I'm not sure I can top this review but I'll try.
Les Mis is a difficult thing film for me to review because I think the book is one of the truly all time great works of literature and my familiarity with it is going to significantly affect how I receive the film. This can cut one of two ways. On the one hand I may find the story to be more powerful than someone unfamiliar with the details since I can fill in all the backstory of the different relationships that's, by necessity, missing from the film. On the other hand, my familiarity with what's missing might also just end up making the film seem like an inferior version. I guess what I'm saying is that adaptation's difficult, and I can't really comment on how someone unfamiliar with the source material (book or stage musical) would receive the film.
Anyway, the best way to summarize the film is that it feels simultaneously rushed and a bit of a slog; has some nice, and powerful, moments and while overall it isn't bad, isn't great either. I think it helps to have at least some familiarity with the basic story going in, because otherwise a lot of what the film sells as significant will just feel trivial. Given how its a pretty straight adaptation of the stage musical I'm not sure it was really necessary to make, but its not a waste of time (and Russel Crowe's singing isn't as bad as the talk suggests. Its not great, but not a train wreck). I'm sure it will get a bunch of awards nominations, but I don't know that I'll go out of my way to see it again.
Les Mis is a difficult thing film for me to review because I think the book is one of the truly all time great works of literature and my familiarity with it is going to significantly affect how I receive the film. This can cut one of two ways. On the one hand I may find the story to be more powerful than someone unfamiliar with the details since I can fill in all the backstory of the different relationships that's, by necessity, missing from the film. On the other hand, my familiarity with what's missing might also just end up making the film seem like an inferior version. I guess what I'm saying is that adaptation's difficult, and I can't really comment on how someone unfamiliar with the source material (book or stage musical) would receive the film.
Anyway, the best way to summarize the film is that it feels simultaneously rushed and a bit of a slog; has some nice, and powerful, moments and while overall it isn't bad, isn't great either. I think it helps to have at least some familiarity with the basic story going in, because otherwise a lot of what the film sells as significant will just feel trivial. Given how its a pretty straight adaptation of the stage musical I'm not sure it was really necessary to make, but its not a waste of time (and Russel Crowe's singing isn't as bad as the talk suggests. Its not great, but not a train wreck). I'm sure it will get a bunch of awards nominations, but I don't know that I'll go out of my way to see it again.
No comments:
Post a Comment