UKC

I cant see a thread about the new film so thought I'd start one as I'm sure a few people on here must have been to see it.
I have and thought it was epic, the sets are amazing and the characters well played.

In reply to Hannah S:

Glad you enjoyed yourself.

In reply to Hannah S:

For a moment I thought this was a one man show, like The National Theatre of Brent but fewer people.

In reply to Hannah S:
My daughter went and thought it was boring.
based on her review i'll be giving it a miss.

In reply to Hannah S:


It was epic......just shy of 3 hours.
I can only report on the first half - very boring.
Second half I was asleep!

In reply to Hannah:

My daughters went and thought it was boring.
Based on their review I'll be giving it a miss.

S

In reply to Hannah S:

My wife went and thought it was boring.
Based on her review I'll be giving it a miss.

In reply to Hannah S:

I liked it. Not a fan of musicals in general, but I liked the stage show and this was a good film adaptation imo.

In reply to Hannah S:
My great aunt went and thought it was brilliant.
I prefer not to take any advice from her, so I'll be giving it a miss.

In reply to Hannah S:

Enjoyed it very much despite myself, after the initial shock. It runs on the premise that whereas not all singers can act, most actors can sing, in the sense of put a song over, even if they don't have good voices.
It's a great Victorian melodrama that beats you into submission, more like an opera because it's sung through.
I can see why you might hate it but not why you might be bored.

In reply to Andy Long:
well said.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

They loved the stage version though.

In reply to bullybones:

Nice, you make me laugh!

In reply to winhill:

<chortle>

In reply to Slugain Howff:


My wife too.
I prefered Joseph and the amazing technicolour dreamcoat though.

In reply to Hannah S:

I am a huge fan of musicals. Stage musicals. I've never much liked musicals on film. I've been to see Les Mis twice on the West End and loved it both times so I don't feel the need to see it in the cinema.

In reply to Ava Adore:

But not everyone can afford that. The film version is useful for poorer people who can now see the musical.

In reply to Hirosim:

Certainly not me...

In reply to Hirosim:
I guess that's one way to look at it.

In reply to Hannah S:



http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=532796&v=1#x7155096

In reply to Andy Long:

In which universe can Les Misérables be accurately described as "Victorian"?

In reply to Hannah S:

If it's as bad as the stage version - a musical pretentiously trying to be an opera and failing dismally (or should that be miserably) - then I'll be giving it a mis.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Technically it was set during Victoria's reign

In reply to Robert Durran:

Huh?? How does a musical try to be an opera??

In reply to The Lemming:

Maybe people thought you were talking about the barely-remembered minor comedy character "Les Miserable" who seems to be untraceable via the Internet...
maybe part of Vic Reeves' early act, not sure

In reply to Hannah S: Can't say I'm tempted. One review I read cited Anne Hathaway's as the best performance, which doesn't lead me to expect much in the way of acting from the rest of the cast.

OK, that's being slightly bitchy about Ms Hathaway. The reviewer also made the point that the decision to record all the singing live meant that some of the performances were below par both musically and in dramatic terms.

I remember the radio adaptation of the original book on Radio 4 way back when (an adaptation that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article). It was interminable and depressing. I was very surprised that the musical adaptation turned out to be so successful. I was even more surprised at that after someone loaned me a copy of the soundtrack album, which I found entirely fogettable (as I did the soundtrack album of Miss Saigon).

I might watch it when it comes on TV in a few years' time, though given that I've so far managed to avoid seeing similar films eg Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd on TV, that's very much a "maybe". (I have seen the Sondheim musical on stage, and enjoyed it.)

In reply to Ava Adore:

We went to see it a couple of years ago - I couldn't see what all the fuss was about - all a bit dull IMO - you can't please everyone.

In reply to Ava Adore:

The start of the narration, perhaps, and the reference to a shaving bowl seen in 1848, but the main story ends in 1832 doesn't it?

In reply to Ava Adore:

no it wasn't. Victoria reigned from 1837. LM is set between 1815 and 1833.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
bugger. beat me too it.

In reply to Ava Adore:

I think the MARKETING of the musical strongly aped the marketing of operas. I used to often walk by the theatre where it ran for so many years in London and all the production stills had an "operatic" look to them, compared to stills from other musicals. I think I know where Robert is coming from with this.

In reply to The Lemming:
sorry didn't see that.

In reply to graeme jackson:

And in France

I always wonder whether the Belgians, for example, describe the novels of Dickens as being set in "Leopoldian" times...

In reply to Hannah S:

What is Le Mis?

In reply to Hannah S:

No worries.

I am looking forward to going to see it. Don't think Miss Lemming will like it though.

However I went to see the Hobbit for my Birthday yesterday and was underwhelmed. Too long and too much fighting, very much in the same way that LOTR was 9 hours of fighting followed by finding the ring.

In reply to Martin W:
Anne Hathaway was good, I think people mostly comment on her performance as she sings the song non le mis fans are most likely to know. you have to admire her dedication to character. her hair is real thru out the film, and cut (really should be hacked) as part of filming.

I felt the singing being done live gave a realness to the performance, if you go see a stage show the singing is live so why not for film.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Ah, this is what happens when you go on memory and can't check Wiki at work . I think maybe I was thinking about the book's publication date which was 1860s or 1870s??

In reply to The Lemming:

yeah I know what you mean about the hobbit, we went to see it and although I enjoyed it while watching it, we got to the end and I thought oh is that it suddenly realised it had progressed very far in long time it had been on.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

an "operatic" look? What's that? Is it because of the period and the costumes? I am genuinely mystified.

In reply to Mr Mark Stephen Davies:

LES Mis is a common abbreviation of the musical Les Miserables

In reply to Blue Straggler:

And the MUSIC (very, very badly)

In reply to Ava Adore:

Period and sets for one thing. I know other musicals are set in this period too, but the sets on Les Mis did look more (for want of a better word) try-hard.

But also the poses the performers are in, in the photos. They look impassioned in an operatic way.

I don't have a time machine that I can use to walk you around Drury Lane in the mid 1990s and show you what I'm on about, and I think we are both going to be intransigent on this anyway, so I'll just say "looks like a load of shite" instead, blow a raspberry, and trot away.

In reply to Ava Adore:

I was going on memory, thank you very much!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

We will have to agree to disagree as I really have no idea what you're on about! I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that it's a historical period musical and not the likes of Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You. But I still don't see how that makes it operatic. The singing is exactly what you'd expect from a musical, not an opera, so if the previous poster doesn't like the singing in Les Mis, I suspect he/she's not a musical fan. Nor maybe opera either .

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Good boy

In reply to Ava Adore:

He asked what LE Mis was

In reply to Ava Adore:

You snob.
If they don't have the same opinion as you, they are obviously not a 'musical fan'.

In reply to Ava Adore:

Great logic!
I don't like the guitar (or vocals, lyrics, drums, or production) on any Muse song....therefore I don't like modern rock music eh?

In reply to Hirosim:

You tw*t.
If they were derisory about the musical style one would assume they didn't like the musical which is no different in style to many other musicals.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Arse

In reply to Hirosim:

What's your problem? Did you think I was a snob for adding the extra S???

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Don;t worry, she is badly wrong on this one

In reply to Ava Adore:

How pleasant you are, when people don't agree with you

In reply to Hirosim:

You call me a snob. I call you a tw*t. Don't see a problem there m'love.

In reply to Hannah S:

I take it the forum bullies have not made a New Year's resolution to grow up when replying to your OP's?

In reply to Hirosim:
Les Milfs? Now there's a sequel...!

In reply to graeme jackson:
)

perhaps I should also point out that I really don't like musicals (with the exception of hello Dolly - more to do with ms Striesand than the music itself) so i wouldn't have gone even if jackson junior had pronounced it the best thing she'd ever seen.

In reply to The Lemming:
at least they mostly seem to be bullying each other rather than me.

In reply to The Lemming:

so far no-one has bullied hannah this year. No evidence of it in this thread.

In reply to The Lemming:

Gently mocking an innocent typo, with nothing personal intended, is hardly "bullying"

In reply to Ava Adore:

Obviously not, you appear to be an expert in being rude to people

In reply to Hirosim:
no offence but maybe you should pipe down abit at least till you lost the L no one appreciates new guys asserting alpha maleness it wont get you anywhere.

In reply to Hannah S:

How do you know Hirosim's gender?

In reply to Hannah S:


Why does me - calling Ava out for being a snob equate to alpha maleness?

In reply to Blue Straggler:
reads abit like a bloke, it wasn't so much maleness as in man as in wanting to be top of the tree, beating down well established members of the forum.

In reply to Hannah S:

U have deleted your original reply which said:

'I may of been sexist, he sounded like a male'

U haven;t replied to my question above either? Was I really 'beating down' 'established' forum members for daring to state that someone was being a snob?
What happens when something bad happens?

And PS I am a 34 year old woman. I apologise for not sorting my profile out.

In reply to Hannah S: I saw the London production this month, didn't go in expecting much as I wasn't a fan of musicals, but yeah, mind blown, goosebumps on goosebumps. I'll be seeing the film production as soon as I can.

In reply to Hirosim:
I wanted to make my point better that althou sounding like a bloke I wasn't making a comment about gender.

In reply to Hannah S:


This thread gets funnier. You read like a paranoid psychologist? Over anaylsing perhaps?

Anyways I fell asleep in Les Mis

In reply to The Lemming:

And much the same way that Star Wars was 13 hours of fighting followed by Darth Vader getting his missing arm back..?

In reply to The Lemming:

I think this clerks clip sums up LOTR nicely

youtube.com/watch?v=aSB03lr69iU&

In reply to graeme jackson:

Flaiming all over her OP isn't exactly playing nicely.

In reply to The Lemming:

But Hannah isn't being flamed.
That's like saying I was being bullied over that Telegraph article thread!

In reply to The Lemming:

Chill baby

In reply to Hannah S:

I really enjoyed it, have seen the stage version a couple of times over the years. They're both different experiences and as such stand on their own for their respective mediums. AH performance was emotional raw and quite intense. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were very good light relief. The only quibble I had was purely on the shallow depth of field problem where he focussed on the faces so closely to get that intimate feel that occasionally the eyes of the actor would come in and out of focus but thats just my ocd the stage and film version is entertainment and I was entertained so it was, for me, worth seeing.

In reply to The Lemming:
hannah started a thread to discuss the merits or otherwise of les miserables. Surprisingly, for a hannah thread, most of the commentary since (with a couple of exceptions) has been doing just that.

In reply to Hirosim:
>

No you aren't........

In reply to Hannah S:

Saw it with our lass this week, and I loved it! So much so that I bought the soundtrack today, can't wait to start belting the songs out whilst in the shower!

*Not as good as Moulin Rouge though.

Les Mis is excellent, saw it in Manchester for my 15th Birthday and was blown away by both the music and simplicity (OK Operaish) of the staging.

Not too sure about seeing the film version, I personally would have preferred it if they had cast signers who can act (rather than actors who can sing) - I would love to have seen Michael Ball as Jean Valjean.

Either way it has lead to me digging out my (nearly) 20yr old cassette recording of the complete musical.

In reply to Slugain Howff:


When i'm wearing my underwear

In reply to Hannah S:

I was dragged along to see this the other night. It took nearly a full hour of tutting, sighing, grumbling and whispering "fer f***s sake!" before I got the royal pardon to excuse myself and head over the road to the pub. Even a crappy pint of keg Mansfield Bitter was better than Les Mis.

In reply to Hannah S:

I mostly loved it. I thought it was a very bold undertaking.

I though Hugh Jackman was incredible, and carried the film.

The first 45 mins were the best, after that there were some boring bits!

In reply to Hannah S: Went to see it last night with my family. My wifes seen it in the West End, my daughters, who are both well into amdram and musical theatre have seen it and sung the songs on stage.

Thought it strange - lots of close ups up actors noses. Got wrong for singing to some of the songs. Found it funny that at the end the cinema was suddenly full of sniffing sobbing people. When the credits came up some people even clapped - never had that in the pictures since I was young and one of my mates tripped going down the stairs, did half a dozen forward rolls and then carried on walking without breaking stride.

In reply to Hannah S: My sister and I bored our parents to death with the soundtrack of Les Mis when we were little and I know the score practically by heart (which is probably a bad thing as you spot all the bits they miss out in the film!). I've seen the film twice - the first time I thought it was good, but not amazing, the second time I loved it. I think the first time I was probably be too analytical and critical, whereas the second time I just relaxed and enjoyed it. My tuppence for what its worth...

If you don't like musicals, you probably won't like Les Mis, but to be honest if you hate musicals and you go and see it then it seems like a bit of a silly choice to me! I have to agree with the poster who said the first 45mins were the best - Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway give cracking performances and the physical changes in each character show their dedication to the roles. I also thought Eddie Redmayne was good as Marius and - after being prepared to hate him - lovel Sacha Baron Cohen. Russel Crowe did look a bit pained each time he had to sing and personally, I didn't think he did the songs justice, but otherwise he was a good Javert.

The main thing that got me was that every solo was filmed close up - in some cases this works, but not all the way through every song! Would have been good to have a bit of variety, but again just my opinion. The original scoring is played around with a bit, with some songs or sections of song missed out, reordered or cut short, but to be honest this doesn't detract at all and it's probably only pedantics like me who would notice...

In reply to Hannah S:

was it shown in cinamacope or was it screened in a square format something dating back to the 1950s ?

In reply to BigHell:

it was wide screen where I saw it!

In reply to Hannah S:

Russell Crowe sings through his nose. And it was far too long. That said, Ms Hathaway's solo was a corker; I got goosebumps and everything

In reply to Removed User:

Thanks for that Mrs Hell is now eating humble pie as she was not too happy with me moaning at the Cineworld manager .

In reply to Ali:

Les Mis Film critics are split it seems between those that know the music/story in advance and those that don't.

As I am in the last camp you can guess my feelings. I gritted my teeth all the way through. Nearly jumped with joy at the end. I only stayed beyond half way as it was the wife's birthday treat. ("Yes dear, it was great. I loved it. Can we shag now?")

Why was it so bad?
- Singing heads. Long boring badly sung songs with head close-ups that went on forever.
- B movie story line with absence of believable plot loosely connecting afore mentioned interminable singing sections.
- Sacha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter played the comic baddies (I think they were supposed to be comic baddies). They were neither comic or bad - unless you count the quality of acting.
- Obvious over done attempt to whip up emotion in audience thatmade potentially emotional seems appear over acted in the best Am Dram way.

Rant over!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Although it was written in 1862, or at least the Hugo novel was. That is about as close as I can get to it being Victorian.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You got a lot more grief about that!

In reply to The New NickB:

Exactly! Yet neither myself nor anyone else has cried that I was being bullied there