The reputation of "Les Miserables" suffered a Waterloo, which was unexpected but reasonable.

Tom Hober started his career in filming TV series. He is an excellent TV director. He deserves recognition for the capture of actor performances, but the essential elements of the film such as the scheduling of the camera, the creation of the atmosphere, the use of light and the extension of the image are not his strengths.

"The King's Speech" is known as the most beautiful work of the Oscar Best Director after the Millennium, which is not groundless; similarly, "Crashing" defeated "Brokeback Mountain" and won the Oscar Best Picture has always been controversial and criticized, because the former has too much TV sense and the director's control over the movie is almost invisible.

The "Les Miserables" filmed by Tom Hober strictly follows the context and pattern of the stage play version, which means that it further amplifies Tom's shortcomings and is completely exposed to the audience; on the other hand, Tom's advantages are also incapable of playing, and are completely covered up by the actor's personal performance and performance.

It's like putting multiple cameras in the Queen's Theater, recording the all-star version of "Les Miserables", and then releasing DVDs, becoming a movie version that goes into the cinema. Such a drama is enough to be amazing and praise; but such a movie cannot empathize.

After the London premiere, the first batch of comments from "Les Miserables" ushered in a nightmare. Fourteen media outlets released comments, and the media comprehensive review was only 59 points, and they were not even able to pass the exam.

In fact, such a bad score is not the end of the world. There is only one critical comment, and only one praise comment. The remaining twelve comments are all good and bad middle reviews. Among the middle reviews, the scores are generally concentrated between fifty and seventy, which leads to the failure of the average score to pass.

Among the first batch of comments, the film reviews of "Imperial" magazine are undoubtedly the most representative.

"Cameron McIntosh's version of 'Les Miserables' is undoubtedly a wonderful work, excellent scripts, excellent characters, and excellent connotations, but Tom Hober's problem is:

This work brings together a group of talented actors. The wonderful performance once again gives the characters vitality, but it is always separated from the movie itself. It seems that I just appreciated another drama performance, but it does not have the texture of the movie and the director's interpretation.

What's even more terrifying is that Hober's grasp of details has led to a breakdown in the plot and the role has become simple. The original magnificent and profound theme has not only not been improved, but has also been weakened, and eventually evolved into the current version-

A movie made purely for the Oscar season, with no more above the passing line. Can it win an Oscar nomination? This is a high probability event; but is it an excellent movie? The answer is yes, no."

"Imperial" magazine gave 60 points, just passed the exam, no less, but no more, which also represents the views of most film critics.

People were praising Anne Hathaway's performance, and the Wall Street Journal even claimed that "Hathaway can now prepare her Oscar-winning presentation, and her wonderful performances deserve to be the best of her career; and the performances of Sasha Byron Cohen and Helena Burham Carter were also eye-catching."

People also regretted that Hugh Jackman did not get more space for performance. Variety magazine said, "He was completely limited to one framework and all his talents could not be displayed. In front of Renly Hall's brilliant version, it suddenly became eclipsed. This was unfair to Jackman, but it was a fact. Tom Hober was the object of criticism."

People are still condemning Russell Crow's terrible performances. Among the fourteen media, ten media outlets have criticized them. "The bad singing, the bad performance, the bad moves, and the bad roles. Crow's stiff and clumsy, stupid and boring performances have completely ruined the entire role."

There is no doubt that Russell Crowe received the most criticisms in the cast lineup. The winner of the 73rd Oscars was completely unacceptable to the performance style of the stage play. He seemed out of place from beginning to end. He had already received countless criticisms on the night of the premiere, and now he has ushered in a carnival of complaints.

It is worth mentioning that the Times wrote a special report, placing the Almeida Theater version and the movie version of "Les Miserables" together to compare it, and conducting a comprehensive analysis. At the end of the article, they summarized it in this way.

"Why can the six-hour version of the Almeda Theater succeed? Or, further, why can the three-hour version of the Queen Theater last forever?

The reason is that they contributed the most exciting performances, full characters and solid scripts in the most appropriate way, and with the wonderful interpretation, they gave Victor Hugo's original novel the understanding and sublimation of their own version. This is the reason for their success and the failure of the movie version.

When people mention the lengthy six-hour version of the Almeda Theatre, people remember every character, every detail, and even talk about their understanding and reflections; and when people mention the film version, nothing seems to be left behind except Fantine's 'I Have Dream' and the Denadier's lord of the house.

People are discussing whether Hall is Jean-Argent better than Jackman; people are discussing whether Marius, who is starring Hall in the movie version, is a better choice; people are still discussing whether Hall gave up on the movie and chose drama as a wiser choice.

Judging from the existing results, all the answers are yes.”

The Times comments are undoubtedly interesting and representative. In addition to the 50-minute evaluation, they truly made a horizontal comparison of the two different versions, which also represents the mainstream view in the industry.

There is an eternal law in life, and there is no harm without comparison; after horizontal comparison, the superiority and inferiority are immediately seen.

There is no doubt that Hugh Jackman is a well-known actor. Although the character image of Wolverine in the film field has bound his acting career; but his legend has been left in the drama field, including New York, London and Melbourne, and has been highly recognized by industry insiders.

This time, playing the important role of Ran Argent, Xiu once again showed his solid foundation, excellent singing skills and outstanding expression. All of this has been objectively recognized by film critics, but in comparison, there are too few breakthroughs, and it can only be said to be a fair rule.

If there is no horizontal comparison, then Xiu may have received more praise. After all, he is the most important core in this movie and successfully completed his task; but there is no if in real life.

Now, industry insiders generally believe that in contrast, Lan Li's performance immediately stood out, and Lan Li has all the excellent qualities shown by the retreat; and further, Lan Li's performance texture and level show more possibilities, especially the tension and explosive power on the drama stage, giving Ran Ahran a new vitality.

Among them, the most widely discussed scene, as expected, was the highlight of "taking him home" - Jean-Argent going to the barricade to try to save Marius.

There is no need to say about Hugh Jackman's excellence, but the fact is that in this scene and this song, his performance was completely at a disadvantage. He only presented the content of the song in a straightforward manner, without emotion, no background, no echo, dryness and taste, and to some extent, it was separated from the plot, and the dull and boring performance completely lost its soul.

What's worse is that under the schedule of Tom Hober's lens, the complete misunderstanding distorts the meaning and soul of the original song. Even the core of the theme passed away inexplicably. Without Marius, Enjola, and barricades, let alone sublimation, people even began to wonder, "who" should be taken home?

After the London premiere was over, a film critic was too surprised and too surprised to believe his eyes, so he simply found Xiu and asked what was going on in the scene, what went wrong, and why the effect was so disastrous?

Later, neither party responded to this matter, as if it had never happened. However, the industry rumored that after hearing the problem, Xu spread his hands and shook his head to express his helplessness, "Sorry, I don't know what happened." He looked confused and regretful, and seemed helpless, "Maybe, my ability is limited."

No matter how outstanding an actor meets a mediocre director, he will be helpless. In the final analysis, in a movie, the actor's performance needs to be captured and presented by the director; unlike on the drama stage, what the actor has and what it presents.

However, Xiu is a gentlemanly and polite personality. He never likes to talk bad things about others behind his back. Even if he is helpless, he does not blame anyone. He just humbly takes the mistakes on himself, believing that his strength is still insufficient and has failed the heavy responsibility of this scene. But the sighs and regrets between the lines are still regrettable.

In comparison, Lanli's "Take Him Home" is regarded as a classic and has been praised by professionals in the industry. Some even believe that Lanli has re-given the soul and faith of this song, and its wonderful performance is definitely worth cherishing.

From lyrics to tunes, from figure to eyes, from posture to aura, Renli truly demonstrates the essence of performance, and even the most picky drama critics and directors cannot pick on them.

Among the rumors, many senior actors including Claude-michel-schonberg, Alfie-boe and many other Jean-Argent arrived at the Almeda Theater to watch Renly's performance and gave very outstanding comments.

There is no level of art. Everyone has their own understanding and interpretation, but the quality of performance can be distinguished from the advantages and disadvantages. As the Times said, the answer is "yes".
Chapter completed!