THIS IS A FUCKING TERRIBLE REVIEW.
C'MON DIAMOND, EDIT THIS SHIT!
The close ups didn't bother me at all. I did kind of think that the One Day More and Do You Hear the People Sing numbers lost a bit of impact, but after thinking about it, I'm not sure there was a better way to put those numbers on the screen. I am a big fan of the stage production -- and of Hugh Jackman :-) -- but I was apprehensive about seeing the movie because I was afraid I'd be disappointed. I wasn't. There were so many outstanding performances in this movie. Hugh and Ann were excellent. But I have to say that Eddie Redmayne as Marius and Samantha Barks as Eponine were the best. Their voices were simply spectacular. All in all, I enjoyed it very much. I do wish there were an intermission, though. It's hard to enjoy even the best performance if you have to go to the bathroom.
I disagree with all of it except where you say the characters (Jack and Anne) are manipulating the audience emotionally. Then again this is a melodramatic musical not Citizen Kane. This piece in particular is just over the top. Not sure what you were expecting.
I did not hate it, and I was not bored. However, I was very uncomfortable with the closeups, too. There were some emotional moments where I nearly teared up. I kept thinking that Stephen Crane's Maggie of the Streets would have made a better movie character than the Hugo character. However, after having read the book, a mini series would do her justice.
I know it is "apples and oranges," but I still prefer Singing in the Rain or any Fred Astaire musical to this film.
However, to one viewer on this board, it is not better than Lincoln, Life of Pi, the Bond movie, or Argo. All of those were much better films.
Whatever the merits of the show itself, this is a very poorly directed film. The spatial relationships between the characters and their environments are particularly confused, the CGI is awfully ugly and unreal, and the acting is very one-note. Hathaway's song is called "I Dreamed a Dream," but we never get a glimpse of her early dream, only "the hell I'm living." There are no layers to what she's doing, only bulldozer emoting.
I don't care much for Puccini. More of a Verdi man.
"Whatever you think of this show and this score, it does come alive in the theater, but the big “One Day More” number loses all of its impact when it is reduced to frantic crosscutting between characters in different locales. Some stage musicals just aren’t meant to be movies."
I strongly disagree. WEST SIDE STORY used this technique in the big mid-film montage and it worked quite effectively. The songs are not at all bombastic and treacly, but that's the company line of those looking to take this down. I have seen well over 120 stage musicals in Manhattan over the past 30 years, and I'd say Schonberg's score is the greatest written during that time. It's soaring operatic lyricism is unmatched.
But heck, you are probably a guy who would take down Puccini for much the same reason.
LES MISERABLES has just moved into my #1 position for 2012, ahead of THE TURIN HORSE, WAR WITCH, ZERO DARK THIRTY, THE LIFE OF PI, OSLO AUGUST 17TH, AMOUR and LINCOLN. It's that good!
wow you guys just hate this huh. I don't understand why there is a need to review something that you walk in already hating.
The most salient point in the article is this. Eric Merola let down his profession by using 'one eyed' journalism. He didn't strive for balance by interviewing any professional who may have had an alternative view on Burzynzki's antineoplastons. he has only presented the clinics views and did not even mention that NO clinic in the world has been able to replicate the 'results' - no phase III's and NO approvals anywhere in the world. Its eady to see why Merola concentrated on one side. He was effectively Dr Buzynski's Producer, Publicist and Sales Manager under the guise of 'impartial filmmaker'. This production answers absolutely none of the questions the scientific worlds waits to be answered.
Im not sure if l'm interested in seeing another violent 'M'....but l think, what the world need, now, more than anything, is love, peace and happiness...the world seem so 'bloody' at the moment and soo miscourteous 2 one another, on the marble. We should also be more neighborly toward each other and help each other out. thx. peace :) Jobs, Hunger, lnformation, poor, racism, respect...God provides for all.
Gotta pass, 2 deep, 4 me. thx. peace. :)
Thanks for remembering, L. xo
Clearly, Dominik meant the film to be a slam against capitalism, our national excuses for exploitation should remain under constant assault and suspicion, and I think the film was sustained, simple, and a direct hit, the kind of shot that needs to be taken, as such, especially in a gangster film where gut shots are the best ones. Blows against an empire are one of the only ways to make a difference - persistence pays dividends - and this is clearly Andrew Dominik's intention, which he has also stated in interviews.
What is the name of the picture?
writers don't write headlines
Clearly, the reviewer didn't fully understand Andrew Dominik's intention and seems to only be trying to skewer this film. Too bad because the film is as beautiful and heartfelt as Dominik's Jesse James film was. As a jumping-off point, the title of this article should have been "Capitalism is a form of crime" and not the far-too-obvious and shallow "Crime is a form of capitalism" that the reviewer subtitled as Get it?, so snarkily. Vadim Rizov didn't understand this film or the magnificent and elegiacal Jesse James film. This is an all-too-common problem with reviewers who become too bitter and ingrown from too much critique and not enough creation.
l finally saw the move yesterday, on West 42 Street; where the phantom of horrors are still historically evident. WOW! Awesome! If you grew up watching Alfred Hitchcock movies and you were pasted to your seat, as l was...maybe it would be even, more, appreciated to witness the idiosyncraties of the ambitious Hitchcocks and their production crews and back office shenanigans. Did the story give credence to the adage "for every sucessful man there's a strong women", however, here, may l write, or, "for every sucessful woman, there's, a psychopathic man....LOL..No...But, The movie may had revealed some underlining abnormalities of resentment and anger that Mr. Hitchcock (Hitch) had towards his wife or something the wife thought he had towards her (She was once his boss), that laid shelterend in his subconscience but was set to detonate at any given moment. l wonder, "What would the analysis of the late Sigmund Freund or Carl Jung, be of Hitch's abnormal enthusiastic zeal for killing and murder (which was revealed during the last scene segment) when like a conductor directing his orchestra, Hitch (Who stood out side peeping into the movie audience) he then simultaneously and surreptitiously made striking motions w his hands synchronizing along w the horrendous screams of the audience and the striking suspensed background music... during the shower scene, as the innocent young lady was being repeatingly stabbed with a large sharp knife by her crazed and inconspicuous host. l wonder Y Mr. Hitch choose to have the villian made up in Black Face'? :) And Y the make up crew didn't do a better, mirror, image of the late Alfred Hitchcock of Mr. Hopkin's face and neck, since, Mr. Hitchcock's face and neck were just as much his brand and trade mark as his movies. A.H. stood alone in alot of ways...l dont think Hitch would had liked the way his character looked, and l even doubt if he would have allowed such personal entries, but, l thought the performance and everthing else was superb, esp. Tony Perkins and Alma characters. I also wonder how Alfred Hitchcock wrould had directed his own bio. Cuut! ltss a Wrraap! thx, peace. :)
Share a website with you ,
( http://www.likesurprise.com/ )
Believe you will love it.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation