Les Misérables (2012) - March 22 - Review

[Veronica Mars]

Ebert said this was the only film, of the nine Oscar nominated films, that he didn't think deserved its nomination.

I was really excited for this, but not so much now. Will definitely pick it up, though. Love the musical and the cast, so I'm sure it will be good enough to belong in my collection.

[Brad1963]

I don't understand all the venom for this film. I loved it, thought it stuck closely to the stage version and was epic filmmaking at its best. Seeing again tomorrow and I'm getting it the day it is released on Blu-ray.

[JenM]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I don't understand all the venom for this film. I loved it, thought it stuck closely to the stage version and was epic filmmaking at its best. Seeing again tomorrow and I'm getting it the day it is released on Blu-ray.

Me too! I've seen it 3 times, and everyone I've gone with, who are huge fans of the stage musical, has loved it.

It was definitely different from the show, but it had to be. It wasn't just a matter of putting the stage show outside and filming it. I loved that they went back to the original novel and put stuff in that they weren't able to do on stage (like the convent scene).

I get the criticism for the camerawork. I figured I wouldn't like it either after reading the reviews, but I wound up not having a problem with it.

I even liked Russell Crowe. No, he doesn't sing like the actors I've seen on stage do it, but he acted the character so well that I didn't mind that the singing was less than what I was used to. And that scene with the medal? Damn... (and I read that scene was Crowe's idea)

I've been waiting for a movie version of this forever, and I was just thrilled with it.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by JenM

Me too! I've seen it 3 times, and everyone I've gone with, who are huge fans of the stage musical, has loved it.

It was definitely different from the show, but it had to be. It wasn't just a matter of putting the stage show outside and filming it. I loved that they went back to the original novel and put stuff in that they weren't able to do on stage (like the convent scene).

I get the criticism for the camerawork. I figured I wouldn't like it either after reading the reviews, but I wound up not having a problem with it.

I even liked Russell Crowe. No, he doesn't sing like the actors I've seen on stage do it, but he acted the character so well that I didn't mind that the singing was less than what I was used to. And that scene with the medal? Damn... (and I read that scene was Crowe's idea)

I've been waiting for a movie version of this forever, and I was just thrilled with it.

You begin to wonder what people were expecting. It was exactly what it should have been. It retained the essence of the stage version while taking advantage of what film could offer. Les Misérables was meant for the big screen and it succeeded IMO. Hopefully there will be some type of Digi Book Exclusive at Best Buy or Target.

[Belloso]

Originally Posted by Veronica Mars

Ebert said this was the only film, of the nine Oscar nominated films, that he didn't think deserved its nomination.

Ebert has been off his rocker for a while.

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by Belloso

Ebert has been off his rocker for a while.

Ebert would be right. IMO, Moonrise Kingdom should have been in the place of Les Miserables.

[Mel823]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

Ebert would be right. IMO, Moonrise Kingdom should have been in the place of Les Miserables.

He hasn't even reviewed the movie yet.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mel823

He hasn't even reviewed the movie yet.

He's very ill, and in physical rehab.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Belloso

Ebert has been off his rocker for a while.

Maybe. But he also predicted Argo to win best picture when it first came out, something nobody though possible but it will win.

[Leonidas King]

To avoid sale competitions between both studios, something tells me Universal will move up the expected street date of March 19th up to a few weeks or even possibly a full month now that Sony gave official date to Zero Dark Thirty.

ZDT was originally expected for April. This is could be a problem with Les Mis March 19th release.

[MovieSeer]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

To avoid sale competitions between both studios, something tells me Universal will move up the expected street date of March 19th up to a few weeks or even possibly a full month now that Sony gave official date to Zero Dark Thirty.

ZDT was originally expected for April. This is could be a problem with Les Mis March 19th release.

Not necessarily, though I recognize and respect your point. ZDT will attract a different type of customer as opposed to those interested in Les Miserables, with possible overlap. However, seeing that Warner is targeting March 19 for the release of The Hobbit, that move would definite prompt Universal to make some form of an adjustment. If anything, I suspect they may move it up a week, the week of March 12, since none of the other studios have really targeted that timeframe, especially with only Life of Pi being announced for that date. At any rate, who knows. We will see. That's for sure.

[hsox05]

Originally Posted by MovieSeer

Not necessarily, though I recognize and respect your point. ZDT will attract a different type of customer as opposed to those interested in Les Miserables, with possible overlap. However, seeing that Warner is targeting March 19 for the release of The Hobbit, that move would definite prompt Universal to make some form of an adjustment. If anything, I suspect they may move it up a week, the week of March 12, since none of the other studios have really targeted that timeframe, especially with only Life of Pi being announced for that date. At any rate, who knows. We will see. That's for sure.

I'm not sure any reliable source (no offense, bluray.com) ever actually stated March 19 as the date. That was already absurdly fast from theatrical release to bluray date (and therefore difficult to believe), and I'll post a video of myself eating my shirt off my back if the date is "moved up" to March 12. That's only 77 days from initial release, not factoring in the later release dates overseas.

[MovieSeer]

Originally Posted by hsox05

I'm not sure any reliable source (no offense, bluray.com) ever actually stated March 19 as the date. That was already absurdly fast from theatrical release to bluray date (and therefore difficult to believe), and I'll post a video of myself eating my shirt off my back if the date is "moved up" to March 12. That's only 77 days from initial release, not factoring in the later release dates overseas.

Funny! No, hsox05, that won't be necessary. The point was if March was the release window Universal had in mind, then March 12 would be the likeliest seeing that competition from other studio releases was limited.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (a Universal Pictures release): Released 8/13/2010, Blu-ray/DVD 11/9/2010 which comes to a total of 88 days, not even three full months. It still even had international releases that went well into 2011.