Les Miséra..boy that's a lot of singing!

I have to say, Les Misérables took me by surprise. I have not read the book, and I’ve never seen the live musical version of it, but I have seen two non-musical movie versions, so I know the story.  Prior to watching the current version with Hugh Jackman as ex-convict Jean Valjean and Russell Crowe as the fanatic Inspector Javert, I realized that it was a musical, but I didn’t realize how much! Virtually all of the dialog was sung, which I must admit took some getting used to. Looking back on it now, I have mixed feelings about it.

Much of it was nicely done and appropriate and enjoyable. But many of the scenes between Valjean and Javert are intended to be very dramatic and tense, so when they started singing their lines, particularly when one was threatening the other or prior to a fight (and sometimes during one!), I found myself chuckling on occasion. Pretty sure that wasn’t the intention of director Tom Hooper!  But that’s just me. Pretty sure I'm in the minority.

This approach also slowed down the pace of the story telling for me as well, as some of the musical numbers (including those of the kooky Thénardiers, the comic relief duo of the movie, well played by Helena Bonham Carter & Sacha Baron Cohen but garnering a bit too much screen time) really had nothing to do with the core of the film’s story: Javert’s relentless pursuit of Valjean, and how Valjean’s faith and integrity changed them.  In fact, it distracted from it so much that Hooper’s Javert almost felt like a secondary character in this film instead of being one of the two main characters.  Again, I have not read the book, so I’m only basing that on the two non-musical film versions I saw. Speaking of which, if you’re interested in watching a non-musical version of Les Misérables, I’d highly recommend the 1935 version with Frederic March and Charles Laughton.  Excellent.  The 1998 version with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush was pretty good too. Rush, in particular, was a fantastic Javert.

The cinematography in the movie was possibly the best part of the film.  Can’t say all of the actors looked like they belonged in the 19^th century (same problem “Lincoln” had), but the backdrop of 19^th century France, and Paris specifically, was breathtaking at times.  Hooper did a fantastic job in that aspect. It’s amazing what CGI can do these days. Hooper’s version, I’m happy to say, was also the most spiritual version of the Les Misérables I’ve seen.  I lost count how many times “God” was mentioned in the movie.  The Christian references to redemption and forgiveness was unmistakable and profound. Much more than in the two non-musical versions, and in particular the 1998 movie where it was underemphasized.

Although I didn’t read the book, after seeing Hooper’s version of the movie, I had to find a copy and read the ending, as his film ended completely different than the 1935 and 1998 movies. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that, unlike the other two, Hooper actually stuck with the ending in the book.  And no, I’m not going to tell you what they were and how they differed. It would spoil too much! But it is heartwarming and very well done.

So, in a nutshell, I enjoyed the movie, for the most part, once I got used to the singing dialog. I did like the non-musical versions better though. The acting was good, in particular Hugh Jackman who was very deserving of his recent Golden Globe win and Academy Award nomination. Due to a nice make-up job and a loss of weight, he was almost unrecognizable at the beginning of the movie. The character of Valjean is all over the spectrum as far as emotions go, and Jackman had the extra difficult part of displaying them while singing, which he did a great job of. Hooper seemed to have stayed loyal to the basic story, which is always a good thing.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a "3" because of the cinematography. If you have a really big TV, then maybe a "2". And don’t forget to check out the 1935 version!