him there are other modes of vocal production.

Sigh, at some point though, I'll actually have to sit through it, much like I forced myself to sit through Glenn Close in the remake of South Pacific, long past the point of the onset of my intense disappointment.

Yes, I know I'm a snob in all this, but dammit, I see a musical for the fact that it has music. And when a production is a MUSICAL, then the MUSIC needs to be the primary vehicle to advance the story, and in that situation, if the well-known and beloved music is poorly executed, it's so distracting and disappointing that it might as well just be a straight play or movie, IMO.

Weeeellllll....legit meaning that he does perform on Broadway, with success, and that there are vocal roles that are a fit for his voice, especially considering the acting skills he brings with them, which are different for the stage than the screen. I didn't see it on Broadway, but his Tony performance from The Boy from Oz was perfectly suitable for the role. Jean Valjean is not one of these roles. It wasn't a bad idea to consider him for the role; it was a bad idea to choose him. I think of it much like Natasha Richardson in the revival of Cabaret; she is not even close to a classical singer, but it worked well in that role- a little rough and tumble, full of vim and vigor, excellently timed and acted. I would never, however, have considered her for any part that required any kind of range or depth of technique.

Personally, I am not a fan of the belting; so few people can do it well. Some music is written for it (Rent comes to mind), and I tend to not prefer those shows, myself. Obviously, this is a taste thing; Rent is hugely popular, just not my cup of tea.

I admit to being a snob outright; it's all that classical performance training I have. I just can't watch without deconstructing. :rodent:

LOL! Same here! And I don't always deconstruct with big criticisms. Some performers just awe me and I can just sit back and relax into the stellar performance. And appreciate it more since I know something of how they do it and how much effort and time was required.

Oh and my favorite belter who can turn it off at will? Kristen Chenoweth. I just love watching her do "Glitter And Be Gay". Fun stuff. A big fan of Audra McDonald too - great blended voice.

YES! Exactly! And I l-o-v-e those two women; never a worry with them, it's always right. Audra's performance in Ragtime is one of my all time favorites.

After seeing Les Mis, I went home and listened to Colm Wilkenson and the original Broadway cast- I got goosebumps. Yesterday I was watching some Riverdance clips with Michael Flately- goosebumps. That's what I missed in the movie- nary a trace of a single goosebump to be found in 2.5 hours of viewing. For me, it never soared.

I am glad that other people are enjoying it, and I know that I didn't in large part due to my expectations, and my previous experiences with the show and the music. I really wanted to love it, and I just didn't. But I am not always this negative! I really loved the film adaptation of Chicago by Rob Marshall a few years back; great example in Richard Gere of a passable/adequate performance made excellent by a director's choices and not dragging the rest of the crew down. Marshall got big names, didn't skimp on talent (John C. Reilly- who knew he was brilliant?), maintained the heart and soul of the stage show, without just filming a stage production, and let the music and the choreography, especially, just take center stage.
 
aviastar|1357681648|3350584 said:
ksinger|1357677287|3350487 said:
aviastar|1357676691|3350478 said:
ksinger|1357674148|3350434 said:
Funny you should say that about Jackman, that he's legit. Kinda cross-meaning, but that has always been my only complaint about him, that all the performances of his that I've heard, are hard belt style, which is fine when the role requires a brassy sound. I've never heard him sing very "legit" (not even in Oklahoma!), which I think would have served him better in this role, than a brassy belt, especially on "Bring Him Home". I'm sorry to hear you say he did it in Le Mis. And nasal you say? Gads. Hugh, Hugh...sigh. A week of hanging with Josh Groban might be good for him, to remind him there are other modes of vocal production.

Sigh, at some point though, I'll actually have to sit through it, much like I forced myself to sit through Glenn Close in the remake of South Pacific, long past the point of the onset of my intense disappointment.

Yes, I know I'm a snob in all this, but dammit, I see a musical for the fact that it has music. And when a production is a MUSICAL, then the MUSIC needs to be the primary vehicle to advance the story, and in that situation, if the well-known and beloved music is poorly executed, it's so distracting and disappointing that it might as well just be a straight play or movie, IMO.

Weeeellllll....legit meaning that he does perform on Broadway, with success, and that there are vocal roles that are a fit for his voice, especially considering the acting skills he brings with them, which are different for the stage than the screen. I didn't see it on Broadway, but his Tony performance from The Boy from Oz was perfectly suitable for the role. Jean Valjean is not one of these roles. It wasn't a bad idea to consider him for the role; it was a bad idea to choose him. I think of it much like Natasha Richardson in the revival of Cabaret; she is not even close to a classical singer, but it worked well in that role- a little rough and tumble, full of vim and vigor, excellently timed and acted. I would never, however, have considered her for any part that required any kind of range or depth of technique.

Personally, I am not a fan of the belting; so few people can do it well. Some music is written for it (Rent comes to mind), and I tend to not prefer those shows, myself. Obviously, this is a taste thing; Rent is hugely popular, just not my cup of tea.

I admit to being a snob outright; it's all that classical performance training I have. I just can't watch without deconstructing. :rodent:

LOL! Same here! And I don't always deconstruct with big criticisms. Some performers just awe me and I can just sit back and relax into the stellar performance. And appreciate it more since I know something of how they do it and how much effort and time was required.

Oh and my favorite belter who can turn it off at will? Kristen Chenoweth. I just love watching her do "Glitter And Be Gay". Fun stuff. A big fan of Audra McDonald too - great blended voice.

YES! Exactly! And I l-o-v-e those two women; never a worry with them, it's always right. Audra's performance in Ragtime is one of my all time favorites.

After seeing Les Mis, I went home and listened to Colm Wilkenson and the original Broadway cast- I got goosebumps. Yesterday I was watching some Riverdance clips with Michael Flately- goosebumps. That's what I missed in the movie- nary a trace of a single goosebump to be found in 2.5 hours of viewing. For me, it never soared.

I am glad that other people are enjoying it, and I know that I didn't in large part due to my expectations, and my previous experiences with the show and the music. I really wanted to love it, and I just didn't. But I am not always this negative! I really loved the film adaptation of Chicago by Rob Marshall a few years back; great example in Richard Gere of a passable/adequate performance made excellent by a director's choices and not dragging the rest of the crew down. Marshall got big names, didn't skimp on talent (John C. Reilly- who knew he was brilliant?), maintained the heart and soul of the stage show, without just filming a stage production, and let the music and the choreography, especially, just take center stage.

Yes! Blown away by his performance in Chicago! But then I've always loved him in anything I've ever seen him in. I think, in general, character actors are just better actors than leading types. I confess though, I've never been a fan of Colm Wilkinson, which I realize puts me in a minority. And one last bit of what has become a threadjack (sorry guys) I'll tell you because of your classical background, (and because I can't impress anyone around here - Oklahoma not exactly being a hotbed for opera/opera knowledge, although we do have some killer teachers here, not the least of whom is the woman who taught Kristin Chenoweth) that I had a cousin (roughly my mother's generation) who sang with Corelli and Tucker back in the day. As the years have gone by there has been more stuff show up on the web about her - at one time there was almost nothing. I'm glad she's not being totally forgotten, because she was no slouch.

http://www.taminophile.com/2010/01/lucille-udovich-new-post.html

End threadjack.
 
Now that you've mentioned it, avia, I do think Chicago translated better to the big screen. I enjoyed Les Mis because I ADORE the entire story, down to my very marrow. I'm not sure you could make a version of it that I couldn't find good in. That being said, the general feeling I had when I walked out was: but. It was great, but... It didn't touch a nerve in me like the live show does. I felt no stirring of emotion until the very end, and even then the goosebumps didn't come like they should have.

I think perhaps the best aspect of this movie is that it will reach an audience that otherwise wouldn't know about it - and now they will be interested in seeing the live production when it tours to their city. Then they can have the REAL Les Mis experience. :))
 
I liked the musical, but not a crazy fan of Les Mis. I'll probably leave this for DVD, then I can FF through Crowe's godawful singing. :lol:
 
justginger|1357741284|3351199 said:
Now that you've mentioned it, avia, I do think Chicago translated better to the big screen. I enjoyed Les Mis because I ADORE the entire story, down to my very marrow. I'm not sure you could make a version of it that I couldn't find good in. That being said, the general feeling I had when I walked out was: but. It was great, but... It didn't touch a nerve in me like the live show does. I felt no stirring of emotion until the very end, and even then the goosebumps didn't come like they should have.

I think perhaps the best aspect of this movie is that it will reach an audience that otherwise wouldn't know about it - and now they will be interested in seeing the live production when it tours to their city. Then they can have the REAL Les Mis experience. :))

Yeah, I think you're talking about me. I really liked the film, I actually had more problems with Hugh Jackman's singing than I did with RC's, but I'd never seen the live show. I didn't even know the storyline. So I was free to just enjoy it, and boy did I! Now I know it's worth seeing on stage, so I'll be sure to try to get tickets at some point and see it live, which I wouldn't have done before without major prodding.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top