Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Lisa Schwartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly trashes Les Miz and the Diva Hathaway!!!!

Go EW!!!!

by Anonymousreply 2102/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 112/14/2012

There's 42 reviews counted on Rotten Tomatoes, with it scoring a fairly mediocre 74% rating. It'll eventually end up with more than a 100 more reviews, and I think the score tends to lower slightly as more reviews come in. It might get down to 70 or 71%, maybe even slip to the high 60s. They've already written a consensus that doesn't acknowledge any shortcomings:

"This intelligent, handsomely crafted adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic novel condenses the story's developments without blunting its emotional impact."

by Anonymousreply 212/14/2012

I'm certainly not going to pay $10 to see this. To the contrary, I'd probably have to *paid* about $50 to sit through it.

by Anonymousreply 312/14/2012

I'm already thinking that while watching in the theater I might say the same thing I said during the 12-12-12 concert for hurricane distaster relief.

How long is this?

by Anonymousreply 412/14/2012

Lisa is just jealous she isn't in the movie.

by Anonymousreply 512/14/2012

R2, are you really so stupid that you don't realize the Rotten Tomatoes page you linked is for the 1998 non-musical version?

Just look at the fucking poster. Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman, Geoffrey Rush.


by Anonymousreply 612/14/2012

LOL r6, a simple correction would've sufficed, but not on DL of course. Like I give a shit that I made a simple mistake, so the scolding as all for naught.

by Anonymousreply 712/14/2012

Yeah, enough with the bravado, R2. Ineptitude like yours could cost lives.

by Anonymousreply 812/14/2012

The thing that surprises me the most about this farrago is the camera work. Granted, when I finally saw The King's Speech it was pretty pedestrian but didn't Les Mis have producers that would've demanded more than close ups and master shots?

How did Tom Hopper win an Oscar anyway?

by Anonymousreply 912/14/2012

True r9, linking to the wrong web page does often result in unnecessary deaths. And one thing we also know for certain, is you've never done it!

by Anonymousreply 1012/14/2012

Goodbye cruel world. You've done this to me, DL. I can't live in a world where LES MISERABLES doesn't win the Oscar.

--Lynn Stairmaster, swallowing a bottle of pills and clasping a picture of Hugh Jackman to her naked breast

by Anonymousreply 1112/14/2012

Is EW about to fold? I see that both Ken Tucker (TV critic) and Lisa have left the magazine, and they've been there forever.

by Anonymousreply 1202/17/2013

I've never seen a film's reception so divided. People realy either love it or hate it.

by Anonymousreply 1302/17/2013

Don't cross me!

by Anonymousreply 1402/17/2013

Do you have a link to their departures r12?

I read that Time Warner is selling off a bunch of their mags but can't remember whether EW was one of the handful of mags they were keeping.

Oh I pulled up the old article and looks like EW is one of the mags getting sold along with People/InStyle...

by Anonymousreply 1502/17/2013

Yep, Time is selling off essentially every magazine but Time and Fortune to Meredith Publishing.

I assume Ken and Lisa saw the writing on the wall and decided to get the fuck out while they could.

by Anonymousreply 1602/17/2013

This version of Les Miserables is the best ever. It puts the stage versions to shame, tells more of Hugo's story than the stage versions could, and gives us breath-taking, brilliant performances by Jackman, Hathaway and the rest. Hugh Jackman is perfection as Jean Valjean.

by Anonymousreply 1802/17/2013

No, R16 - Lisa and Ken (along with writers and staff at many other Time Inc. magazines) were offered buyouts as the publishers cut costs to make their company more attractive to potential buyers. Meredith bought some of the titles. Lisa and Ken got great severance/retirement packages (both of them having been with Time Inc. for 20+ years, believe it or not) and now will be pursuing "other opportunities" in entertainment journalism.

by Anonymousreply 1902/18/2013

AnnE was always annoying and an opportunistic slime bag, not to mention a mediocre actress. I am surprised it took people so long to get it.

I hope someone has the guts and reads out Amy's name next week.

by Anonymousreply 2002/18/2013

Anne is hideous. On the article that quoted six unnamed Academy voters, not a single one of them said they voted for her. I hope that's a sign of a surprise in her category.

by Anonymousreply 2102/18/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!