graphicstyle7

Let me get this off my chest, the story IS NOT SET IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. IT IS SET SEVERAL DECADES PAST THE REVOLUTION. France has been around hundreds of years, assuming every fight scene you see set there is somehow part of the French Revolution is really annoying. Please stop, people. The battle they do show is a failed student uprising, again, several decades past the actual Revolution.

Victor Hugo looked around about 30 years AFTER the French Revolution, and wrote about what was going on AFTER the revolution. If you miss this point, you miss the point of the entire story, which is, "We had a revolution, NOW WHAT?"

The whole point is, they revolted, they killed a bunch of oppressors, but without proper structure of the government and society, not much improved or changed. Sad to say, this theme is still very relevant.

As for the movie itself, I actually met the second woman ever to play Fantine on stage. She was an extra in the "At the End of the Day" scene in this film, and a few others. She said Hugh Jackman was very aware he could not sing well, compared to the regular stage actors who filled out the cast, and was pretty depressed about it. I can partly understand the director's decision not to dub singing voices, but, I think it would of worked out. Then again, Mr. Jackman being stressed and unhappy may of helped with his character portrayal, so there's that.

I thought Anne Hathaway did a spectacular job as Fantine. The rest of the cast is great as well, and I'd really love to see Samantha Barks and/or Eddie Redmayne in other big films.

I read the book a while back, and have seen many adaptations. This musical is my favorite because it sticks closer to the book than almost every adaptation I've seen, and it conveys the emotions in the book with the shorthand of music. Seeing as it's a book well over 1000 pages, that really helps.

I've heard a few people complain already that "It's trying to be "Harry Potter".

The first book in the HDM trilogy was published two years BEFORE the first "Potter", so y'all can stop that nonsense right now. I like both franchises, but "His Dark Materials" is shorter, better written, and has deeper content.

I was let down by the movie adaptation, so I'm very happy to see this new version which can take its time and look and feel more like the book. I'm hoping it's a hit. This series is anything but predictable. I won't spoil it for anyone, but expect the unexpected.

"Stranger Things" has done a better job with 1980's suspense. Originally, the story was set in the 1950's, now it's updated, and amazingly bland and free of actual horror or surprises. It's almost like the writers and director went to some standard book of what scary movies had in the '80's, and just copied what they saw. EVERYTHING was predictable and boring.

Also, the lead female character, Beverly Marsh? Nope, I could of bought her as a 17 year old, not a young and inexperienced 13 -14 year old girl. Her character was ruined. Where's the abusive dad? Why write a scene showing her almost (ick) flirting with a pharmacist? She looked WAY too old to be hanging out with the pre-teen dudes. I'm hoping I see all the child leads in better roles, but Finn Wolfhard always has the much better "Stranger Things" to go back to.

This had to be one of the worst adaptations of a Stephen King story I've seen in a while.