Review of Les Misérables (2012) by Precisely — 01 Jan 2013

There has been a great deal of division amongst reviewers of Les Miserables. Quite honestly, the people with the most vocal and negative opinions are the people who don't really have any understanding of what they're talking about. The majority of critiques are from people who walked into the movie expecting and wishing it to fail. Naturally, when you want something to be bad, it will be. To you. Objectively, you will still be wrong and look like an idiot, but you can be wrong if you want to. That said, I really do not see how this movie could possibly improve. The vision for this movie was simply executed as exact as the project was planned. The cinematography was excellent, as expected. People complained that it was in peoples faces too much. That, to me, is just a childish complaint that isn't even worth paying attention to. There are just as much long distance shots as there are close-ups (I specifically looked for this). People are just giving unnecessary emphasis on the close-ups. It's fine, people. Get over it. Now, on to the concept. One thing must first be said. This is first and foremost a "movie." NOT a musical. The musical aspect comes second. This means the cast's acting must be judged at a higher priority than singing ability. Secondly, this is not a normal musical. Characters are not just singing songs, they are "acting" them. I can't tell you how many reviews I've seen claiming all kinds of "flat" notes that issued forth. Nonsense. Not only is that ridiculous in light of the refinement this project had before the final optimization of every single song, but it is a ridiculous claim in light of the project itself. Like I said, they are not simply singing the songs. They are singing some parts of the song, and speaking/yelling/crying other parts of the song. That is to be expected. However, some more ignorant people are overlooking this fact and seeing those parts of songs as "flat" notes.

Now, the cast. I'm sure nobody would disagree with me that the most controversial selection for this movie is Russell Crowe. It would be avoiding the elephant in the room to avoid talking about him. People are still to this day trashing Crowe's performance, some saying he ruined the movie. That's like getting a paper-cut and saying you're going to die. These people are so dramatic. Crowe's performance was more than excellent. There is no better Javert than Crowe, I'm sorry. Some people will say "...But his singing!..." -was great. Crowe was never flat, and his acting was excellent. If you know anything about Hugo's description of Javert from the actual book, you'll know that Victor Hugo spends the majority of the time describing in great detail the physical appearance of Javert, and the atmosphere/presence he gives off. THAT is most important, according to the "author" of this entire story. I'm sorry, that is more important than anything else. For example, Javert is described to look like a wolf and have an extremely intimidating presence. Crowe is biologically suited for this role. Someone like Norm Lewis (Javert, 25th Anniversary) may be considered better than Crowe vocally in terms of Opera, Lewis is far from intimidating. Also, you don't expect a character like Javert to have some clean, crisp voice. You expect what you get from Crowe. A rugged and rough voice. There is just no comparison. Crowe fits the uniform better than anybody. Nina Gold (Casting Director) knew what she was doing. Ironically, all this fuss about Crowe shows his performance was not forgettable. I hear not a single person talking about Amanda Seyfried's performance, because it was probably the most forgettable of the entire cast. Not to say she did a bad job (she didn't), she was just boring. One thing I find funny is that you can always tell the childish critic by one simple feature. Their review after the movie is identical to their review before the movie. They walk into a movie with bias and preconceived notions, and this effects their entire opinion of the movie before they even see it. It's a shame. If you're going to see this movie, understand first what you are going to see. If you understand that and go with an open mind (not expecting this to be just a parrot of the 10th or 25th anniversary), you will love this movie.