By Daniel Bradley,
For me, there were 3 things wrong with this adaptation. 1. Russell. 2. Diction. 3. The final confrontation wasn't agonising enough.
The set design, production value, the music, *most* of the acting, the commitment to staying true to the Musical, all these things make it worth going to see. There is a reason it is the most successful musical in the world. It's powerful, it's entertaining, and it's got a rich story throughout. The tunes are catchy and the orchestra is on nitro. This IS one to go and see if you have never touched Les Mis.
But why was I underwhelmed? I love the stage show, always have! What made me wish I'd seen Django instead?
Russell did not let go like his character wanted to. Repeatedly, Mr Crowe could have made me believe with an anguished increase of volume and an injection of feeling, that he was a natural born antagonist to Jackman's protagonist. But he held back, either out of anxiety, direction or sheer fear of cocking it up. I would have liked more, though.
Helena and Sacha, amongst others, could have been clearer. Strangers to Les Mis would have missed reasonable swathes of Herbert Kretzmer's lyrical genius. This may have been a studio problem that could have been resolved easily, but I think stubbornly insisting on natural musical performance from actors contributed to a slightly annoying jumble of sounds at odd points. To be fair, I was in the oldest cinema in the country, this may have been another contributing factor.
The final confrontation. I just wanted it to be longer. Sue me.
All in all, a thoroughly miserable film.
Best bits: Jackman & Hathaway blew me away. Good on 'em.
Worst bits: Nic: 'Annoying bloody cockneys in the middle of Paris!'
For fans of Les Mis, Phantom of the Opera, Oliver Twist.
Rating: 7/10
