Hey Rob! Thanks for clarifying that Les Miserable doesn't take place in *The* French Revolution but in the Revolution of 1832, over forty years after *The* Revolution. People really miss that.
+ASHERUISE I love how they got their band name - somebody at the recording company had the paperwork for an album on their desk and accidentally wrote a phone number off the edge of one piece of paper onto the stuff for their album. They were originally just Eiffel, but with the little bit of an unintentional phone number, they became Eiffel 65.
you know what would be interesting? a war film focusing on marius, enjolras and the rest of the students. maybe its just the fact that i was a student in my school's version of the musical but i would like to see that
I'm just going to throw out there what Adam Lambert tweeted around when the movie was released. If they wanted to use live singing, they should have cast more singers. You gave Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks credit... so I'm happy.
This is one of the best Sibling Rivalries that I've watched so far. I've read the novel, seen the play, and watched the movie. And I love them all... in that order. I love the story so much and the songs themselves are phenomenal.
Les Mis would've been fine as a 5 part play, or a TV show with 5 seasons. Because the book follows 5 parts within the story, and I feel like it would've worked perfectly like that
Having just finished the novel (which is loooong, but incredible), I'm in a very Les Mis mood right now, so I'm gonna go ahead and warn that this will probably be a LONG ramble on my thoughts on the film haha: First off, I'm one of the people who adores the film :) Especially after reading the book, I have decided that for me it's easily the adaptation that I feel best captures all of the emotion behind the story, and that's very heavily rooted in how good so much of the acting (and directing choices in regard to highlighting certain relationships between characters) is. All that said, I actually agree VERY much with much of what what said here! Particularly with the fact that, no, this is NOT the version to turn to for pretty vocals. Not at all. I mean, on a sheer vocal level, Hugh Jackman's voice was probably more grating for me even than Russell Crowe's, and Amanda Seyfreid certainly had some obvious trouble hitting those soprano notes. But you know what? I'll be damned if because of what they brought to the roles acting-wise they aren't my favorite Valjean and Cosette. For me, the strength and intimacy of the performances so overwrote the weaknesses in the vocals that I just didn't care about some missed or strained notes. And I agree, Russell Crowe's being the weak link had little to do with his singing (since, again, purely on vocals alone Hugh's voice with this score is the harder one for me to listen to), and everything to do with the fact that he brought absolutely nothing to the role acting wise. You have pretty much the entire rest of the cast giving these incredible, heartfelt performances dripping with emotion, and then you have Russell who's just kind of... there. It doesn't make me appreciate the rest of the film/performances any less, but I do wish we could have gotten a film I love so much with an actor who could really make Javert's character something special like he is in the show. I also do agree that the story was simply rushed. I think it was quite clear that both Tom Hooper and the actors did their research from the novel and brought as much of the depth from it out as they could (which was a great deal), but it absolutely could have been even better if they'd split it into two movies and allowed the story over all to breath a bit more. In terms of the cinematography, I can certainly appreciate the critiques there. I guess it wasn't so distracting to me as to have taken away from impact of the story over all, but sure, I can agree that the film's best moments were the intimate long shots as opposed to the more scattered other scenes. I did find the final battle scene highly effective, but I think that was more thanks to the direction on how they played the scene than the way it was shot. It just made it 100% more heartbreaking to me to actually see these young kids, from up close, be so desperate for escape in that last moment. In the stage show, it's all very epic, but there's no way to capture that state of pure panic and desperation on stage like you can on camera. But could they have captured all of that and still have had it filmed in a more coherent way? Yeah, probably. So the film definitely isn't without it's flaws, and I agree with many of the ones that were mentioned. For me, though, it's still the adaptation that a) had so many of my favorite performances acting wise and b) made me straight up FEEL the most, and that's all I could ever really want from Les Mis :)
Justin Durham Thanks for the recommendation! I'd been meaning to check out the 1998 version for a while, actually, so I just watched it :) I think my reaction to that version was quite similar to the reaction I had from the 1933 French version: the first section was done really well, and I was very much enjoying it... and then the second time jump happened (with Marius and grown up Cosette), and I just wasn't feeling the whole way they handled that latter portion. I would imagine that it probably boils down in large part to what aspect of the story most engages you over all: if you're someone who really loves Valjean/Javert dynamic, and that is a huge draw of the story for you- the back-and-forth between the two of them- I can absolutely see how the 1998 movie would be preferable to the 2012 one. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush are obviously incredibly talented actors and their performances were wonderful, both separately and in their scenes together. But for me, I feel like that version made the Valjean/Javert dynamic SO much the focal point of the story that much of the rest of the second half really suffered for it. It wasn't even so much the changes that they made, because in a way I actually kind of thought it worked well to have Valjean tell Cosette his secret, and have that ultimately bring them closer together. But up until that point, their relationship just felt so strained and even almost abusive, and that's not something I ever got from the book or the musical version. Obviously the fact that Valjean is so secretive and on the run does restrict Cosette's ability to be fully out in the world in any version of story, but in the other versions Cosette understands on some level that this is just a part of the way they have to live and accepts it because Valjean is so loving and good to her, and Valjean for his part does do his best to give her as much of a life out in the world as he can while still protecting her. And another thing is that the 2012 movie is the only one I've felt like has done justice to Les Amis and really made the emotion and panic of that final battle felt. The '98 version does do a better job than the '33 version where the rebels just straight up blow up the barricade rather than fight, and the firing squad was a pretty fair way to have it go down, but still, the 2012 version I think does the best job of reminding you these boys were barely older than kids themselves; they may have THOUGHT they were ready to die gloriously for what they believed in, but when it actually came down to it of course they were desperate for escape... of course it wasn't the brave blaze of glory they had pictured it being, but by that point it was already too late. Also, I just don't think it works for Marius to straight up have the role Enjolras is meant to play in the rebellion. I feel like the musical/musical movie did find the best balance with him- even in comparison to the book- where he DOES have a real investment in Les Amis and what they're fighting for, and while he's totally smitten with Cosette he does go to the barricade because he genuinely cares about the fight as well, but at the same time he's not THE sole leader. The story needs Enjolras, who is that leader whose sole focus is on the rebellion and IS the one who's fully ready to go down in that blaze of glory. And probably the biggest weakness of the '98 movie for me: There was no Jean Valjean death to end things! That was probably the biggest indication to me that the focus was too much on Valjean/Javert, and not enough on Valjean's journey as a whole. Javert's suicide does deserve to be a big moment in the story, for sure, but the have it end with Valjean just walking off happily... I am just so deeply attached to the whole finale/epilogue scene in the musical, and especially in the 2012 movie that scene was so so deeply moving, and it was so jolting not to even have ANY similar scene in the story. It just felt like the true ending of the story was cut right off. But again, the '98 version definitely has its strengths, for sure :) For what it is, it's very well done. I just still remain the most deeply moved by the 2012 film, I really do. Geoffrey Rush was a great Javert though!
23:13 Rob: "It's like taking The Lord of the Rings like 'We're gonna do a two hour musical'" Lord of the Rings musical: *exists* No seriously, look it up
I love their big crossover musical review, but its so interesting to hear their in depth thoughts on the film. Cos when i saw their review i was like, it wasnt....that bad guys lol :)
Jean Vel Jean= Runt Val Runt Les Miseranimals. That's what I thought of, first thing. The movie was okay, but the Animaniacs rendition was shorter. This was a good thing.
shoopdawoop32 Find me someone who doesn't like music or movies. Then I'll say well maybe he won't be interested in musicals. 99% of people have some interest in one or the other. So why not mix them? The other 1% are probably Germans.
Actually, most of the barricade boys have actually played Marius on Broadway. The man who plays Combeferre has played like five different characters in the show.
It's definitely not my favorite musical. I thought it was so different than what I expected that I was taken off guard for the whole movie. It's sort of like opera, but with modern styled music. They sing _every_ line. At first, I thought "...seriously?" but I have to give them props for making such a long an involved movie like that. Sounds like a real feat.
Considering the actual broadway production has bits that don't involve singing, the movie is more of an anniversary concert that was filmed like a movie. The live singing doesn't help.
I love the book and I love the musical and I even liked some things about this movie (even though I acknowledge that all three have definite issues) and I totally agree that it should have been two movies. The main problem with that would have just been that maybe then if the first one flopped they wouldn't ever get to do the second half of the story which would have been a shame. But honestly I don't see why it would even have been a risk for the studio to start with one movie first. I mean they would have had to write a lot of new scenes but they seemed to want to do that anyway! They wrote a new song too that was unnecessary! (Although I've grown to like the song but it would have worked better if the whole thing wasn't so rushed.) And the point is that the story from the beginning to Jean Valjean and Cosette getting to the convent is a perfectly good standalone story. It's not the full story, no, and it leaves the Valjean & Javert plot hanging, but other than that there's no problem. Especially if you expand it! In the book there's a period of Valjean and Cosette living together in Paris and getting to know each other and become a family until Javert finds them and THEN they have to escape to the convent. And the escape itself is pretty tense and dramatic, I think. So there's your climax. And then you could end with them settling down at the convent and being happy and safe for the first time in their lives and show how Cosette is happy even though she has to live in such a strict environment as a CONVENT (that's in the book; the convent is described as a really harsh place but Cosette is the happiest she's ever been). I think that's a good ending to the first part; two lonely people (three if you expand on Fauchelevent's story!) finding a family in each other. That's a lovely ending. Then for the second part you could actually properly focus on Marius, AS THE BOOK DOES. That's pretty much the only way it makes sense. New movie, new era, new characters. It would work so much better. The musical sadly reduces Marius to basically nothing but a love interest for Cosette... all the while reducing Cosette into nothing but a love interest for Marius. That... doesn't work. They both should have character arcs. You can give them character arcs by just taking more material from the book. Cosette going from a shy little girl following Valjean around to becoming a confident young woman with her own goals and dreams. Marius going from being his grandfather's brainwashed plaything to becoming independent and thinking for himself and having actual friends. And THEN they meet and fall in love, completing each other and finishing their stories together. How can you really care about their romance if you don't care about them first? Argh, I have so many feelings about this.
As much as I love this movie, I think the way Into the Woods recorded the singing was the way it should be done, mixing both pre-recorded and live singing.
I totally agree with what Doug says about Russell Crowe's acting as Javert. I didn't mind his voice that much (it definitely wasn't great), but it was his acting that really annoyed me. Javert is such a great character to play.
"My guilty pleasure is 'Phantom'." Please, please, please review "Phantom". I'd love to see you guys dive into it--the book, the films (especially Lon Chaney's), the musical . . . hell, I'd even watch you guys review the atrocious musical-sequel "Love Never Dies". As for "Les Miserables", I enjoyed it, but the show does have a lot of pacing problems. I went into the film only knowing it was based on a Victor Hugo book (an author I adore), and even with knowing his penchant for weaving story lines, within the first few minutes of the movie, I had no idea what was going on. I had to see the film several times just to get the plot lined out in my head, then I went again to enjoy the songs once I got the story down (I saw the movie a total of five times in the theater).
The problem is that the original version should have been like four hours, but hooper decided "hey, let's cut these important parts like drink with me to apply more to the general audience in 2 n a half hours"... it lacked in the most important parts.. i have read the script and by it it should have been more based on the book including important characters like mr mabeuf and stuff... but yeah.... one and a half hours were cut... well... that's great
ALSO bbc is going to do a series based on the book by hugo, which should include more scenes from the book.. i hope it'll work and i sincerily hope grantaire will be grantairing all the way
I really like Russell Crowe. And I liked him as Javert. I even liked his interpretation; someone more dramatic and projecting would have the character come across as being insane, in stead of just a hard ass. That being said, he wouldn't make a good Chauvelin, who's driven by passion, as well as duty. But for Javert? Gravitas is more important than emotion.
dropUrPeaches I thought that Crowe was one of the weaker performers in a strong cast. I was actually really pleased when I saw him in the trailer, because I thought that he could be a good choice for Javert - he can do threatening and larger than life. I was pleased to see Doug actually qualify his criticism of Crowe, as all I'd seen anyone else say was "he sucks, he can't sing etc", and as a musician, I didn't find is singing that offensive (Doug notes that the other actors weren't pretty either). I think Doug finally put his finger on why I was underwhelmed when I saw his final effort - he didn't drive the obsession the way that Javert would - he is the embodiment of the unforgiving, uncompromising law, who believes that right is more important than good (a maxim reverse in Valjean). The battle after Fantine's death was one point where Crowe lifted, as he has to show some of the animal that drives him. The gravitas and emotion are both parts of Javert, and in a film where the notions of compassion and forgiveness (or lack thereof) are key concepts, Crowe, whilst not terrible, could have brought more to create a real antithesis of Jackman's Valjean.
Phantom!!! Yea!! This is also another favorite musicals. I've read POTO and stopped reading Book 3 of Les Mis cause I was so bored. Sorry, Hugo, I barely made it through Hunchback and ended up liking it despite the extremely long descriptions
Wonderful analysis of this film. I always have mixed feelings about it, since Les Miserables is one of my favorite musicals (I directed a production of it in high school, and played Eponine!). Some people think I'm being too nit-picky, but I have so many tiny problems with this film. I enjoy several key moments, but all-in-all it is not easy to watch.
If I can give my opinion... I LVE this musical. But Jackman was wrong for the role of Valjean, but I'll give him props for how well he did given his falling short ability. Russell Crowe... Ok... dunno why but when I saw this in the teatre, I felt CHILLS and got GOOSEBUMPS when he sang "Stars". Shy of that single experience, again, I only give him propers for managing what he did but it wasnt great. Anne was AMAZING.
You know I saw the rus dubbed over of this film. I never knew that this was a musical. I only noticed it was a musical when I saw the English version of it.
Based on the TH-cam ratings I've seen above, here's my impression on the fan's ultimate feelings on the movie: 2014 - 'NOOOO! THE CRITICS ARE WRONG! THIS MOVIE IS PERFECT WITH GREAT ACTORS AND BEAUTIFUL, MEANINGFUL SINGING blah blah blah...' NOW - 'Ok, I admit the critics are right; this movie is pretty flawed overall... (but I still like the movie!)'
I don't hate Russell Crowe. His voice kind of grated on me at the beginning. But after owning the soundtrack (the highlight soundtrack to be exact) and owning and re-watching the movie, his voice is growing on me. I think the issue is that he doesn't have the same musical upbringing as everyone else in the cast. Everyone, in some way, has had some sort of vocal training; they've done stage, they've had classic training. Crowe...did not. He's essentially (and I am using the term very VERY loosely) a rock star. So his vocal quality is very different because he didn't come from the same background everyone else did.
I watched the movie not knowing what the miserables was and I liked it but acknowledge it has some problems. The movie got me into the stage musical and now I love both the movie and the staged versión.
As a person who knew nothing about Les Mis nor its historical context, I can agree entirely with Rob at the ending of this vid. It really was a huge "what's going on?" You really need to know something. All I could say was, it was too jumpy.
I only got to about 1/2, 1/4 of the way through the book back when I first tried to tackle it back in the day. And I kept on trying to read it for a few years, but never made it far. Sure the little story bits are nice, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET THEM. The book takes so many meanderings into incredibly boring ramblings and details that I just couldn't take it any more and had to drop it. And this isn't a matter of me not liking long or classic books. One of my favorite books is the Count of Monte Cristo. It's just.. .man, I could not get through Les Mis. That said, I do like the music from the musical. (not the movie of course. haha.)
Just like Moby Dick, if you want to read this book, it might be better to go with the abridged version. I love reading long books myself but holy crap.
Just a couriosity there's also an anime of les miserables, no kiding, I haven't seen it yet so I can't judge it, but it's a 52 episodes series so I supose they should make a better job than a movie, by time limitations only
Though i agree with most of the stuff they said here and i respect the rest... I liked Russell Crowe as Javert... and most of the singing... *goes to a corner*
The point of the time gaps in the musical and film is to NOT get people bored while watching it. What parts are more important to you? The major points in Valjean's life or the uneventful portions in his life? The musical needed to make the book fit in a big, two act show that is 1 hour and a half to 2 hours, so something needs to be cut. So get over it!
The unabridged book in English is 1500 pages long. 1900 in French. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather multiple long carefully thought out and well done movies provide a loyal representation of such a grand epic than some two hour mish mash that's a glorified advertisement for the play that condenses the story greatly as is, that's really just an excuse to host the anniversary concerts anymore.
"I don't think there's any real singers in this movie." Except for Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, and Samantha Barks, you're right. there are no real singers in this movie (Actual quality of movie may vary, it's just that all of these guys have done on and off-broadway productions and been in musicals before and all have a background in Musical Theater, especially Jackman).
I've tried reading the book several times. The first chapter is at least fifty pages and it's about a man who the author admits isn't important to the story. Then why did you spend fifty pages on it? There are also over a hundred pages just describing the underground sewage system. I get the feeling, Hugo was a lot like Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, where he was paid by the page. That's the only explanation that makes sense. Unlike Dostoevsky, who is one of my favourite authors, Hugo doesn't have interesting stories, therefore, you notice that his books are unnecessarily long as opposed to the aforementioned whose stories are so incredible that it doesn't matter they're a million pages long because you're so enthralled, you'll turn the page until you can't anymore.
Wow sometimes I forget that Nostalgia critic isn't always your opinions! Now I hate you less, which I'm glad of. By the way, I'm that review you incorrectly stated that fantine was fired because the forman was doing his job, but he wasn't, he was offended that she wasn't letting him have her, but apparently letting other men have her. He fired her on a rumor! How is that doing his job?!?!
So, my mom dragged my entire family to this movie while it was in theaters. I was 12. I had trouble following the movie because there's no real dialogue. When they force singing, it's just talking quarter notes and every now and then going up. You can't glean anything based on the emotion in their voices like with talking. I ended up getting pretty much nothing from this movie.
wait, are you guys trained in opera, Or singing? The only people that would call out Gene Wilder's singing are people trained in singing. I thought he did great!
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
It's so disconcerting to see Rob without a hat.
Mr MuffinMayhem i was just thinking the same thing. He needs to put his hat back on. lol
Hey Rob! Thanks for clarifying that Les Miserable doesn't take place in *The* French Revolution but in the Revolution of 1832, over forty years after *The* Revolution.
People really miss that.
it's also not a revolution but a rebellion as they didn't win
Who cares
@@cyborgninja5489 You never met any historians, did you ^^
I thought Gene Wilder sang pretty well in Willy Wonka.
Your wall is so...blue.
It's blue baba dee baba di.
3liony Nice Eiffel 65 reference, I'ma have to listen to that now.
+ASHERUISE I love how they got their band name - somebody at the recording company had the paperwork for an album on their desk and accidentally wrote a phone number off the edge of one piece of paper onto the stuff for their album.
They were originally just Eiffel, but with the little bit of an unintentional phone number, they became Eiffel 65.
you know what would be interesting? a war film focusing on marius, enjolras and the rest of the students. maybe its just the fact that i was a student in my school's version of the musical but i would like to see that
I'm just going to throw out there what Adam Lambert tweeted around when the movie was released. If they wanted to use live singing, they should have cast more singers.
You gave Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks credit... so I'm happy.
I recognize that it has problems, but overall I love Les Miserables.
Agreed!
I have no investment in Les Mis, but I love when you two argue about a movie like this. It's just fun to watch XD Especially the shoving, lol.
"Maybe this director is onto something"
Oh my poor innocent children....
This is one of the best Sibling Rivalries that I've watched so far. I've read the novel, seen the play, and watched the movie. And I love them all... in that order. I love the story so much and the songs themselves are phenomenal.
Les Mis would've been fine as a 5 part play, or a TV show with 5 seasons. Because the book follows 5 parts within the story, and I feel like it would've worked perfectly like that
Love the musical. and Victor Hugo is my favorite author!
TH-cam: *ALL COMMENTS* (0)
Yet I can see plenty of comments. Way to go TH-cam.
Frodo laughs at you Order Sam to fix it.
FireofGia He couldn't. And Pippin and Merry just made it worse.
Frodo laughs at you nice to know I'm not the only one this is happening to...jesus, can't youtube even do THIS fuckin right?
popecorkyI Apparently not.
Jesse Yahiaoui Sad but true. :'(
I liked this movie.
The plot (or plots) is all over the place but i love all the effort put in every single scene.
Never knew Doug was vocally trained, been watching him for years
Having just finished the novel (which is loooong, but incredible), I'm in a very Les Mis mood right now, so I'm gonna go ahead and warn that this will probably be a LONG ramble on my thoughts on the film haha:
First off, I'm one of the people who adores the film :) Especially after reading the book, I have decided that for me it's easily the adaptation that I feel best captures all of the emotion behind the story, and that's very heavily rooted in how good so much of the acting (and directing choices in regard to highlighting certain relationships between characters) is.
All that said, I actually agree VERY much with much of what what said here! Particularly with the fact that, no, this is NOT the version to turn to for pretty vocals. Not at all. I mean, on a sheer vocal level, Hugh Jackman's voice was probably more grating for me even than Russell Crowe's, and Amanda Seyfreid certainly had some obvious trouble hitting those soprano notes. But you know what? I'll be damned if because of what they brought to the roles acting-wise they aren't my favorite Valjean and Cosette. For me, the strength and intimacy of the performances so overwrote the weaknesses in the vocals that I just didn't care about some missed or strained notes.
And I agree, Russell Crowe's being the weak link had little to do with his singing (since, again, purely on vocals alone Hugh's voice with this score is the harder one for me to listen to), and everything to do with the fact that he brought absolutely nothing to the role acting wise. You have pretty much the entire rest of the cast giving these incredible, heartfelt performances dripping with emotion, and then you have Russell who's just kind of... there. It doesn't make me appreciate the rest of the film/performances any less, but I do wish we could have gotten a film I love so much with an actor who could really make Javert's character something special like he is in the show.
I also do agree that the story was simply rushed. I think it was quite clear that both Tom Hooper and the actors did their research from the novel and brought as much of the depth from it out as they could (which was a great deal), but it absolutely could have been even better if they'd split it into two movies and allowed the story over all to breath a bit more.
In terms of the cinematography, I can certainly appreciate the critiques there. I guess it wasn't so distracting to me as to have taken away from impact of the story over all, but sure, I can agree that the film's best moments were the intimate long shots as opposed to the more scattered other scenes. I did find the final battle scene highly effective, but I think that was more thanks to the direction on how they played the scene than the way it was shot. It just made it 100% more heartbreaking to me to actually see these young kids, from up close, be so desperate for escape in that last moment. In the stage show, it's all very epic, but there's no way to capture that state of pure panic and desperation on stage like you can on camera. But could they have captured all of that and still have had it filmed in a more coherent way? Yeah, probably.
So the film definitely isn't without it's flaws, and I agree with many of the ones that were mentioned. For me, though, it's still the adaptation that a) had so many of my favorite performances acting wise and b) made me straight up FEEL the most, and that's all I could ever really want from Les Mis :)
Stephanie L u r girl u cant understand if film is good not ur fault
Justin Durham Thanks for the recommendation! I'd been meaning to check out the 1998 version for a while, actually, so I just watched it :)
I think my reaction to that version was quite similar to the reaction I had from the 1933 French version: the first section was done really well, and I was very much enjoying it... and then the second time jump happened (with Marius and grown up Cosette), and I just wasn't feeling the whole way they handled that latter portion.
I would imagine that it probably boils down in large part to what aspect of the story most engages you over all: if you're someone who really loves Valjean/Javert dynamic, and that is a huge draw of the story for you- the back-and-forth between the two of them- I can absolutely see how the 1998 movie would be preferable to the 2012 one. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush are obviously incredibly talented actors and their performances were wonderful, both separately and in their scenes together.
But for me, I feel like that version made the Valjean/Javert dynamic SO much the focal point of the story that much of the rest of the second half really suffered for it. It wasn't even so much the changes that they made, because in a way I actually kind of thought it worked well to have Valjean tell Cosette his secret, and have that ultimately bring them closer together. But up until that point, their relationship just felt so strained and even almost abusive, and that's not something I ever got from the book or the musical version. Obviously the fact that Valjean is so secretive and on the run does restrict Cosette's ability to be fully out in the world in any version of story, but in the other versions Cosette understands on some level that this is just a part of the way they have to live and accepts it because Valjean is so loving and good to her, and Valjean for his part does do his best to give her as much of a life out in the world as he can while still protecting her.
And another thing is that the 2012 movie is the only one I've felt like has done justice to Les Amis and really made the emotion and panic of that final battle felt. The '98 version does do a better job than the '33 version where the rebels just straight up blow up the barricade rather than fight, and the firing squad was a pretty fair way to have it go down, but still, the 2012 version I think does the best job of reminding you these boys were barely older than kids themselves; they may have THOUGHT they were ready to die gloriously for what they believed in, but when it actually came down to it of course they were desperate for escape... of course it wasn't the brave blaze of glory they had pictured it being, but by that point it was already too late.
Also, I just don't think it works for Marius to straight up have the role Enjolras is meant to play in the rebellion. I feel like the musical/musical movie did find the best balance with him- even in comparison to the book- where he DOES have a real investment in Les Amis and what they're fighting for, and while he's totally smitten with Cosette he does go to the barricade because he genuinely cares about the fight as well, but at the same time he's not THE sole leader. The story needs Enjolras, who is that leader whose sole focus is on the rebellion and IS the one who's fully ready to go down in that blaze of glory.
And probably the biggest weakness of the '98 movie for me: There was no Jean Valjean death to end things! That was probably the biggest indication to me that the focus was too much on Valjean/Javert, and not enough on Valjean's journey as a whole. Javert's suicide does deserve to be a big moment in the story, for sure, but the have it end with Valjean just walking off happily... I am just so deeply attached to the whole finale/epilogue scene in the musical, and especially in the 2012 movie that scene was so so deeply moving, and it was so jolting not to even have ANY similar scene in the story. It just felt like the true ending of the story was cut right off.
But again, the '98 version definitely has its strengths, for sure :) For what it is, it's very well done. I just still remain the most deeply moved by the 2012 film, I really do.
Geoffrey Rush was a great Javert though!
I watch u guys while I cook clean get ready for work. What the hell is wrong with me !!????? lol
23:13
Rob: "It's like taking The Lord of the Rings like 'We're gonna do a two hour musical'"
Lord of the Rings musical: *exists*
No seriously, look it up
I absolutely love this movie!! In my opinion, it's the best movie version of a musical ever!! Also, Les Miserables is my all-time favorite musical!!
I love their big crossover musical review, but its so interesting to hear their in depth thoughts on the film. Cos when i saw their review i was like, it wasnt....that bad guys lol :)
Jean Vel Jean= Runt Val Runt Les Miseranimals. That's what I thought of, first thing. The movie was okay, but the Animaniacs rendition was shorter. This was a good thing.
I love Les Miserebles. The story. Never seen the musical and don't plan too. The non-musical Les Miserebles movies are really nice, I think.
***** Why would you not watch the musical or listen to it? It's excellent. Give it a shot.
firekind1980 Maybe he just doesn't like musicals?
shoopdawoop32
Find me someone who doesn't like music or movies. Then I'll say well maybe he won't be interested in musicals. 99% of people have some interest in one or the other. So why not mix them? The other 1% are probably Germans.
firekind1980 Ich bin leid, was war dass?
shoopdawoop32 Shame nazi german humor is as funny as it is. Hey lets throw another german on the fire
They're not all singers but Aaron Tveit (Enjolras) has been on Broadway in numerous shows, and actually has a street named after him. Fun fact.
Actually, most of the barricade boys have actually played Marius on Broadway. The man who plays Combeferre has played like five different characters in the show.
It's definitely not my favorite musical. I thought it was so different than what I expected that I was taken off guard for the whole movie.
It's sort of like opera, but with modern styled music. They sing _every_ line. At first, I thought "...seriously?" but I have to give them props for making such a long an involved movie like that. Sounds like a real feat.
Considering the actual broadway production has bits that don't involve singing, the movie is more of an anniversary concert that was filmed like a movie. The live singing doesn't help.
I went onto the IMDb for this movie, and the Human Centipede was in the related. um....?
It's pretty much the same movie.
Rob and Doug sound so fucking professional in this review, this is SOOOOOOOO much BETTER than ScreenJunkies!!!!!!!!!!!
10:44 - 12:17
Rob brought his A game for this one. Good stuff.
uploaded 13 mins ago 0 dislikes GUYS WE FINALLY DID IT
Shhh! Don't jinx it.
OH SHOOT
Jonathan Rossi 3 right now
Jonathan Rossi now up to 6.
I love the book and I love the musical and I even liked some things about this movie (even though I acknowledge that all three have definite issues) and I totally agree that it should have been two movies.
The main problem with that would have just been that maybe then if the first one flopped they wouldn't ever get to do the second half of the story which would have been a shame. But honestly I don't see why it would even have been a risk for the studio to start with one movie first. I mean they would have had to write a lot of new scenes but they seemed to want to do that anyway! They wrote a new song too that was unnecessary! (Although I've grown to like the song but it would have worked better if the whole thing wasn't so rushed.)
And the point is that the story from the beginning to Jean Valjean and Cosette getting to the convent is a perfectly good standalone story. It's not the full story, no, and it leaves the Valjean & Javert plot hanging, but other than that there's no problem. Especially if you expand it! In the book there's a period of Valjean and Cosette living together in Paris and getting to know each other and become a family until Javert finds them and THEN they have to escape to the convent. And the escape itself is pretty tense and dramatic, I think. So there's your climax. And then you could end with them settling down at the convent and being happy and safe for the first time in their lives and show how Cosette is happy even though she has to live in such a strict environment as a CONVENT (that's in the book; the convent is described as a really harsh place but Cosette is the happiest she's ever been). I think that's a good ending to the first part; two lonely people (three if you expand on Fauchelevent's story!) finding a family in each other. That's a lovely ending.
Then for the second part you could actually properly focus on Marius, AS THE BOOK DOES. That's pretty much the only way it makes sense. New movie, new era, new characters. It would work so much better. The musical sadly reduces Marius to basically nothing but a love interest for Cosette... all the while reducing Cosette into nothing but a love interest for Marius. That... doesn't work. They both should have character arcs. You can give them character arcs by just taking more material from the book. Cosette going from a shy little girl following Valjean around to becoming a confident young woman with her own goals and dreams. Marius going from being his grandfather's brainwashed plaything to becoming independent and thinking for himself and having actual friends. And THEN they meet and fall in love, completing each other and finishing their stories together. How can you really care about their romance if you don't care about them first?
Argh, I have so many feelings about this.
I like Les Mis much better as a collection of music than a narrative to be honest
MisérAbles. Please.
One of my favorite videos on youtube...I learned quite a bit about framing and emoting! :)
But I have to say that I enjoyed Russel Crowes scenes more than Hugh Jackman. Maybe they casted him for his sense of gravitas.
Their gripes are legitimate, but I still really just enjoyed it!
I enjoyed the movie, but probably mostly because of Anne Hathaway's performance.
livierose I liked Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks
As much as I love this movie, I think the way Into the Woods recorded the singing was the way it should be done, mixing both pre-recorded and live singing.
Book itself is very good
I totally agree with what Doug says about Russell Crowe's acting as Javert. I didn't mind his voice that much (it definitely wasn't great), but it was his acting that really annoyed me. Javert is such a great character to play.
"My guilty pleasure is 'Phantom'."
Please, please, please review "Phantom". I'd love to see you guys dive into it--the book, the films (especially Lon Chaney's), the musical . . . hell, I'd even watch you guys review the atrocious musical-sequel "Love Never Dies".
As for "Les Miserables", I enjoyed it, but the show does have a lot of pacing problems. I went into the film only knowing it was based on a Victor Hugo book (an author I adore), and even with knowing his penchant for weaving story lines, within the first few minutes of the movie, I had no idea what was going on. I had to see the film several times just to get the plot lined out in my head, then I went again to enjoy the songs once I got the story down (I saw the movie a total of five times in the theater).
+TheaterRaven I'd pay money to have either one of them review Love Never Dies!
TheaterRaven Love Never Dies is probably my least favorite piece of theater ever. Next to Cats.
i actually loved it, specially the first half.
wow, its been so long to see rob without his hat that my mind was still in the shock of "wtf" lol
The problem is that the original version should have been like four hours, but hooper decided "hey, let's cut these important parts like drink with me to apply more to the general audience in 2 n a half hours"... it lacked in the most important parts.. i have read the script and by it it should have been more based on the book including important characters like mr mabeuf and stuff... but yeah.... one and a half hours were cut... well... that's great
ALSO bbc is going to do a series based on the book by hugo, which should include more scenes from the book.. i hope it'll work and i sincerily hope grantaire will be grantairing all the way
The stage is the medium that suits good actors the best, not film. First year Theater majors know that, Rob.
Boy they sure are Rivalrying on thus one. LOL
Im still hoping that you guys get to see Les miserables with Liam Neeson and Alan Rickman
Yes, that one is better in comparison.
+Northreyar Alan Rickman? Do you mean Geoffrey Rush?
Tuuliska
yes, my mistake, cant seem to edit the comment though
and Uma Thurman
I really like Russell Crowe. And I liked him as Javert. I even liked his interpretation; someone more dramatic and projecting would have the character come across as being insane, in stead of just a hard ass. That being said, he wouldn't make a good Chauvelin, who's driven by passion, as well as duty. But for Javert? Gravitas is more important than emotion.
dropUrPeaches I thought that Crowe was one of the weaker performers in a strong cast. I was actually really pleased when I saw him in the trailer, because I thought that he could be a good choice for Javert - he can do threatening and larger than life. I was pleased to see Doug actually qualify his criticism of Crowe, as all I'd seen anyone else say was "he sucks, he can't sing etc", and as a musician, I didn't find is singing that offensive (Doug notes that the other actors weren't pretty either). I think Doug finally put his finger on why I was underwhelmed when I saw his final effort - he didn't drive the obsession the way that Javert would - he is the embodiment of the unforgiving, uncompromising law, who believes that right is more important than good (a maxim reverse in Valjean). The battle after Fantine's death was one point where Crowe lifted, as he has to show some of the animal that drives him. The gravitas and emotion are both parts of Javert, and in a film where the notions of compassion and forgiveness (or lack thereof) are key concepts, Crowe, whilst not terrible, could have brought more to create a real antithesis of Jackman's Valjean.
Please do a sibling rivalry on Hamlet 1996 version!
I love musicals, I love musical films... I had to stop the film after watching about half of it cause I couldn't stand it any longer...
Phantom!!! Yea!! This is also another favorite musicals. I've read POTO and stopped reading Book 3 of Les Mis cause I was so bored. Sorry, Hugo, I barely made it through Hunchback and ended up liking it despite the extremely long descriptions
Wonderful analysis of this film. I always have mixed feelings about it, since Les Miserables is one of my favorite musicals (I directed a production of it in high school, and played Eponine!). Some people think I'm being too nit-picky, but I have so many tiny problems with this film. I enjoy several key moments, but all-in-all it is not easy to watch.
If I can give my opinion... I LVE this musical. But Jackman was wrong for the role of Valjean, but I'll give him props for how well he did given his falling short ability. Russell Crowe... Ok... dunno why but when I saw this in the teatre, I felt CHILLS and got GOOSEBUMPS when he sang "Stars". Shy of that single experience, again, I only give him propers for managing what he did but it wasnt great. Anne was AMAZING.
Starr Clarke The musical is the best thing to ever grace my ears :)
TWO FOUR SIX OH OOOOONE!!!!
I like how the twins think they have a better idea of how to make the film than the Oscar winning director.
me: wow Doug always looks like he's going to sneeze
Doug: *coughs*
me: oh
The movie sounds good to me. But don't listen to me, I'm done deaf.
Les MisérEEEEEEEEbles ?
You know I saw the rus dubbed over of this film. I never knew that this was a musical. I only noticed it was a musical when I saw the English version of it.
Rob is channelling a George Costanza look here
Based on the TH-cam ratings I've seen above, here's my impression on the fan's ultimate feelings on the movie:
2014 - 'NOOOO! THE CRITICS ARE WRONG! THIS MOVIE IS PERFECT WITH GREAT ACTORS AND BEAUTIFUL, MEANINGFUL SINGING blah blah blah...'
NOW - 'Ok, I admit the critics are right; this movie is pretty flawed overall...
(but I still like the movie!)'
He becomes mayor by selling the silver
I have been in a production and honestly you have to connect with it and really think about the plot
The intro reminded me of "the yodeling veterinarian of the Alps"
I don't hate Russell Crowe. His voice kind of grated on me at the beginning. But after owning the soundtrack (the highlight soundtrack to be exact) and owning and re-watching the movie, his voice is growing on me. I think the issue is that he doesn't have the same musical upbringing as everyone else in the cast. Everyone, in some way, has had some sort of vocal training; they've done stage, they've had classic training. Crowe...did not. He's essentially (and I am using the term very VERY loosely) a rock star. So his vocal quality is very different because he didn't come from the same background everyone else did.
I watched the movie not knowing what the miserables was and I liked it but acknowledge it has some problems. The movie got me into the stage musical and now I love both the movie and the staged versión.
As a person who knew nothing about Les Mis nor its historical context, I can agree entirely with Rob at the ending of this vid. It really was a huge "what's going on?" You really need to know something. All I could say was, it was too jumpy.
I only got to about 1/2, 1/4 of the way through the book back when I first tried to tackle it back in the day. And I kept on trying to read it for a few years, but never made it far.
Sure the little story bits are nice, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET THEM. The book takes so many meanderings into incredibly boring ramblings and details that I just couldn't take it any more and had to drop it.
And this isn't a matter of me not liking long or classic books. One of my favorite books is the Count of Monte Cristo. It's just.. .man, I could not get through Les Mis.
That said, I do like the music from the musical. (not the movie of course. haha.)
*in a highpitch breathless voice* how...
I think people give this movie too much shit. It's alright. I understand why people don't like it though.
oi I like russle crow singing and he won Oscar in gladiator
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED
I think maybe Hugh Jackman's Valjean has Benjamin Button disease. That would explain why he got younger. Or he's Wolverine.
Please do a real thoughts on Pixels
Just like Moby Dick, if you want to read this book, it might be better to go with the abridged version. I love reading long books myself but holy crap.
I read the book like 8 years ago, and saw the movie with Liam Neeson, and still got really lost mid movie
Sibling rivalry: les enfants terribles
Just a couriosity there's also an anime of les miserables, no kiding, I haven't seen it yet so I can't judge it, but it's a 52 episodes series so I supose they should make a better job than a movie, by time limitations only
Oh yea I heard of that
I hope that they do straight outta compton
Though i agree with most of the stuff they said here and i respect the rest... I liked Russell Crowe as Javert... and most of the singing...
*goes to a corner*
Don't you bash my lovely Hugo.
Funny you should mention a 2 hour LOTR musical.........they did that.
The point of the time gaps in the musical and film is to NOT get people bored while watching it. What parts are more important to you? The major points in Valjean's life or the uneventful portions in his life? The musical needed to make the book fit in a big, two act show that is 1 hour and a half to 2 hours, so something needs to be cut. So get over it!
seeing how he actually got that wealth and reformed himself does not seem unimportant toe
The unabridged book in English is 1500 pages long. 1900 in French. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather multiple long carefully thought out and well done movies provide a loyal representation of such a grand epic than some two hour mish mash that's a glorified advertisement for the play that condenses the story greatly as is, that's really just an excuse to host the anniversary concerts anymore.
Did you mean... Les Miser-ROB??!
Every time I hear Rob speak I keep thinking about Quentin Tarantino. Am I the only one?
"I don't think there's any real singers in this movie." Except for Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, and Samantha Barks, you're right. there are no real singers in this movie (Actual quality of movie may vary, it's just that all of these guys have done on and off-broadway productions and been in musicals before and all have a background in Musical Theater, especially Jackman).
The guy who plays Willi Wonka was better than anybody in this movie except for a few exceptions.
I like Gene Wilder's singing. :(
I've tried reading the book several times. The first chapter is at least fifty pages and it's about a man who the author admits isn't important to the story. Then why did you spend fifty pages on it? There are also over a hundred pages just describing the underground sewage system. I get the feeling, Hugo was a lot like Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, where he was paid by the page. That's the only explanation that makes sense. Unlike Dostoevsky, who is one of my favourite authors, Hugo doesn't have interesting stories, therefore, you notice that his books are unnecessarily long as opposed to the aforementioned whose stories are so incredible that it doesn't matter they're a million pages long because you're so enthralled, you'll turn the page until you can't anymore.
Oh good, I'm not the only one who can't stand Victor Hugo's writing. 🤣
Is it strange, then, that Émile Zola is one of my all-time favorite authors?
Who else liked javert in the movie
😞
Robin Hood i liked it when he died: no more singing
Robin Hood I really like Russel Crowe in the film, even as a singer.
Esteraur I am not alone! There is still hope!
+Robin Hood I did... most of the time :P
Holy shit is Rob creepy without his goatee.
Eddie Redmayne was absolutely incredible in Les Mis and has the perfect voice for this role.
HE CREATE HIS VOICE..... and he can destroy it
motor4X4kombat what?
Millie Sophia jupiter assending reference...
Russell Crowe was good in Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind.
Wasn't Victor Hugo the author who made furniture by gnawing wood? Yeah, he should've stuck to that.
I mean he wrote hunchback of notre dame which is fucking fantastic
Les Miserables...
You spelled it wrong in the title just letting you know
And both Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are classically trained
You going piss alot of people who are russle crowe fans the man who created Gladiator...UNLEASH HELL
Wow sometimes I forget that Nostalgia critic isn't always your opinions! Now I hate you less, which I'm glad of. By the way, I'm that review you incorrectly stated that fantine was fired because the forman was doing his job, but he wasn't, he was offended that she wasn't letting him have her, but apparently letting other men have her. He fired her on a rumor! How is that doing his job?!?!
“I didn’t like Les Miserables as a musical”
(has a heart attack)
So, my mom dragged my entire family to this movie while it was in theaters. I was 12. I had trouble following the movie because there's no real dialogue. When they force singing, it's just talking quarter notes and every now and then going up. You can't glean anything based on the emotion in their voices like with talking. I ended up getting pretty much nothing from this movie.
Heh. There actually is a Lord of the Rings musical. Don't know how long it is though.
Is this new or is this a replay?
hay criti would u review Shrek the musical?
wait, are you guys trained in opera, Or singing? The only people that would call out Gene Wilder's singing are people trained in singing. I thought he did great!