Rating of
2/4
Long and Boring
Looneymanthegreat - wrote on 12/29/12
I like the original stage musical version of Les Miserable’s, especially the music, but I never thought it was the greatest of all time like some say. In the end it is a flawed piece of art, and can not be said to be over all remarkable. The movie takes the flaws of the original stage musical and multiplies them. On top of the meandering plot the movie adds awful singing and cinematography.
Some of the supporting actors have nice voices (I was surprised by both Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried,) but the two leads are clearly not singers. Russell Crowe is the worst of the lot. Not only is he not good at hitting the notes he can’t seem to infuse any emotion into the words.
Director Tom Hooper clearly does not know the difference between a musical and a movie that has singing in it. There is a particular way you are supposed to shoot and edit a musical, the musical should have a good pacing and flow to it. Just look at movies like Fiddler on the Roof or Chicago and compare them to this movie and you will see the difference. This causes the movie to feel a lot longer then it actually is. The movie is shorter then the stage version, yet sitting in the theatre I would have sworn it was longer.
I guess this is a must see for anyone who is a huge fan of the original, but I’m more of a casual admirer, so this wasn’t for me. I found it long and boring. I walked away from the theatre pretty sure that the Victor Hugo’s book would ever get a good movie adaptation, musical or otherwise.
