Les Misérables: Pros and Cons

Undoubtedly one of the most controversial films of the holiday season (besides, of course, Django Unchained), Les Misérables is a film that has garnered lots of attention, even to this day, despite being 8 months exactly since its release into theaters.  It was a major hit at the box office, grossing $400 million as of now; sales on DVD have sold almost 1.5 million units.  Critically, however, was not as positive as it was with sales.

There were positive reviews, sure, but many were negative, and almost all others were in the middle, not being able to make heads or tails of it.  Metacritic has an average of 63%; Rotten Tomatoes 70%.  Now, here I am to give my two cents, but rather than explain in usual review form, I will analyze the film in separate Pros vs. Cons paragraphs to let you decide whether this film is in your taste 8 months later.  Please take in mind, there will be spoilers, so read at your own will.

Pro:  Scenery
Definitely one of the best aspects of the film is the scenery provided.  The immaculately large buildings that scope around the character help create some dark, emotional tones, example being when Javert (Russell Crowe) paces on the edge of one in front of a gargoyle (symbolism?).  The rugged look around the revolution, too, helps to provide an uncomfortable feeling as you witness all these revolting citizens reprise "Look Down."  The costumes and makeup also help to flesh out scenery to not only describe the character's wealth (see scenes with Valjean [Hugh Jackman] as mayor vs. the rest of the town and Fantine [Anne Hathaway]), but who they are as people.  It may be cartoony, but it only takes a split second to tell what kind of people Monsieur and Madame Thénardier (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, respectively) are, and their looks definitely help to add to the light tone they express when on screen as well.

Con:  Close-Ups
So, you have these million dollar

, extravagant sets - why can't we see them mostly.  Indeed, I stated that they are gorgeous, but those mainly account for the transitioning shots.  When we're not at the grand scope, we see Valjean's face at the alter before he changes who he is rather than what surrounds him, and we see Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and Marius (Eddie Redmayne) sing at a gate but with no atmosphere besides a butterfly.  Why can't we see all of the building Crowe sings "Stars" on except for the shot when the song finishes?  It would have been more absorbing to view all of the area, so we could grasp what Javert could, and that's how I felt for many other numbers throughout.

Pro:  The Music
Whether or not one likes Les Misérables, the music remains unforgettable to anybody.  There is a type of song for any person of genuine musical taste throughout the whole film.  Jackman's dramatic tenor, although sometimes strong on his vibratto, was astounding hearing him sing what felt like unique or updated versions of already memorable songs, including "Who Am I" or "Bring Him Home."  His voice is a key aspect that carries on the show and is joined by others who match or even one-up him at points.

For example, Anne Hathaway does a beautiful job of singing the famous song sung by Susan Boyle, "I Dreamed a Dream."  Done in one take, she stuns audiences with her passion and her determined energy, emotionally investing in one of the most tragic stories in all of musical theatre, lasting only 15 minutes on screen.  Samantha Barks is elegant and powerful as Éponine, also with one of the most ground-breaking solos in "On My Own."

My only fault is maybe if they included the underrated "Dog Eats Dog" by Thénardier, but I digress as it doesn't compare to the new song "Suddenly."  Although disliked by many, I found it elegant, soothing, and for some, tear-jerking.  Sure, it's just Oscar-bait, but it also does the job in letting the viewer calm down and take a breather after all of the tensity throughout the beginning with Fantine.  The music does its job at being faithful, as Schonberg and Boubil truly prove how timeless it sounds.

Con:  The Singing
Take note:  This does not apply to everyone - only a select few, but it's major enough to discuss.  Director Tom Hooper wanted to innovate by having the actos live-singing each number, and while some (Jackman, Hathaway, Barks) pulled it off as if they were on stage doing it, some...didn't.  I found too many instances where Seyfried was too aggravating to listen to and when Redmayne tried too hard to sound opera-like.  They are both fine singers, sure, but their keys were both bothersome and pain-inducing.  It truly once hit rock bottom once they hit the final note of "A Heart Full of Love."  At least Redmayne makes up for this at the revolution and towards the end with "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables."  Seyfried is unforgivable.  For the Thénardiers, my simple complaint is that they sound like they're talking through the songs, and focusing more on comedic effect, which would be great with
dialogue, but not for an opera-like musical.

Now for the big one:  Russell Crowe as Javert.  Of course he wasn't good.  Despite the key change, he sounded off and tried too hard to force a note out.  He could never be bought as a character the way Valjean or Éponine could.  It sounds nasaly and without much passion (except for "Stars," which generally is a ravishing number).  In Crowe's defense, however, he was trained in a rock style, which calls for lots of fast-paced singing with guitars as instrumentals.  Transitioning to musical style is difficult, as it requires patience and the requirement to become more grand, which Crowe cannot fit the bill on.  He hadn't done a muscial in decades, so of course he would sound flawed during filming.  Is it his fault?  Not entirely, but the part could have been recast to someone better-trained, like Neil Patrick Harris.

Pro:  The Ensemble Cast
Even with Crowe and his flaws, the rest of the cast sure make up, and this is by far the best aspect of the film.  Jackman is perfect as Valjean and does the best job at carrying the show with his unbelivable progression as one of the most difficult roles in musical theatre.  Redmayne and Seyfried are very convincing as a couple, both with separate traits that help them not to sound like chichéd versions of lovers who spend their whole time awestruck at each other, as each has their separate task to contribute to.  Barks and Hathaway, as previously stated, are gorgeous and eloquent in their words and their characters, as the two most developed female characters in the film.  Despite their singing flaws as well, Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter are playing themselves, and the parts could not have been better cast.  The viewer can tell they enjoy their parts, and they have their own humorous, villainous take to a part they established as entertaining.

Now, there is one character I have left unmentioned in this review until now:  Enjolras.  I saved putting this off until now, so I could spend a paragraph giving the credit deserved.  Played by Broadway veteran Aaron Tveit, he is the backbone of the supporting cast after Hathaway's departure.  He is played with such exhuberance, and Tveit's vitality of the character gives the viewer spine chills on every strong note.  His presence is strongly felt as he is seen at the barricade, determind to fight in a losing battle.  

Once the character is introduced at the reprise of "Look Down," the viewer sees him on a stage with Marius (who, too, is not known of yet) curious of who he may be and what he stands for.  His introduction and characterization make him a flat, static character, but his indignation ignites a spark for a truly powerful figure, despite the lack of screen time, making him, to me, the most memorable character in the film.  What stands out as the best part - not just of Enjolras, but of the film - is the final battle.  There is a trade-off between a general and Enjolras, right before the students collapse.  The final notes sung ("Is free!") was seen to me as passionately sung, more breifly than on stage mostly, creating even more chills and more suspense.  It was at that point where I found Tveit to have the best performance in the entire film.

Con:  The Battles at the Barricades
The most inexcusable part of the film is the usage of close-ups at the barricades.  Why, during the most exciting part of the film, do we not comprehend who is winning or who is firing where?  It is an opportunity to see some brutal action and intense drama, but spent zooming in on actors' faces rather than focused on the scenery that is surrounding the viewer in different worlds of moods.  Nobody had the expectations of seeing explosions or overwhelming amounts of blood, but what was wanted was a conclusion saying, "We were there; we witnessed the whole thing," rather than, "We saw chopped-up parts of people on one side - if that counts for something."  Sure, Enjolras' death was magnificent, but no other character at the barricades died of a respectable death the way he did.  Lastly, as a minor gripe, couldn't they have made the barricade a lot bigger?  They have an entire town and it looks miniscule compared to the potential and size it could have been.

Overall, I have no real final opinion.  It's all just a mixed bag.  In aspects, it's phenomenal; in others, it's embarrassing.  I guess I stand the same way the critics do, despite owning it on Blu-Ray.  For the first time, I have no real final score to give it.  It's all a matter of taste:  If you like high-budgeted musicals with great music and characters, go for it; if you want a film that can take you into its universe and follow each character as creative and well-performed with extravagant shots throughout, go for something else.  I'm sorry I'm leaving this on such an ambiguous note, but I want to leave it to you to see whether or not you have a similar or conflicting opinion to mine, be it positive or negative towards the film.  The opinion is yours, so go venturing for it.