I'd be much more excited for this if it weren't a musical.

Has Hollywood hit bottom again with yet another reboot? Is Liam Neeson in this one?

My god, but Rich Juzwiak nails his view of this movie. Haven't seen it, may not (have yet to see any of these 'industrial' shows), but nobody anatomizes his response to a show like Rich. Here's a taste:

Take the composition of Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream," which consists of little more than a tight shot on her face as her eyes flicker terror and anguish, her mouth guzzles and spits, her entire presence hyperventilates. It's a show-stopping performance both literally and metaphorically – there is a tremendous amount of craft there that only feels like craft, stopping the show, taking you out of it and having you fixate on this extremely gifted person doing what she does so well. Compare it to the aesthetically similar (down to the sheared hair), infinitely more affecting video for Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U," and you get a sense of how bloated and over-the-top things are here. This film plays not so much like an embarrassment of riches, but a punishment of craft.

http://gawker.com/5970591/i-dreamed-a-ni…

I honestly didn't think I had any more tears to shed for this story (having grown up with the soundtrack and having seen the stage show 5 times over the years. The last 3 stage viewings (one this year with the re-staged show) were tear-less on my part).

And yet, Hathaway destroyed me. Even Redmayne's song to his fallen comrades had me sniffling again. Perhaps this is because I'd always found Fantine and Marius boring. They never resonated and I never cared much for their struggle. So maybe the surprise of these performances awakened my deadened heart to new layers of misery in this story. (Whereas this Eponine, a character for whom my junior high self often wept, left me very un-moved. Meh. She was perfectly adequate, I just didn't connect or care).

But overall, while I enjoyed the film (mostly), I definitely won't be buying the soundtrack. Lots of emoting/acting going on, but very rarely were any of the songs pretty or even pleasant to listen to.

I heard Hooper on a radio interview starting a sentence with "Well, I've never really enjoyed musicals...." and my response was "Uh-oh. This movie is going to suck." Because why the hell would you put anyone who doesn't enjoy musicals in charge of one? Sigh.

I think I was lucky to have never seen the musical or read the book before I saw the movie, because I got to have the experience of the story and music as a new thing. I found the extreme close-ups to be a little annoying, but because the story and music were novel to me, they were enough to make up for the bad cinematography.

Having seen the London stage version, I naturally felt it cried out to be a film too, but the theatrics in play were wholly appropriate and fulfilling.

'Les Miz' is a show where the score matters above all else.

The scope of Hugo's story is vast. Why be ashamed of it? All too often today, filmmakers avoid the 'Lawrence of Arabia' approach, preferring 'Prime Suspect' or some other godawful thing with the requisite metallic look.

Sounds like Hooper's prime mission was to destroy the distance between the actors and the last row in the balcony.

If you're gonna do a 'realistic' musical, take a look at 'The Pajama Game' (1957) or 'Oliver' (1968) or even 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' (1968) for crying out loud. That is, if you've got the 'balls', and don't be so fucking embarrassed about it.

Of course, everyone's too cool to take a look at what Stanley Donen did - on fucking soundstages, no less.

There can always be a remake of 'Les Miz'. In the Hollywood of today, that should happen in about two years. Maybe they'll be smart enough to splice in that remarkable Hathaway sequence.

Holy shit - I just looked Hooper up on IMDb and indeed he DID direct a 'Prime Suspect'! I didn't know - honest!

Proves my point, sadly.

I just came from seeing it on the screen, and Goldy, my dear fellow, I believe it to be a masterpiece.

Goldy & @9 Porter Melmoth: Okay. Now I'm intrigued about Anne Hathaway's Fantine!
I've got to go see this; my oldest sister and niece already have.

The last Les Miserables I saw starred Richard Jordan as
Jean Valjean, and Anthony (sadly doomed to typecast hell
for his role of Norman Bates) Perkins as the relentless
Toulon Prison guard forever pursuing Valjean, despite his
lifetime vow of self redemption to God.

Nonetheless, Les Miserables is indeed a story that must be told.

Well Auntie G, I feel it's 'OK' now to rave about the film. It is one of the most carefully-produced films I've seen in the CGI age. The emphasis is on the characters and their performances, where it belongs. All the cinematic tools employed are supportive to them, and not gratuitous.

Indeed, Anne Hathaway is outstanding - and so is EVERYONE ELSE. Russell Crowe can sometimes be a little too Russell Crowe-ish, but his performance was wonderfully appropriate. All the key roles get their own times to steal the show - a most egalitarian production, as nobody hogs it.

While the production is almost entirely studio-bound, the skills are certainly apparent. A few scenes were overly gloomily-lighted, and one longed for just one sunny day, but these are minor complaints.

My only other (minor) complaint: I wish the orchestral score would have been 'pushed' a bit more, as with the old Warner Bros. scores. Aside from that, the score was superbly handled, as if the great Alfred Newman himself was at the podium.

I would also recommend without reservation, the 1935 version with Charles Laughton, who is devastating as Javert, and the 1952 remake, which is pretty decent in all respects.

There is also a French version (several!) with Depardieu & Malkovich, and one with Liam Neeson & Uma Thurman (haven't seen).

Hugo's story is so massive, it's pretty hard to muck up.

This most recent 'Les Miserables' is, I think, nothing short of a triumph, and that's not a common thing for me to say these days. I was not only pleasantly surprised, I was pleasant blown away, impacted, moved, and utterly satisfied.

@11: How did you like the Richard Jordan / Anthony Perkins / Sir John Gielgud version of Les Miserables by comparison?

Didn't see it (yet), but a great cast, certainly.

One thing about this saga, it can stand many remakes, as there is much to vary and much to grab onto.

As someone who thinks the singing is paramount, I have to say that Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried were... not good. They both are clearly struggling in any song they sing.

Anne Hathaway was amazing though. That cannot be denied.