Les Miserables: One Thread More!

[Filmboy]

Eponine is my favourite character. I can really relate to her....loving someone who doesn't love you back.

"On my Own" is my favourite song from the movie.

 

[Earthland]

Brett Ratner is the director of Rush Hour 1-3, Red Dragon, X-men 3, etc.

Basically, he's a hack that makes Michael Bay look like an artist. I feel that Tom Hooper gets the same kind of results, albeit with more high-quality and intelligent material.

Oh .... that is quite unfair. I like Tom Hooper's work. Especially in this movie.

 

[Schlosser85]

When is Glee going to do some songs from this musical?

I Dreamed a Dream was in Season 1.

 

[Schlosser85]

Red Dragon is better than anything Bay has ever done.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Red Dragon is better than anything Bay has ever done.

This, and I like Rush Hour more than Bad Boys.

 

[cabel]

Red Dragon is better than anything Bay has ever done.

I don't disagree, but this kind of proves my original point about Hooper. Rather is an at best average director, but when given great material like Red Dragon, along with great actors like Ed Norton, Ralph Fiennes, and Anthony Hopkins reprising an iconic role, even Ratner and produce a really good movie.

By comparison, while I think Bay is a better and more talented director than Ratner, he tends/prefers to work with lesser subject matter.

If there's any great talent that Hooper posses, is that he's able to make up for most of his flaws by knowing how to pick his projects.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Apart from race on stage historically being much less important, a black police inspector would not have been unimaginable, though not ordinary. Alexandre Dumas' father was a general in Napoleon's armies some decades earlier.

 

[Schlosser85]

^ This. There were/are a lot of black Frenchmen, immigrants from its African colonies.

Though I don't imagine high-ranking black police/military officers would have been commonplace.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Red Dragon is better than anything Bay has ever done.

I refuse to drag this thread down into a discussion about Michael Bay vs. Brett Ratner. It's like putting Heinz ketchup and A1 sauce on filet mignon.

However, if you haven't seen Michael Mann's Manhunter, go see it. Then think about Red Dragon, and see how Ratner can take great subject matter and manage to make it passably mediocre.

 

[Schlosser85]

I do think Red Dragon is mediocre.

But I think "mediocre" is better than most of what Bay has done.

 

[Earthland]

If there's any great talent that Hooper posses, is that he's able to make up for most of his flaws by knowing how to pick his projects.

Uh, let's see ... I remember that when I saw the King's Speech in the cinema, I thought that this is so awesomely beautiful movie - not that there was anything beautiful to look at, but the way it was captured was somehow magical. I didn't even know that there is a special word for that - namely, cinematography, and I haven't seen any other film that would make me feel this way. I'm still impressed with the film itching in my mind, although I have seen it only once.

The thing is, Hooper is actually innovative and those who read from some stupid textbooks how camera should be hold just don't want to get used to it. This is my take on the Les Mis criticism also.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Uh, let's see ... I remember that when I saw the King's Speech in the cinema, I thought that this is so awesomely beautiful movie - not that there was anything beautiful to look at, but the way it was captured was somehow magical. I didn't even know that there is a special word for that - namely, cinematography, and I haven't seen any other film that would make me feel this way. I'm still impressed.

The thing is, Hooper is actually innovative and those who read from some stupid textbooks how camera should be hold just don't want to get used to it. This is my take on the Les Mis criticism also.

THANK YOU. Hooper getting compared to Brett f***ing ratner is is just an insult to the man. Whether you like hoopers creative decisions or not, he does them for a reason, he puts actual thought into them, he doesn't just shoot in Dutch angles because they 'look cool' or something. Brett ratner is a point and click studio instrument. Hooper, whether his style jives with you or not, Is an artist.

 

[DACrowe]

What are everybodys top 5 favorite songs?

1. One Day More
2. I Dreamed a Dream
3. Look Down (both beginning and in Paris)
4. On My Own
5. At the End of the Day

The only thing that would change in the movie is One Day More would be lower. They did a good job visualizing it, but it is much more powerful when the whole ensemble is singing on the same stage.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh .... that is quite unfair. I like Tom Hooper's work. Especially in this movie.

I have liked everything I've seen of Hooper--John Adams, The King's Speech and Les Miserables--but they all suffer from the same problems. He uses awkward close-ups, mostly bland compositions through tight short lenses and randomly, to the point of distraction really, throws in a dutch angle about every 90 seconds.

It is a very bland style that is noticeable only in how odd it sometimes is. But he gets great stories and great actors who he can direct very well.

 

[Drizzle]

What are everybodys top 5 favorite songs?

This is just from Les Miserables in general (the show, the movie, all-encompassing)

1. One Day More
2. Stars
3. Do You Hear The People Sing?
4. The Confrontation
5. Master of the House

Who Am I?, I Dreamed A Dream, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, On My Own, and Javert's Soliloquy would round out the top ten.

 

[cabel]

I did not mean to imply that Hooper was as bad a director as Ratner. Despite my mixed opinions of him, I do consider him to be a far better director than Ratner would ever aspire to be. I also admit that I may just be that guy who "doesn't get" Hooper.

My criticisms Of him aren't based just on stuff I read in books. Above everything, I try to judge a director based on how well he tells a story. Does he keep me engaged throughout the length of the movie? Does he succeed in making me feel the emotion of the moment? Does the story flow from moment to moment? And in my opinion, a number of Hooper's creative decisions, be they his choice in camera angles, his use of focus, close ups, the way he shoots coverage (or lack thereof), or editing , either fail to do so or take me out of the movie.

 

[Earthland]

He uses awkward close-ups, mostly bland compositions through tight short lenses and randomly, to the point of distraction really, throws in a dutch angle about every 90 seconds. It is a very bland style that is noticeable only in how odd it sometimes is.

I can't understand how can something be bland and odd at the same time. I know some of the camera angels were very odd, but (for someone who really doesn't know about cinematography) it made the film very interesting. Close-ups felt completely natural. I read one Estonian cinematographer's criticism, who wrote that "all scenes became equal in terms of cinematography", which probably is horrible for those who have actually learned cinematography. I mean, learning cinematography is all about how to tell the story through the way camera moves. But it doesn't tell us if that is what we actually need. Les Mis is such a unique source material, where we don't need the camera to tell us what is important and what is not - it's all about actors and their performances. I think it worked brilliantly.

As for the songs, how could we choose between them? Really? I can only tell that Jackman made me love "soliloquy", a song I have never paid attention to. After he demonstrated the difference between singing it "as written" and what he could add to it, all the other renditions became painfully boring.

 

[DACrowe]

I mean it is visually uninteresting and not that different from any workmanlike television director (where Hooper got his start) save for the random Dutch angle. It is a very flat, bland composition that has shallow depth because he almost exclusively uses a short lens and the only thing to punctuate it is when the camera is at 45 degrees which gives a distorted feeling for no real apparent reason. So, it looks like the more average stuff on HBO save for a random wide shot that looks odd. It is not a style that really inspires or surprises. It just leaves me shrugging.

 

[Pink Ranger]

When you compare Hooper to the other auteur-style directors this year, from Ang Lee to Wes Anderson, Hooper just can't hold a candle to them. Hooper knows how to pick great projects, but isn't that good of a director for the acclaim he receives. Sorry if that offends people, but I just don't see it any other way.

 

[Drizzle]

The best thing that Hooper brought to the film (besides the cast) was the live singing. Other than that, there are other directors that probably could have done a better job, stylistically speaking.

 

[The Shape]

"Off-putting" is the way that I would describe Hooper's directorial style, especially with Les Miz.

 

[The Shape]

The best thing that Hooper brought to the film (besides the cast) was the live singing. Other than that, there are other directors that probably could have done a better job, stylistically speaking.

Agree with you there.

 

[narrows101]

Third and last time tomorrow for me, with a cousin who has never seen the stage show and I'm sure doesn't know the music or read the book.

 

[CGHulk]

Third and last time tomorrow for me, with a cousin who has never seen the stage show and I'm sure doesn't know the music or read the book.

I'm going for the first time tomorrow to see the movie. I'm going with my cousin who hasn't seen the stage play, but two weeks ago I let her barrow my 10th and 25th anniversary performances on DVD and also the Liam Neeson film too. She's called me a few days ago telling me that she now can't wait to see the movie!

 

[JP]

The best thing that Hooper brought to the film (besides the cast) was the live singing. Other than that, there are other directors that probably could have done a better job, stylistically speaking.

Really? I think it worked in this film, for the most part. As much as I love the film, it would have been much better if they chose which moments to sing live, and other moments to record. Certain songs suffer greatly from the live singing.

I know they kept talking about how "revolutionary" it was... even though its been done many many times in the past . But I'd cringe if every musical that's going to be made from here on out decided to follow Les Miz with the live singing.