Yeah, she's pitchy at times - usually on the high notes. But other than those very minor moments, she's great. She absolutely does her job.

I've speculated that the film was specifically intended NOT to measure up to the stage version, simply because if it did, there would be a lot of people who wouldn't continue to drop serious coin to see something that they could pop in their blu-ray player for a one-time payment of $25.

Yes, I'm that cynical. :D

I'm no fan of Cohen - this is actually the first time I've seen anything he's been in - but I liked the way they were portrayed. On stage they're basically comic relief - in the film, they're much more sinister.

It's hard for any film experience to live up to a live stage performance. Especially when that stage performance is iconic. This is an incompetent effort.

Other than Jackman and Crowe, who do you think can't sing? And which of those do you imagine the studio cast because they saw dollar signs?

I believe in casting the right person. Crowe is a mistake. Jackman is great in the acting of the role. He just isn't hitting the notes all the time. I would have either arranged the songs in a new key, or cast someone else. But I can't call Jackman an out and out mistake.

"Horrendously pitchy" is an overstatement; it's also not a real term. It's an American Idol-ism that has no place in musical discussion, and it tells me you may not know as much as you want us to believe. You and I have had no problems on CP, and I hope it doesn't start here. Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm truly not trying to offend by saying that. I say that hoping you'll be more explicit in what you mean when you say she was "horrendously pitchy." Are you saying she was off-key? She wasn't. Are you saying her performance was flat (as opposed to her pitch being flat)? Yeah, it kinda was, but so is the character. Are you saying she was breathy? She was.

Crowe's tone was swallowed; it's the reason he had no projection and no power, except every now and then when he'd get on top of some of the higher notes.

And the "don't have ears" comment: I realize this is all "internet" talk, so take it for whatever you think or don't think it's worth, but I spent two years in college as vocal performance major, finished with a minor when I switched to the film degree, and was a choir director for three years following college while putting my wife through school.

Gerard Butler would have been an infinitely better choice for Javert than Crowe. At least we know he can sing.

That's interesting. I would have thought less sinister. Good to know.

I think I just don't like the characters. And the performances don't change my mind. I'd rather just cut all their stuff, or limit it to one much shorter scene.

But I can understand - especially on stage - why the audience would want a reprieve from the misery. Comic relief isn't a bad thing.

No he can't! He was equally bad as Phantom as Crowe was as Javert. Butler's idea of singing was belching through the performance.

:Lin:

Does he sing? I've never heard him. I would have been interested in seeing what he'd do with part. I think he would have been much more interesting.

On stage they mainly come off as buffoons.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aTZYSzxZcvA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well, there you go. From an acting standpoint, I still think he would have been a more interesting choice than Crowe.

But if he can't sing, he can't sing.

He played the Phantom in the film version of Phantom of the Opera.

Well, maybe not "equally bad" as Crowe... but he was terrible.

Oh come on - he wasn't that bad.

Gerard Butler would have been as bad, probably. Javert needs someone whose voice has precision and discipline, because that's what Javert is all about. See: Phillip Quast.