27 years after taking the world by
storm, the international musical hit Les Miserables finally
gets the Hollywood treatment its diehard fans have been waiting for,
but not everyone will sing its praises as loudly as them. We've
already heard the critics singing the song of angry men, while
audience reactions seem to be as contentious as the student rebellion
around which the melodrama unfolds. Detractors have trained their
muskets squarely at the film's in-your-face emotive style, the very
appeal of which defenders have made their barricade against such
criticisms. It begs the question: Is Les Mis the sort of movie
that makes necessary – or for that matter, even makes possible –
an objective review? I know I struggle to extract my opinion of the
film from my opinion of the source material. Where does my love of
the show end and my love of the movie begin?
Despite a butt-punishing 2-hour and
38-minute run time,
Les Mis is a fairly streamlined
distillation of Victor Hugo's 19th century novel, in which ex-con
Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) spends the better part of his life on the
run from the law and in search of redemption. Across the years he
eludes capture by the overly dedicated Inspector Javert (Russell
Crowe), raises the daughter of the ill-fated Fantine (Anne Hathaway),
fights in the Paris rebellion of 1832, and basically puts up with all
kinds of crap (literally, in one instance!) to ensure the future
happiness and security of his adopted daughter (Amanda Seyfried).
Hugo spins an elaborate web of connections between these and many
other characters – including the dashing Marius (Eddie Redmayne),
the scheming Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham
Carter), and their lovelorn daughter Eponine (Samantha Barks) –
through a series of outlandish coincidences that would vex Dickens.
