Follow Us

Film Freak Central's Bookstore

March's Most-Read

  1. Noah
  2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
  3. Nympho-maniac
  1. Hannibal Season 1
  2. Game of Thrones Season 3
  3. Saturn 3

E-Mail Us


« Film Freak Central's Top 10 of 2003 | Main | Film Freak Central's Top 10 of 2002 »

December 24, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alex Jackson

Saying that Aronofsky, Fincher, and the Coens all sucked balls in 2010 (the year of BLACK SWAN, SOCIAL NETWORK, and TRUE GRIT) seems pretty needlessly contrarian to me.


Except that Darren Aronofsky, the Coen Brothers, and David Fincher all suck big balls. I was mildly annoyed by "The King's Speech" as much as the next guy, but who gives a shit about those other lame-duck auteurs? They've all been circle-jizzed on way more than guys even less-deserving (i.e. Sam Raimi). The point about Hitchcock was on, of course (for the most part). But let's stop with all the Oscar-as-validation bait, shall we? Oh, and no one ever makes Sacha Baron Cohen interesting, except when he's getting punched in the mug - which at least this movie does with reckless aplomb. That alone gives it a "thumbs up" in my book - or my hand, or whatever. A thumb up someone, somewhere. Or something.

Simon Fallaha

I'll be happy to share my opinion once I've seen the film, but for the record: I liked both The King's Speech and The Damned United. Compelling stories and well-acted, even if they toyed with the facts more than a little bit (Ex-player and respected pundit John Giles has gone on to slate both the book and film of TDU quite heavily). A musical, though, is something else entirely... to me they're pretty much the ultimate love-hate genre.


Strange, I had never been exposed to Les Miserables in any form before seeing this movie. I loved it. Definitely worth the time. Crowe was the weakest link for damned sure, but he was at least passable in his performance. As for the close ups, I feel they brought an intimacy with the characters while they're going through such heart rending emotional breakdowns. This review is foolish.

Joe Alsheimer

What did Tom Hooper ever do to me? He wasted over 2 and 1/2 hours of my life with this maudlin, boring, pretentious piece of garbage. That's what Tom Hooper did. His camera work was amateur at best. Closeups are to be used sparingly for emphasis, not continuously for over 2 hours. As the director, the onus kind of falls on him. Although who in their right mind cast Russel Crowe and Hugh Jackman should be tied to a chair and forced to watch this until their eyes pop out and their ears implode (as I imagine someone forced to watch this might in a drastic sense of self preservation)

Ryan Mozert

Sounds like a musical barraged piece of crap


What the heck, man? What did Tom Hooper do to you? All I got from this article is "I hate Tom Hooper," not a movie review. Grow up.

Oh, and I'm sorry it made you uncomfortable. Doesn't it suck when a movie has that kind of impact on you? *Sigh* Oh, right. Silly me. I forgot cynicism was cool.


Hooper has succeeded at bringing Les Miserables to the movies and the performances, all of them are first rate.All the close-ups work well, as this is not a stage presentation, but a film. The close-ups and the singing live work well together and help to create intimacy, agood thing in a film.Crowe was a good choice for Javert, he sings well and is a fine actor.As for the dismissive tone of this piece,well that is the price we all pay for freedom of speech.

Paul Atkinson

This review is right on. Dreadful movie and adaptation of an awe inspiring stage production. If you have seen LesMis multiple times on stage you won't like this. Had they really wanted to do it right, rather than get SO SO vocal talent, they would have cast real Broadway thespians who could do the songs the justice they deserve. I like Crowe and Jackman as Master and Commander and Wolverine. Not as Javert and Valjean. Horrid to say the least and fodder for those easily entertained.


After watching the HBO preview, wherein everyone gushes over the fact that the actors are singing! live!, I was afraid this would be the outcome. My fear only deepened when they previewed one of Jackman's soliloquies, which was evidently shot inches in front of his face. I'll probably still see it, but . . . regardless, the expectations are slightly tempered. As they were for Rent, and really, every other musical adaptation for the big screen.

One thing I would point out though, and I hate to raise the pedantic point, is that the events depicted in the movie are not the French Revolution (if you're referring above to the one that started in 1789), but rather the June Rebellion of 1832.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Please Support Film Freak Central

Please note that "RECENT POSTS" also lists archival content that's just been imported from the old site.

Letterboxd - Bill Chambers's Screening Log