It was horrible. Few really good scenes, but otherwise just terrible. Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed A Dreamed" made me wonder why they needed to have five minutes of nothing but staring at the camera and singing. Anyone else concur?
I felt the pace was decent. Granted, the original musical felt somewhat dragging at certain solo parts as well, but at least they had the cuts in the movie. Although, I agree that maybe they might have had held the steady cam for too long at parts. >> Also, there's a thread in the Movies Section. But eh.
**** yeah, I'll post this in Gaming if I so want It was a piece alright... So tell me... why were there two conversations not in song, but every other pointless conversation was in song? It tried way too hard to emulate a play experience. Just awful. Studios forget the word "adapt" is in "adaptation"[DOUBLEPOST=1357114048][/DOUBLEPOST] Realtalk: Steady cam doesn't work after a huuuuuuge set piece and extra heavy scene in films.
Can't say since I haven't seen it. What I can say is your avvy makes me wanna play Skies of Arcadia real bad.
You did know you were seeing a movie adapted from a musical adapted from a stage play right? Also, not quite sure if being serious or not.
I havn't seen the movie yet (YET), but I'm a big fan of the original musical (I sang 'I Dreamed A Dream' for my theatre final and I got an A, f*ck yes). Keep in mind the fact that they squished a stage musical that lasts over three hours into two and a half hours. Said musical was an adaptation of a play from the early 1900s (I think that's when it started?) which was adapted from literally the longest work of fiction from the last 200 years. Seriously, a copy of Les Mis is the size of like two copys of Deathly Hallows. On top of the fact that, it's adapted from a musical that was meant for the stage, specifically. Of course the stage version is going to be better. Were the Harry Potter movies as good as the books? No. Were they good movies? Yes. Stage and film are two completely different mediums.
