Chapter 1101: 1101
If audio player doesn't work, press Stop then Play button again
The word-of-mouth of "Les Miserables" encountered Waterloo, unexpectedly, but it was reasonable.
Tom Hober started from filming TV series. He is an excellent TV director. His ability to capture the performance of actors is worthy of recognition, but the necessary elements of the film such as the scheduling of the shots, the creation of the atmosphere, the use of light and the extension of the images , But not his strong suit.
"The King's Speech" is hailed as the most water-rich work of the Oscar's best director after the millennium. Criticism is also because the former's TV feel is too heavy, and the director's control of the film is almost invisible.
The "Les Miserables" under the control of Tom Hopper strictly follows the context and pattern of the stage version, which means that Tom’s shortcomings are further magnified and completely exposed to the audience; on the other hand, Tom’s advantages are also invisible. Play, completely covered by the actor's personal performance and play.
It's like placing multiple cameras in the Queen's Theatre, recording the all-star version of "Les Miserables", and then releasing the DVD, which became the movie version that went into the cinema. Such a drama is enough to be amazing and admirable; but such a movie cannot be empathized.
After the London premiere, the first batch of reviews of "Les Miserables" ushered in a nightmare. Fourteen media outlets released reviews. The media review only had 59 points for the time being, and even failed to pass.
In fact, such a terrible score is not the end of the world. There is only one critical review and only one praise review. The remaining twelve reviews are all good or bad mid-level reviews. In the mid-level review, the scores It is also generally concentrated between fifty and seventy points, which led to the failure of the average score.
Among the first reviews, the film reviews of "Empire" magazine are undoubtedly the most representative.
"The Cameron Mackintosh version of "Les Miserables" is undoubtedly a wonderful masterpiece, excellent script, excellent characters, excellent connotation, but the problem with Tom Hober lies in:
This work gathers a group of talented actors. The wonderful performance once again gives vitality to the character, but it is always separated from the movie itself, as if only to enjoy the performance of another drama, but it does not have the texture of the movie and the interpretation of the director. .
What is even more frightening is that Hopper’s grasp of details has led to gaps in the plot, and the role has become simple. The original grand and profound theme has not been improved, but weakened, and finally evolved into the current version——
A movie made purely for the Oscars season, above the pass, there is no more. Can it win an Oscar nomination? This is a high probability event; but is it a good movie? The answer is yes, no. "
"Empire" magazine gave a score of sixty points, just passed, no less, but no more, which also represents the views of most film critics.
People are praising Anne Hathaway's performance, and the "Wall Street Journal" even declared, "Hathaway can now prepare her Oscar winning speech, and the brilliant performance deserves to be dedicated to the best of her career; and The performances of Sasha Byron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were also impressive."
People are also stunned that Hugh Jackman did not get more performance space. Variety magazine said, “He is completely limited to a frame, and all his talents cannot be displayed. In Lanly-Hall, the brilliance is brilliant. In front of the version of, it suddenly looked overshadowed. This is unfair to Jackman, but it is a fact. And Tom Hober is the object of blame."
People are still condemning Russell Crowe’s terrible performance. Out of the 14 media outlets, ten of them have launched verbal criticisms, “bad singing, bad performance, bad positioning, and bad characters. , Crowe’s stiff and awkward, stupid and tedious performance completely ruined the entire character."
There is no doubt that among the cast of cast, Russell Crowe has received the most criticism. The seventy-third Oscar winner is completely unsuited to the performance style of the stage play. From the beginning to the end, he seems out of place. The screening had already suffered countless criticisms that night, and now it is ushered in a carnival of complaints.
It is worth mentioning that the "Times" wrote a special report that compared the Almeida theater version and the movie version of "Les Miserables" together and analyzed them in all directions. At the end of the article, They concluded so.
"Why is the six-hour version of the Almeida Theater successful? Or even further, why is the three-hour version of the Queen's Theater enduring?
The reason is that they have dedicated the most wonderful performance in the most suitable way, full of characters and solid script. Under the wonderful interpretation, they have endowed Victor Hugo with their own version of the understanding and sublimation of the original work. This is the reason for their success and also the reason for the failure of the movie version.
When people mention the six-hour long version of the Almeida Theater, people will remember every role and every detail in it, and they can even talk about their own understanding and reflections; and when people mention the movie version, Except Fantine's "I Had a Dream" and Denadier and his wife "Lord of the House", nothing seemed to be left.
People are discussing whether Hall is a better Jean-Ajean than Jackman; people are discussing whether Hall starring in the movie version of Marius is a better choice; people are still discussing, Huo Er gave up the movie and chose whether drama was a more sensible choice.
Judging from the existing results, all the answers are yes. "
The "Times" comments are undoubtedly interesting and representative at the same time. In addition to the 50-point evaluation, they really 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, there is no harm if there is no comparison; after the horizontal comparison, one can stand up against one another.
There is no doubt that Hugh Jackman is a well-known actor. Although in the field of film, the role of Wolverine restricts his play; but in the field of theater, in major cities such as New York, London and Melbourne, All left behind his legends, which have been affirmed by industry insiders.
This time, playing the important role of Jean Arjean, Hugh once again demonstrated his solid foundation, outstanding singing skills and outstanding expressiveness. All of this has also been objectively affirmed by film critics, but in comparison, it is a breakthrough. Too few, can only be said to be quite satisfactory.
If there is no horizontal comparison, then Xio may have received more praise, after all, he is the most important core of this movie, and successfully completed his task; however, there is no if in real life.
Now, people in the industry generally believe that, in contrast, Lanly’s performance immediately stands out, and that all the excellent qualities shown by Hugh are available in Lanli; and further, the quality and level of Lanly’s performance are even more present. Many possibilities, especially the tension and explosive power on the theater stage, gave Jean Agen a brand new vitality.
Among these, the most widely discussed scene, not surprisingly, was the highlight of "Take him home"-Jean-Agen went to the barricade to try to save Marius.
There is no need to say more about Hugh Jackman’s excellence, but the fact is that in this scene and this song, his performance has completely fallen behind, just showing the content of the song in a flat and straightforward manner, without emotions and background. There is no response, dry and tasteless, and even to some extent, out of the plot, the plain and boring performance completely loses the soul.
To make matters worse, under Tom Hober’s lens scheduling, he completely misunderstood and distorted the meaning and soul of the original song. Even the core of the theme passed by inexplicably, without Marius, without Enjolras, and without barricades. , Not to mention sublimation, people even began to wonder, "who" should be taken home?
After the London premiere screening was over, a film critic was too surprised, too unexpected, unable to believe his eyes, so he went directly to Xio and asked what was going on in the scene and what went wrong. Why is the effect so disastrous?
Later, both parties did not respond to this incident, as if it had never happened ~www.novelhall.com~ But industry rumors, after hearing the problem, Xio spread her hands and shook her head to express helplessness. Sorry, I don't know what happened." With a confused face and regretful eyes, he appeared helpless, "Maybe, my ability is limited."
No matter how good an actor meets a mediocre director, he is helpless. In the final analysis, in a movie, an actor's performance needs the director's lens to capture and present it; unlike on a theater stage, what the actor has is what it presents.
However, Hugh is a gentleman with a polite personality. He never likes to talk about other people's bad things behind his back. Even if he is helpless, he did not accuse anyone. He just humbly took the fault to himself, believing that his strength was still insufficient, and he failed. The important task of this scene. But the sighs and grief between the lines are still regrettable.
In comparison, Lanly’s "Take Him Home" was regarded as a classic and was praised by professionals in the industry. Some people even believed that Lanly had re-given the soul and faith of this song, and the wonderful performance was definitely worthwhile collection.
From the lyrics to the tune, from the body to the eyes, from the posture to the aura, Lan Li truly shows the essence of the performance, even the most demanding critics and directors can't criticize.
According to the rumors, many senior actors and actresses of Jean-Agen, including Claudius-Michel-Schonberg and Alfie-Boe, arrived in Almeida in person. The theater watched Lan Li's performance and gave a very good evaluation.
There is no level of art. Everyone has their own understanding and interpretation, but the quality of performance can be distinguished from the pros and cons. As the Times said, the answer is "yes."
Please remember the domain name of this book's first publication:. 4Fiction Network Mobile Edition Reading URL:
Please report us if you find any errors so we can fix it asap!
The word-of-mouth of "Les Miserables" encountered Waterloo, unexpectedly, but it was reasonable.
Tom Hober started from filming TV series. He is an excellent TV director. His ability to capture the performance of actors is worthy of recognition, but the necessary elements of the film such as the scheduling of the shots, the creation of the atmosphere, the use of light and the extension of the images , But not his strong suit.
"The King's Speech" is hailed as the most water-rich work of the Oscar's best director after the millennium. Criticism is also because the former's TV feel is too heavy, and the director's control of the film is almost invisible.
The "Les Miserables" under the control of Tom Hopper strictly follows the context and pattern of the stage version, which means that Tom’s shortcomings are further magnified and completely exposed to the audience; on the other hand, Tom’s advantages are also invisible. Play, completely covered by the actor's personal performance and play.
It's like placing multiple cameras in the Queen's Theatre, recording the all-star version of "Les Miserables", and then releasing the DVD, which became the movie version that went into the cinema. Such a drama is enough to be amazing and admirable; but such a movie cannot be empathized.
After the London premiere, the first batch of reviews of "Les Miserables" ushered in a nightmare. Fourteen media outlets released reviews. The media review only had 59 points for the time being, and even failed to pass.
In fact, such a terrible score is not the end of the world. There is only one critical review and only one praise review. The remaining twelve reviews are all good or bad mid-level reviews. In the mid-level review, the scores It is also generally concentrated between fifty and seventy points, which led to the failure of the average score.
Among the first reviews, the film reviews of "Empire" magazine are undoubtedly the most representative.
"The Cameron Mackintosh version of "Les Miserables" is undoubtedly a wonderful masterpiece, excellent script, excellent characters, excellent connotation, but the problem with Tom Hober lies in:
This work gathers a group of talented actors. The wonderful performance once again gives vitality to the character, but it is always separated from the movie itself, as if only to enjoy the performance of another drama, but it does not have the texture of the movie and the interpretation of the director. .
What is even more frightening is that Hopper’s grasp of details has led to gaps in the plot, and the role has become simple. The original grand and profound theme has not been improved, but weakened, and finally evolved into the current version——
A movie made purely for the Oscars season, above the pass, there is no more. Can it win an Oscar nomination? This is a high probability event; but is it a good movie? The answer is yes, no. "
"Empire" magazine gave a score of sixty points, just passed, no less, but no more, which also represents the views of most film critics.
People are praising Anne Hathaway's performance, and the "Wall Street Journal" even declared, "Hathaway can now prepare her Oscar winning speech, and the brilliant performance deserves to be dedicated to the best of her career; and The performances of Sasha Byron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were also impressive."
People are also stunned that Hugh Jackman did not get more performance space. Variety magazine said, “He is completely limited to a frame, and all his talents cannot be displayed. In Lanly-Hall, the brilliance is brilliant. In front of the version of, it suddenly looked overshadowed. This is unfair to Jackman, but it is a fact. And Tom Hober is the object of blame."
People are still condemning Russell Crowe’s terrible performance. Out of the 14 media outlets, ten of them have launched verbal criticisms, “bad singing, bad performance, bad positioning, and bad characters. , Crowe’s stiff and awkward, stupid and tedious performance completely ruined the entire character."
There is no doubt that among the cast of cast, Russell Crowe has received the most criticism. The seventy-third Oscar winner is completely unsuited to the performance style of the stage play. From the beginning to the end, he seems out of place. The screening had already suffered countless criticisms that night, and now it is ushered in a carnival of complaints.
It is worth mentioning that the "Times" wrote a special report that compared the Almeida theater version and the movie version of "Les Miserables" together and analyzed them in all directions. At the end of the article, They concluded so.
"Why is the six-hour version of the Almeida Theater successful? Or even further, why is the three-hour version of the Queen's Theater enduring?
The reason is that they have dedicated the most wonderful performance in the most suitable way, full of characters and solid script. Under the wonderful interpretation, they have endowed Victor Hugo with their own version of the understanding and sublimation of the original work. This is the reason for their success and also the reason for the failure of the movie version.
When people mention the six-hour long version of the Almeida Theater, people will remember every role and every detail in it, and they can even talk about their own understanding and reflections; and when people mention the movie version, Except Fantine's "I Had a Dream" and Denadier and his wife "Lord of the House", nothing seemed to be left.
People are discussing whether Hall is a better Jean-Ajean than Jackman; people are discussing whether Hall starring in the movie version of Marius is a better choice; people are still discussing, Huo Er gave up the movie and chose whether drama was a more sensible choice.
Judging from the existing results, all the answers are yes. "
The "Times" comments are undoubtedly interesting and representative at the same time. In addition to the 50-point evaluation, they really 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, there is no harm if there is no comparison; after the horizontal comparison, one can stand up against one another.
There is no doubt that Hugh Jackman is a well-known actor. Although in the field of film, the role of Wolverine restricts his play; but in the field of theater, in major cities such as New York, London and Melbourne, All left behind his legends, which have been affirmed by industry insiders.
This time, playing the important role of Jean Arjean, Hugh once again demonstrated his solid foundation, outstanding singing skills and outstanding expressiveness. All of this has also been objectively affirmed by film critics, but in comparison, it is a breakthrough. Too few, can only be said to be quite satisfactory.
If there is no horizontal comparison, then Xio may have received more praise, after all, he is the most important core of this movie, and successfully completed his task; however, there is no if in real life.
Now, people in the industry generally believe that, in contrast, Lanly’s performance immediately stands out, and that all the excellent qualities shown by Hugh are available in Lanli; and further, the quality and level of Lanly’s performance are even more present. Many possibilities, especially the tension and explosive power on the theater stage, gave Jean Agen a brand new vitality.
Among these, the most widely discussed scene, not surprisingly, was the highlight of "Take him home"-Jean-Agen went to the barricade to try to save Marius.
There is no need to say more about Hugh Jackman’s excellence, but the fact is that in this scene and this song, his performance has completely fallen behind, just showing the content of the song in a flat and straightforward manner, without emotions and background. There is no response, dry and tasteless, and even to some extent, out of the plot, the plain and boring performance completely loses the soul.
To make matters worse, under Tom Hober’s lens scheduling, he completely misunderstood and distorted the meaning and soul of the original song. Even the core of the theme passed by inexplicably, without Marius, without Enjolras, and without barricades. , Not to mention sublimation, people even began to wonder, "who" should be taken home?
After the London premiere screening was over, a film critic was too surprised, too unexpected, unable to believe his eyes, so he went directly to Xio and asked what was going on in the scene and what went wrong. Why is the effect so disastrous?
Later, both parties did not respond to this incident, as if it had never happened ~www.novelhall.com~ But industry rumors, after hearing the problem, Xio spread her hands and shook her head to express helplessness. Sorry, I don't know what happened." With a confused face and regretful eyes, he appeared helpless, "Maybe, my ability is limited."
No matter how good an actor meets a mediocre director, he is helpless. In the final analysis, in a movie, an actor's performance needs the director's lens to capture and present it; unlike on a theater stage, what the actor has is what it presents.
However, Hugh is a gentleman with a polite personality. He never likes to talk about other people's bad things behind his back. Even if he is helpless, he did not accuse anyone. He just humbly took the fault to himself, believing that his strength was still insufficient, and he failed. The important task of this scene. But the sighs and grief between the lines are still regrettable.
In comparison, Lanly’s "Take Him Home" was regarded as a classic and was praised by professionals in the industry. Some people even believed that Lanly had re-given the soul and faith of this song, and the wonderful performance was definitely worthwhile collection.
From the lyrics to the tune, from the body to the eyes, from the posture to the aura, Lan Li truly shows the essence of the performance, even the most demanding critics and directors can't criticize.
According to the rumors, many senior actors and actresses of Jean-Agen, including Claudius-Michel-Schonberg and Alfie-Boe, arrived in Almeida in person. The theater watched Lan Li's performance and gave a very good evaluation.
There is no level of art. Everyone has their own understanding and interpretation, but the quality of performance can be distinguished from the pros and cons. As the Times said, the answer is "yes."
Please remember the domain name of this book's first publication:. 4Fiction Network Mobile Edition Reading URL:
The word-of-mouth of "Les Miserables" encountered Waterloo, unexpectedly, but it was reasonable.Tom Hober started from filming TV series. He is an excellent TV director. His ability to capture the performance of actors is worthy of recognition, but the necessary elements of the film such as the scheduling of the shots, the creation of the atmosphere, the use of light and the extension of the images , But not his strong suit."The King's Speech" is hailed as the most water-rich work of the Oscar's best director after the millennium. Criticism is also because the former's TV feel is too heavy, and the director's control of the film is almost invisible.The "Les Miserables" under the control of Tom Hopper strictly follows the context and pattern of the stage version, which means that Tom's shortcomings are further magnified and completely exposed to the audience; on the other hand, Tom's advantages are also invisible. Play, completely covered by the actor's personal performance and play.It's like placing multiple cameras in the Queen's Theatre, recording the all-star version of "Les Miserables", and then releasing the DVD, which became the movie version that went into the cinema. Such a drama is enough to be amazing and admirable; but such a movie cannot be empathized.After the London premiere, the first batch of reviews of "Les Miserables" ushered in a nightmare. Fourteen media outlets released reviews. The media review only had 59 points for the time being, and even failed to pass.In fact, such a terrible score is not the end of the world. There is only one critical review and only one praise review. The remaining twelve reviews are all good or bad mid-level reviews. In the mid-level review, the scores It is also generally concentrated between fifty and seventy points, which led to the failure of the average score.Among the first reviews, the film reviews of "Empire" magazine are undoubtedly the most representative."The Cameron Mackintosh version of "Les Miserables" is undoubtedly a wonderful masterpiece, excellent script, excellent characters, excellent connotation, but the problem with Tom Hober lies in:This work gathers a group of talented actors. The wonderful performance once again gives vitality to the character, but it is always separated from the movie itself, as if only to enjoy the performance of another drama, but it does not have the texture of the movie and the interpretation of the director. .What is even more frightening is that Hopper's grasp of details has led to gaps in the plot, and the role has become simple. The original grand and profound theme has not been improved, but weakened, and finally evolved into the current versionA movie made purely for the Oscars season, above the pass, there is no more. Can it win an Oscar nomination? This is a high probability event; but is it a good movie? The answer is yes, no. ""Empire" magazine gave a score of sixty points, just passed, no less, but no more, which also represents the views of most film critics.People are praising Anne Hathaway's performance, and the "Wall Street Journal" even declared, "Hathaway can now prepare her Oscar winning speech, and the brilliant performance deserves to be dedicated to the best of her career; and The performances of Sasha Byron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were also impressive."People are also stunned that Hugh Jackman did not get more performance space. Variety magazine said, He is completely limited to a frame, and all his talents cannot be displayed. In Lanly-Hall, the brilliance is brilliant. In front of the version of, it suddenly looked overshadowed. This is unfair to Jackman, but it is a fact. And Tom Hober is the object of blame."People are still condemning Russell Crowe's terrible performance. Out of the 14 media outlets, ten of them have launched verbal criticisms, bad singing, bad performance, bad positioning, and bad characters. , Crowe's stiff and awkward, stupid and tedious performance completely ruined the entire character."There is no doubt that among the cast of cast, Russell Crowe has received the most criticism. The seventy-third Oscar winner is completely unsuited to the performance style of the stage play. From the beginning to the end, he seems out of place. The screening had already suffered countless criticisms that night, and now it is ushered in a carnival of complaints.It is worth mentioning that the "Times" wrote a special report that compared the Almeida theater version and the movie version of "Les Miserables" together and analyzed them in all directions. At the end of the article, They concluded so."Why is the six-hour version of the Almeida Theater successful? Or even further, why is the three-hour version of the Queen's Theater enduring?The reason is that they have dedicated the most wonderful performance in the most suitable way, full of characters and solid script. Under the wonderful interpretation, they have endowed Victor Hugo with their own version of the understanding and sublimation of the original work. This is the reason for their success and also the reason for the failure of the movie version.When people mention the six-hour long version of the Almeida Theater, people will remember every role and every detail in it, and they can even talk about their own understanding and reflections; and when people mention the movie version, Except Fantine's "I Had a Dream" and Denadier and his wife "Lord of the House", nothing seemed to be left.People are discussing whether Hall is a better Jean-Ajean than Jackman; people are discussing whether Hall starring in the movie version of Marius is a better choice; people are still discussing, Huo Er gave up the movie and chose whether drama was a more sensible choice.Judging from the existing results, all the answers are yes. "The "Times" comments are undoubtedly interesting and representative at the same time. In addition to the 50-point evaluation, they really 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, there is no harm if there is no comparison; after the horizontal comparison, one can stand up against one another.There is no doubt that Hugh Jackman is a well-known actor. Although in the field of film, the role of Wolverine restricts his play; but in the field of theater, in major cities such as New York, London and Melbourne, All left behind his legends, which have been affirmed by industry insiders.This time, playing the important role of Jean Arjean, Hugh once again demonstrated his solid foundation, outstanding singing skills and outstanding expressiveness. All of this has also been objectively affirmed by film critics, but in comparison, it is a breakthrough. Too few, can only be said to be quite satisfactory.If there is no horizontal comparison, then Xio may have received more praise, after all, he is the most important core of this movie, and successfully completed his task; however, there is no if in real life.Now, people in the industry generally believe that, in contrast, Lanly's performance immediately stands out, and that all the excellent qualities shown by Hugh are available in Lanli; and further, the quality and level of Lanly's performance are even more present. Many possibilities, especially the tension and explosive power on the theater stage, gave Jean Agen a brand new vitality.Among these, the most widely discussed scene, not surprisingly, was the highlight of "Take him home"-Jean-Agen went to the barricade to try to save Marius.There is no need to say more about Hugh Jackman's excellence, but the fact is that in this scene and this song, his performance has completely fallen behind, just showing the content of the song in a flat and straightforward manner, without emotions and background. There is no response, dry and tasteless, and even to some extent, out of the plot, the plain and boring performance completely loses the soul.To make matters worse, under Tom Hober's lens scheduling, he completely misunderstood and distorted the meaning and soul of the original song. Even the core of the theme passed by inexplicably, without Marius, without Enjolras, and without barricades. , Not to mention sublimation, people even began to wonder, "who" should be taken home?After the London premiere screening was over, a film critic was too surprised, too unexpected, unable to believe his eyes, so he went directly to Xio and asked what was going on in the scene and what went wrong. Why is the effect so disastrous?Later, both parties did not respond to this incident, as if it had never happened ~www.novelhall.com~ But industry rumors, after hearing the problem, Xio spread her hands and shook her head to express helplessness. Sorry, I don't know what happened." With a confused face and regretful eyes, he appeared helpless, "Maybe, my ability is limited."No matter how good an actor meets a mediocre director, he is helpless. In the final analysis, in a movie, an actor's performance needs the director's lens to capture and present it; unlike on a theater stage, what the actor has is what it presents.However, Hugh is a gentleman with a polite personality. He never likes to talk about other people's bad things behind his back. Even if he is helpless, he did not accuse anyone. He just humbly took the fault to himself, believing that his strength was still insufficient, and he failed. The important task of this scene. But the sighs and grief between the lines are still regrettable.In comparison, Lanly's "Take Him Home" was regarded as a classic and was praised by professionals in the industry. Some people even believed that Lanly had re-given the soul and faith of this song, and the wonderful performance was definitely worthwhile collection.From the lyrics to the tune, from the body to the eyes, from the posture to the aura, Lan Li truly shows the essence of the performance, even the most demanding critics and directors can't criticize.According to the rumors, many senior actors and actresses of Jean-Agen, including Claudius-Michel-Schonberg and Alfie-Boe, arrived in Almeida in person. The theater watched Lan Li's performance and gave a very good evaluation.There is no level of art. Everyone has their own understanding and interpretation, but the quality of performance can be distinguished from the pros and cons. As the Times said, the answer is "yes."Please remember the domain name of this book's first publication:. 4Fiction Network Mobile Edition Reading URL:
