Oh boy, what a terrible mess. Acting horrifying, singing ear bleeding, a story of absolute garbage and a movie that suffocates you on the length. The talk and sing style trash isn't only irritating, it makes the movie almost impossible to follow. Les Miserables not only takes the title of worst movie of the year but of all time. Move over Chicago, we have a movie even worse.

If you're not a fan of the musical, keep in mind the title: most of these people are miserable, so expect drama and suffering. There is an occasional flash of spectacle, but the majority of the film's powerful songs are in close-ups, often one take. The intimate handheld camera adds to the intensity, but sometimes interferes when it's too jerky or causes shadows on faces. The actors run the gamut from revelatory (Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Lucy Hale) to solid (Hugh Jackman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter) to vocally weak (Russell Crowe). All of the singing is done live, so there's an intimate, expressive power that's distinctive. The narrative unfolds with intensity and grandeur, but this is basically opera, so it's more about emotion than logic or dialogue. Overall, this film is a glorious union of moving moments, beautiful music and powerful performances.… Expand

I have seen two other adaptations of Les Miserables. They are both pretty well done and they earned better reviews than this new adaptation. The new Tom Hooper adaptation is ultimately the best. Hugh Jackman leads the way strongly packing emotion in almost every word he sings. Anne Hathaway ended up stealing every single scene she was in and ended up being one of the best singers. Samantha Barks was probably my favorite part of the film. She was sweet, beautiful, strong, packed enough emotion to show up all the big time stars that are with her. Eddie Redmayne was sometimes sounding like Kermit the Frog and Amanda Seyfried was sounding like a bird in the early morining. While Aaron Tveit was the best vocally and the most entertaining. Les Miserables was a performance film, it had some solid humor, while being emotionally powerful. Tom Hooper had some weird camera angles which sometimes took away from the experience. The new song … Expand

If it wasn't but some very brief moments, and I mean brief, this movie would be a complete disaster. It is so horribly long and boring with absolute no dialogue. It is filled with dreadful songs and melodramatic acting.

I really didn't like this film much at all, honestly. The film is much too Broadway and not enough like a movie musical. I hated Tom Hooper's direction, and while I respect the ambition, I would have preferred to see the musical version of this story told in a much different way. There is NO dialogue in film, almost none at all; every conversation and thought was sung, as it would have been on stage...that it the major reason why Les Miserables didn't work for me. This film is like watching the actual Broadway production on tape, songs included. For die-hard fans of the musical, that's great, but for others who just love the story, or even those that love films, this adaptation of Les Miserables disappoints. By including every song from the musical, it included the not-so-great songs as well. This creates a film that soars for some moments, but bores in most others. Instead of including the lesser Les Mis songs, the film should have manipulated the structure of the songs, or even cut some songs entirely. I respect that the film wants to uphold the integrity of the musical, but as a film, it doesn't work. Some of the songs were brilliant, but many weren't, and some were plain awkward, thus weakening the emotional effect of the film.

There are some amazing things about Les Miserables, though, particularly in the acting. Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career; he's never been better, and Anne Hathaway is stunning as Fantine! Both are locks for Oscar nominations, and Anne will win based on her heart-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" alone. It's probably her best performance to date and while she's only in the film for 20 minutes, Les Mis is worth seeing just for her performance. The rest of the cast is okay at best, Samantha Barks and Eddie Redmayne both have their moments to shine and I enjoyed their performances/songs. Russell Crowe was a very poor Javert; he's not a great singer and it was clear he was uncomfortable in the role.

As Les Miserables was coming to a close, I was very satisfied with the ending. I did not think it would come together as effectively as it did considering I didn't like the film, but it did still remind me of how a great musical version of Les Miserables is still to come at some point in the future, because this is not that film!… Expand

Maybe I think like this because my local cinema didn't pause the movie, but this was just so tedious. While the intro of the movie was a rather weak debut, the second chapter was ceaselessly sublime and full with great, rememberable scenes. Anne Hathaway's performance was perfect, but sadly this can't be said about the bigger part of the others. While Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen added admirably funny touch the movie, I was quite disappointed with the rest of the cast. Yes, they were all good, but it's just not what I expected from such a big production. Hugh Jackmann did a great job most of the times, but I think his turn in this movie is overrated. The singing was also not as good as I expected it to be.

So much about the acting. A big plus point of the film is how it looks. Cinematography, make-up, costumes, set design, etc. are all quite Oscar- worthy. So the only major problem of mine with 'Les Miz' was the exhausting length. I admit that I've seen neither a stage performance nor an other movie based on Victor Hugo's novel in all my life therefore I was a total newbie to the story therefore I can't agree with the people that have read/seen 'Les Misérables' before and consider it a too short adaption of the story because the 158 minutes of this movie were already much too long for me.

But let's go back to the point where I was actually loving the movie, which is about the first hour and 15 minutes. After this second chapter was over and time fast-forwarded once again, the entertainment factor got lost in the skipped years. The revolution and the film's big love story are the new plot-points and that was far less interesting as the story of the films 2nd part. I admit, it was made totally fine, but it was just missing something to jazz it up (Anne Hathaway probably would've helped).

All in all, if you haven't seen any form of the story before like I did, you'll be better off getting the movie on home media so you can take a big break at some point you'll need that.… Expand

Musicals are always a tough nut to crack, especially on film. This musical had even more to prove thanks to its well publicized live performances and in many ways it works brilliantly. The film follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man who after 19 years of time in a work camp is released to live under constant watch, a man carrying a terrible burden and stigma. Because of this he breaks his parole only to be chased by a relentless inspector called Javert (Russell Crowe). Valjean makes a promise to a factory worker named Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who he fails, a promise to care for her daughter Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) although to do so he must continue running in search of his own redemption. The story is complex and this is where the first problem arose for me. It wasn't that the film was too hard to follow story wise, I've read the book so I knew the story before hand, I had also seen the 25th anniversary musical version, the problem was that with most musicals it takes a while to get into the swing of things. For instance you must get used to the idea of plot being conveyed through song, that the story is in the lyrics. It's an incredibly jarring film in this regard as there are moments where the cast sings in unison, but with separate lines, each with their own relevant feeling and plot developments. Dissecting these lines while trying to hear the other is almost impossible so information is missed and it lead to quite a few moments of complete confusion. The film also doesn't really manage to convey the rebellious nature of the musical, the brotherhood and other themes associated with the social anarchy depicted. However that doesn't mean as a serious piece of film making it is a failure, it has many other qualities. The film soars in its characterization, in fact the film is wonderful in its portrayal of redemption, with it giving a full and involving tale of Jean Valjean's rehabilitation and Hugh Jackman is sensational in the lead role. Equally as impressive is Anne Hathaway as Fantine despite her very limited screen time. Her tragic story is one of the most affecting parts of the film and one that sticks with you long after the end. The idea of recreation and reinvention, not only of a country but of people is one handled extremely well and the failure of some to change is something touched upon by the great performance by Crowe as Javert. However, the film overall is frustrating due to its problems with plot progression and its failure to capitalize on some of the key themes of the musical but it does manage to say some profound things, if only in passing with an ending that manages to make 2 and a half hours of misery seem somewhat joyous even if it only lasts a moment.… Expand

I know now why they call it "Les Miserables". I was miserable watching it! First of all, there is no spoken dialog, so be prepared for that. When they are singing the dialog it is absolutely tuneless and meandering. I liked Hugh Jackman's upper register but didn't care for his lower register, but his acting was flawless. Anne Hathaway also has a nice voice and turns in a great performance. People are complaining about Russell Crowe's voice, but I thought he did a fine job. He sings in tune, he just doesn't have a voice that projects. It's fine for the movie version. There are many unnecessary extreme close-ups throughout the film, and the film is a downer throughout. One over-dramatic moment after another. This is a long movie and I looked at my watch many times hoping it would end soon. The acting is good throughout, but the story was boring and I didn't care for the opera-style musical with no spoken dialog.… Expand

A full-house weekend cinema viewing, maybe a second-row syndrome which left my anticipation unfulfilled. First of all, I never successfully accustomed to the “all sung script”bravura which blatantly dissolved the narrative into a mess of inconsistent singing ballyhoo, yes, I aware it is a musical film, but the semi-sing,semi-speak preposterousness is so distracting as if we were watching ang aliens perform their own performing art, a dreadful insouciant nonchalance has penetrated from the beginning to the very end. Secondly, the singing expertise from the cast is uneven, I don’t intend to name the black sheep here, just wonder what’s the advantage of adapting a musical into a feature film if the latter’s voice prowess cannot keep in the same level albeit putting money to create more detailed settings instead of simple tableaux on the stage. There must be some artistic reasons behind but for the profitable perspective with exponentially-surging attendance. I may opt for a stage musical against my film aficionado predilection. Special congratulations to Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks, their solo renditions alone are worth the ticket (maybe a soundtrack is more felicitous), Hathaway will 99% sure win her first Oscar, and she should perform in the upcoming Grammy awards as well. Barks is a new-found gem, but whether or not she can leap into a stardom out of the genre is a moot. Hugh Jackman finally gets his hard-earned Oscar nomination, but impaired by the sketchy and episodic storytelling, it is far from an award-worthy leading performance. Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried are adequate, while Helena and Sacha pair engenders a Burton-esque high spirit to offset the dreary misery and wide-eyed revolutionist mirage. Fairly speaking, Tom Hooper’s workmanship doesn’t generate too much excitement, starts with his shaky camera, eerie and undetermined, the CGI surroundings can hardly be called innovative, as an Oscar-winning director, his unjust fluke will sooner or later boomerang on his own luck.

Sorry for grudging all over the place, I am pining for some involving lifelike revelations, clearly I am pigeonholing myself into the wrong consumer coterie, or simply don't watch any film in the second row.… Expand

It's a long movie and boy is there a lot of singing but there's no denying this is a great film. Full of outstanding performances from the talented cast and it's hard to single them out because as a whole they are all great. Storyline is very interesting and spans three different time periods which is rather interesting! Honorable mentions must go to both Anne Hathaway & Samantha Barks who I thought were both amazing. Overall a fantastic musical well worth a look that fans of the play will love!… Expand

Masterful, emotional, and some of the best performances of the actors and actresses careers, Les Miserables is one of the best films to appear in the last several years.
The fantastically talented Hugh Jackman stars as Jean Valjean, a man who is granted parole after nineteen years serving under prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe) for stealing bread.
He soon seeks forgiveness and breaks his parole to start a good and honest life as a mayor of a small French town. Here me meet the troubled Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and of course the one of the best numbers of the film, I Dreamed A Dream, which, by Hathaway, is a beautifully crafted piece of cinema, its hard not to feel emotional and but utterly shocked at how brilliant it is.
Comedic performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen are not to be painted over, they both a valued presence as the guardians of Fantine's illegitimate daughter Cosette played as an adult by Amanda Seyfried), who is later cared for and raised by Jean Valjean.
Jackman's rendition later in the film of "Bring Him Home' was powerful and solidified his performance as historic and hard to replicate. His entire performance throughout the film helps to recognise his character. know him, and feel his grief.
Amanda Seyfried's limited performance was excellent, mimicking her singing prowess from Mamma Mia!,
Anne Hathaway shows her diversity, after her captivating performance as Selina Kyle in last years Dark Knight Rises, her transformation to Fantine is remarkable.
The film debut of Samantha Barks, who starred in the stage show, plays Eponine, the daughters of Baron Cohen's and Bonham Carter's characters, her screen presence his excellent and lets hope this is the start of bigger and better things.
Its safe to say that Les Miserables isn't for everyone, at 158 mins long, it certainly is a long film, and the singing is constant, however, this certainly didn't deter me from watching a fantastic adaption, but it isn't difficult to see how this wouldn't satisfy everyone.
The live-set singing certainly benefits the emotional depth of the movie, its shocking to read the lengths Hugh Jackman went to to prepare for his role, and it certainly showed as he was the standout of the film, from start to finish. Les Miserables does set out to amaze, and with phenomenal performances, wonderful sets and musical numbers that won't be forgotten, it certainly is breathtaking and i left the cinema with a smile on my face. With joy and sorrow combined, this is one mixed bag of emotional wizardry that will live on forever.… Expand

As a huge fan of musical movies, I had been waiting for thiz. It

Anyone actually telling you that this movie isn't amazing, just ignore them. Some people don't care for musicals so I understand them not enjoying this film but people actually trying to break down reasons for why this movie wasn't great are just morons. Les Misérables is probably the most intense and dramatic musical I've ever seen. The acting, especially at the top with Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Russell Crowe was Oscar worthy. I haven't seen an entire theater cry that much in my life. Sure, Titanic made just about every cry but that was one scene at the very end. There were probably 5 or 6 scenes throughout Les Mis that were so moving, there were sniffles all around. The singing was also very impressive. Jackman is an all-around star and this movie proves that much. I was also really impressed with Crowe and Hathaway. They're not as polished as Jackman but their voices, and how they acted out their roles, fit perfectly. The only actor who came up short was Amanda Seyfried but even she did a commendable job and the character of Cosette wasn't featured as much as the others. I thought the cinematography, the part of the movie the haters are trying to attack because they can't attack any other element, was also perfectly fine. Overall, this was one of the three best movies I saw all year and, personally, I think Anne Hathaway deserves an Academy Award for Best Actress because she was fantastic. I understand not everyone appreciates musically driven films but if you do, this movie is definitely worth spending the movie to see in theaters.… Expand

I was pleasantly surprised with this movie! It maintains true faith to the novel and a majority of the musical. I was honestly expecting it to rehash the musical for the most part, but it was very unique in so many different ways. First off, I highly enjoyed the choice of cinematography that was used. Some didn't like the way the camera moved around in the movie, but I thought it worked really well. I also liked that all of the songs from the musical were intact. The acting was excellent to say the least. The casting choices for the characters were all very well made. Hugh Jackman was fantastic as Jean Valjean! Russel Crowe was exceptional as Javert. Amanda Seyfried was adorable as Cosette. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were both great as the comic relief characters. And last, but certainly not least, Anne Hathaway as Fantine was PHENOMANAL!!! She was easily my favorite character in the entire movie! She truly deserved more screentime in this movie! The only minor problem was that some scenes seemed a bit hammed up, but for the most part, this was a very memorable and smartly-made movie adaptation of a great musical and novel. Even if you haven't read the book or seen the musical,I think that many people will still enjoy this movie.… Expand

"Les Misérables" isn't for everyone, but fans of the stage version will not be disappointed. While successfully "opening up" the musical far beyond the limitations of a theater-bound production, Tom Hooper retains its heart and soul. In many ways, the movie is more opera than musical. There's very little dancing and even less spoken dialogue. Visually, "Les Misérables" is a splendid spectatacle, with set and costume design that is second to none. Hooper does an excellent job recreating 19th century France, and it's in this area that the motion picture separates itself from the live version. What it lacks in the intimacy of singers performing directly to an audience, it gains in cinematic achievement. That being said--to the causal movie viewer unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's novel; a timeless testament to the survival of the human spirit--it is a tedious, bloated, and exhausting 238 minutes you'll never get back.… Expand

In the end Les Miserables is too much. Too much singing, too many closeups, too many underdeveloped characters and plot lines, etc. Its saving grace lies with its stars. Hathaway and Jackman provide an emotional kick whenever the films starts to meander (which is frequently) and Russell Crowe provides an underrated performance as the heartless Javert.

You could excuse this film for being showy, and perhaps pretentious, but the characters fill the void with their own spirit. Hugh Jackman especially had the most spirit, specifically with his humanity without showing off. The music is shivery, particularly when it gets to the climax of the revolution. A very good film.

I loved this movie especially the performances of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman. The singing is well done even Russell Crowe, I know he's not as good as Hathaway or Jackman but I thought he was solid.

Tom Hooper's adaptation of the long running musical based on the novel by Victor Hugo has its fair share of problems. I found most of them to lie in the choices that Hooper made as director and by how frenetic and dizzying that damn camera is. At times (particularly during the revolutionary scenes), I had to take a moment to rub my eyes and look away so as to not induce vomiting. I was so nauseated for the majority of the movie. Hooper also never lets the story take a breath and slow down, which might leave some viewers exhausted on par with the frenetic cinematography. This is a blunt, head-bashing, brash musical that is anything from subtle. It makes films like 'Chicago' and 'Moulin Rouge' look like highly philosophical works of art. All of my complaining aside though, this is a good movie. The production design and staging is quite impeccable and the story manages to remain comprehensible even across a near three hour running time. But if I am to say that anything redeems 'Les Miserables' it has to be the work from its dedicated cast. Everyone in the film gives great performances (even those who don't quite have the greatest singing chops). Many of the supporting turns, given by such new talent as Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks, threaten to brew into deservedly lucrative acting careers in the future. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter (both in that classic, twisted musical from 2007, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), provide much needed comic relief to the movie. Hugh Jackman, I dare say, is a pitch perfect choice for the part of Jean Valjean. He has great vocals and that pained, burdened kind of look needed for the role. Now to the final bit of business. To describe Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine as a show-stopper, is just completely unfitting. She makes this movie. If any reason at all, see this film for her legendary performance of 'I Dreamed a Dream'. I expected that it would be the highlight of the film and I was right. She completely steals the show. This movie should grant her the first Oscar of her career and it would be more than well-deserved. So, to sum up 'Les Miserables', the movie is problematic and flat-footed, but I dare you not to leave the theater unaffected because, as obvious as it is, the movie works because of the acting on display.… Expand

It's big and it's brassy and if you like to listen to lyrics it gets you in the gut quite often. I usually hate musicals, and "Chicago" is the last one I saw-and liked-and I've seen, and liked, the stage version. The movie version allowed me to hear the lyrics better, and I finally was able to get into Redmayne's great solo "empty chairs," (made me wonder how veterans would take it) and hated what Cohen and Bonham Carter did with "Master of the house." It was a tad long and had Cohen been cropped after his main bit it would have helped. You'll either get sucked in or be bored to tears.… Expand

Les Miserables is one of the most beloved musicals in recent memory, so this film adaptation has a lot to live up to. I have to admit though that I am a complete newbie, and I have not seen the musical before so at lest, I came into the film with a fresh perspective. What we have here is probably one of the most ambitious musical in recent memory. When it goes for the grand scale, Les Miserables does great wonders, especially in the first 15 minutes or so. However, for some of the musical numbers, Tom Hooper decided to use these extreme close ups, while allowing us to see the actors' facial expressions, prove to reduce the impact of some of the songs in many instances. The decision to shoot the musical numbers works most of the time though, allowing standout performances from Jackman and Hathaway. Javert's story arch though is a bit unclear, his motivations a bit murky and one dimensional; more of a script problem than Russel Crowe's performance more than anything else. In conclusion, well deserving of its Oscar nominations but too uneven to win.… Expand

Having seen the musical version of

“Les Miserables” is a beautiful movie to look at. The shots of France are great and Tom Hooper does a good job of us getting a sense of the time. He also directs a enormous cast of characters well and there are truly some memorable moments. However, I feel as if the film is devoid of any real emotion, which is ironic because that is what he so whole heartily tried to do. The actors try so so hard to bring emotion to the screen, but it is a wasted effort. I couldn’t care for the characters our their story. Never have I ever felt like walking out of film so much like I did in this one.

The characters are interesting and layered, but that is credit to the source material. Anne Hathaway is the only one that made me feel an ounce of emotion throughout the film. Her version of “I Dreamed a Dream” is impeccable. Hugh Jackman, I believe gives a career performance. While I didn’t feel his emotions all the time, he did show a lot of range. Russell Crowe is good as well, but his singing is not very good. All the characters have their moments, but most of their emotions don’t get through.

The musical numbers are good, but the infuriating decision to make the characters sing everything did not pay off. I think a more traditional musical would have sufficed. The main musical numbers are good, but the overall choice did not work for me. Overall “Les Miserables” is a fundamentally well made film and I bet most people will enjoy it. However, for me this was a miserable experience. I appreciate the actors, director, and the sheer technical level of the film, but I could not get myself to care for anything happening on screen and the sing talking made me want to tear my own ears out (this is coming from someone who enjoys Ke$ha’s music). I give it 2.5/5, a technically well made film that is devoid of a satisfyingly emotional experience.… Expand

An extremely tiring watch. Some of the songs were good, others downright pathetic. I was left with a headache, which shows I didn't enjoy the movie as much as I had wanted to. I couldn't help comparing it to Sweeney Todd, which was also a musical, but didn't go over the top and kept dialogue and singing balanced. One more Best Picture nominee that in my view didn't deserve to be nominated for the category.… Expand

Musicals are not my thing. Up until now I have seen only 2 that worked: Moulin Rouge and Romeo Julliet (yes both Baz Luhrman's). With all the positive reviews and the high imdb score I was willing to give it a fair chance...but after 5,5 mins I had reached the limits of my patience, I had to turn it off. This is just unbearable! Do they really have to sing EVERY SINGLE LINE of dialogue? No wonder this thing clocks in at 158 mins. It's better to burst out into song for no reason then to continuously pound people in the face with them. Some performers are great actors, sure, but that doesn't mean they have a great singing voice. Be realistic, no one is good at everything. I guess this film has a certain audience (it made 433 m$ worldwide) but I'm pretty certain I'm not one of them … Expand

I liked it. I get the bad things like Tom Hooper having no idea how to shoot a big set and reaching a peek in the first 30 minutes, but it was fun. The music is soooo good and Anne Hathaway proved that she can act in this movie. The grandiosity worked and the ending is beautiful. Not the best movie but a good 7.5 that rounds up.

Les Miserables tells a simple and touching story, and although the film may not do it justice, there is certainly a beautiful element at its center that we would be fools to ignore.

This movie is absolutely, one of the best films of the year, the acting, the music, the directing, everything is very well done, really appreciate the idea of "Les Miserables" presenting the life of miserable people in France, this is what miserable people look like, all around the world.

Yes, Anne Hathaway's performance of "Dream" is stunning. But when she croaks you've got two more hours to sit through! To be fair, those who loved the stage musical are bound to enjoy this; costumes and performances are first-rate. It's just not as much fun for those of us who like musicals that feature acting and speaking in between the songs (e.g. "Funny Girl," "The Sound of Music").

Les Miserables, the new adaptation by Tom Hooper of the classic novel written by Victor Hugo is absolutely touching, emotional and overwhelming. There is nothing to say about the story because is a universal masterpiece, so the stronghold is the performances and the interpretations of the typical songs. The most incredible jobs are the ones of Jackman as Valjean, whose most amazing performance is Suddenly, the only original song in this version of Les Miserables; then we have the surprising Anne Hathaway, who with a heart full interpretation of I Dream a Dream in just one take, can make anyone shiver; also there is Crowe as Javert, who gives an excellent representation of the ambivalence of the character. Other well played characters are Gavroche and the Thenardiers. However the protagonist couple is deficient, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne as Cosette and Marius are not believable at all. Other beautiful songs are Look Down, At the End of the Day, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables and Do You Hear the People Sing? This is a more than acceptable adaptation and Tom Hopper did a fine job in directing, apparently he likes to show an enormous conflict but from the perspective of a single human being trying to change his life, the same as in The Kings Speech.… Expand

Les Miserables

The bombastic approach to the classic material is wildly ambitious and imaginative, but can't shake off its many flaws: The camera work is shoddy. The opera approach hurts the story immensely. The choppy editing kills all beauty of the gorgeous set design. Russel Crowe can't sing. Even with moments of brilliance such as Sacha Baron Cohen's rendition of "Master of the House" and Anne Hathaway's short-but-memorable performance, the movie is bogged down by an enormous running time, a failure to understand its material, and some very inappropriate choices during filming. It hurts to say that what must have been an extremely difficult production is so forgettable, but I can't recommend this to anyone. It is simply a beautiful bore with a handful of good moments.… Expand

It is now nearly thirty years ago that I saw the theatre production of Les Miserables and whilst I remember enjoying it at the time it hasn't remained prominent in my memory aside from THAT song. Therefore, I approached this new film version with some trepidation aware that the first trailer for it had cheated somewhat by editing various images from the film to the aforementioned song. Also with Tom Hooper at the helm, and having been one of a minority of people who really disliked 'The King's Speech', I was doubly cautious. Gratifyingly all my misgivings are for nothing as the new film is nothing short of magnificent. In fact, the theatre experience is clarified and heightened here. The simple and effective story is propelled along by a stunningly beautiful score (I really didn't remember it being this good), a great sense of period, and committed performances which elicit emotional responses almost constantly. Tom Hooper has done the material proud and is well served by a magnificent cast. Hugh Jackman, it seems, was born to play Jean Valjean over punished for stealing a loaf of bread and then persecuted for ever after by Javert, played by Russell Crowe. Anne Hathaway is stunning and her delivery of the famous ' I dreamed a dream' is truly heartfelt. Eddie Redmayne, likewise, has a revelatory singing voice and also breaks your heart with his sorrowful rendition of 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' sung after his fellow revolutionaries are all killed. Samantha Barks' exquisite voice also has a great solo with the lovely 'On my Own', and Russell Crowe, after a shaky start, also pulls off a couple of songs with great aplomb, whilst showing us a conflicted character always on the edge (literally in a couple of scenes). It seems to me that he has been rather underrated in such exalted company, but he is excellent. Comic relief is provided by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter during their rendition of 'Master in the House'. and only Amanda Seyfried comes over as a bit colourless and insipid. Hooper's decision to let the actors sing live is a very good one and adds to the cumulative emotional effect in scene after scene. Like wise, he opts for close ups when filming the big musical numbers, but he is in no way enslaved by them as the magnificent production design is often shown off to jaw dropping effect. Cinematography too is sublime and perfectly captures the contrasting worlds of the eclectic bunch of characters. The new song 'Suddenly' is slightly below par, and on a couple of occasions the score reminds me of the Lionel Bart musical 'oliver!' but this is only a fleeting recollection as Les Miserables is very much its own musical. At 158 minutes it is a long movie, and in truth there is a slight, if temporary, dip in interest around the 100 minute mark when the young revolutionaries take over the story. However, the big emotion emitted as the film races towards its finale soon puts any negative thoughts to bed. As the credits start to roll you sense the audience members just want to stand, as in a theatre, and applaud.… Expand

First off, I want to do a mini review for all the non-musical fans out there: Musicals aren

Overall while there are certain aspects of Les Miserables that I felt like could have been handled better I really enjoyed the film. The cast was good for the most part. While I feel that some of the characters could have been better there are some really good performances. I love how the film makers were not afraid to take some liberatities in what happens when and how. I especially love how the story gets expanded with songs and scenes that were not in the original story. Again I would have liked it if the film had done certain things in regards to cinematography and casting but a lot of things are done right some I am not going to be picky. If you are fan of Les Miserables I would recommend this one it… Expand

The movie that has divided critics all across the globe, proves to be an awesome film, in my opinion. Les Miserable, was an excellent film and its almost impossible to give an object review for it. Either you liked Tom Hooper's treatment of the beloved stage musical, or you hated it. Clearly, I'm on the camp that loved it. First of all, Hooper's decision to make his cast sing live was an excellent one. That way, he captured all there emotion and imperfection which added a lot of personalty to the characters each cast member was playing. His over use of long takes and close ups in his shots, only supplemented the emotional heft and captured every inch of the cast's facial expressions. Ultimately, all these directorial flares worked in the actors' favor. They all delivered honest and emotionally rich performances; each holding there own with their distinct musical numbers and more. As many may have heard, the standout was Anne Hathaway who killed it in her small but booming role. Also of note was Hugh Jackman, who finally gets a meaty role to chew on. He also nailed it as Jean Valjean. The film's production elements were all eloquently crafted, with special mention to the character and class defining costume designs. As its divisive reviews suggest, this is by no means a perfect film; but part of what made it so great were its imperfections. All of which resulted from Hooper's adventurous film making.… Expand

This is a classic story which is well handled in this production. My negative comment is that the big budget actors/actresses cast in the roles are not as strong vocal talent as would be expected in a proper stage production. Musical numbers come across as a touch over produced. Of course, that is easily overlooked by the sheer beauty of the film. It is absolutely stunning and worth watch just for the visual spectacle. Anne Hathaway has gone from bubble gum films to a series contender for an Oscar. Enjoy this film it is a worthy contribution to a timeless classic.… Expand

Espectacular puesta en escena. La actuación de Anne Hathaway es digna de Oscar, imposible actuar y dramatizar mientras está cantando. El resto del elenco también canta y actua maravillosamente. Pocas veces se oye en el cine a la gente llorar y aplaudir al final.

What a disappointment! Way too much singing and no dialogue! All the songs sound exactly the same and that can only be attributed to the directing. Note: This movie is the first musical not to use a pre-recorded soundtrack that actors match during their performance. It was supposed to make the music more raw and real and connect more. It does but, sadly, it also makes all the songs sounds the same. There are no variations in melody and a lot of the singing sounds irregular in rhythm and progression. That said, Anne Hathaway does give a beautiful performance but her screen time in this movie is very limited. While some in the audience did cheer at the end, I saw a few people walking out throughout the movie as well and I wish that I had walked out with them. I simply wanted the movie to be over and I simply recommend viewing the 1998 version of Les Miserables instead.… Collapse

There are two kinds of musicals. The "movie with songs thrown in" type - think West Side Story. And the "sing every line" type. Les Mis is the second type. Would have loved it if it had been a little more movie and a little less "sing every piece of dialogue." Anne Hathaway is perfect and kills it on her big number... but if a movie is going to be around 3 hours long? Don't sing every line..

Any film that features actors in singing roles is going to get criticism. I knew that Anne Hathaway could sing well anyway and Hugh Jackman came from a musical theatre background, so at least we've got two crucial roles that could be decent. As much as I liked Anne's rendition of I Dreamed A Dream, I just feel like she was trying a bit too hard to win an Oscar what with the repertoire of extreme facial expressions she crammed in there (at least it looks like not one of those actors uses Botox because I could count every wrinkle on their foreheads what with all the close-ups while they sang). I was blown away by Samantha Bark's performance and found it hard to believe that she was once that young girl from the Isle of Mann who was on the UK reality show, I'd Do Anything to win a role as Nancy in Lloyd Webber's production of Oliver. Back then, I didn't think her acting and singing were anything special, but after this, wow. She's clearly been well trained in the years since she became a theatre actress. I have to say, I preferred her the most out of all the actresses in this movie and I wish she could have got nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar because she certainly earned it. I can't say the rest of the cast had me gripped. Helena Bonham Carter has to be one of the most typecast actresses in Hollywood and her presence made the film seem too Tim Burton like, Russell Crowe didn't seem to be giving it his all and Amanda Seyfried just can't seem to get an amazing role where everyone can admire her acting. This 2012 adaption is what it is: an adapation. Not amazing, but not bad either. It is cheaper than seeing it at the theatre and it's condensed down more, but if you can afford theatre tickets and can last through a full length opera, best go see it on the stage, where the actors can sing and act to the highest ability.… Expand

Fans of the musical will adore this (I am one and I did) but the real test this film will face is to a neutral audience. It may be far too heavy for some and over the top for others but for me and others this is an epic tale of romance, faith and love that has several tear jerker moments. The cast is outstanding, granted the vocals are not always as good but the acting throughout is extraordinary, particularly Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman. I cannot recommend this enough.… Expand

As a die hard fan of the musical, I feel like my opinion will be most helpful to other die hard fans. What I can say is that it does change a lot of minor things, like the order of some songs, some of the lines, and even cuts some musical portions out. Everything that is absolutely essential is there, but they cut out Valjean's final stanza in The Confrontation, so Javert just sings his part solo, they cut out the end part of that song, they cut out Dog Eats Dog altogether, and they cut out most of Turning, for example. However, it's all minor, and everything works out extremely well. The changes they make, for the most part, help uphold a structure more suited for a movie than a stage production. Russell Crowe as Javert is emotionless, yet the background music and the directing help make his scenes as good as they can be despite his weak performance. Everybody else is great though. Anne Hathaway as Fantine better win an Oscar, otherwise I will be boycotting the entire ceremony for years to come. I never had the type of reaction in any movie as I had during I Dreamed A Dream. I was involuntarily breathing heavily enough for the people two rows behind me to hear, and I noticed that my heart was pounding. I was too numb to even clap. She sang it in such a way that I had never heard before, and I've heard many versions that I've loved. Still, when I heard Anne's, it was like a lightbulb went off, and someone finally figured out how you're really supposed to sing it. Eddie Redmayne as Marius also gave a pretty beautiful performance, and Hugh Jackman held up his role very well, and brought a lot of emotion to What Have I Done?, Who Am I?, and Bring Him Home. Helena Bohnam Carter isn't nearly as enjoyable as some of the Broadway performers I've seen in that role, but the Thenardiers hold their roles up very nicely. Amanda Seyfried has an unexpectedly good voice, which blends well with Eddie's and Samantha Barks's, who is great as Eponine. The directing is very intimate and passionate, which I thought was a fantastic choice for a story this much based on human thoughts and emotions. The one change I really didn't like was that Eponine wasn't included with Fantine in the finale. It was just Fantine, which I didn't like, because the harmonies they did in the stage production were absolutely beautiful, in my opinion. All in all, there were some changes I didn't like, and Russell Crowe's performance fell flat. For me though, as amazing as I think the musical is, it would take a whole lot of unnecessary changes, more than just one weak (although not even particularly bad) performance, for me to not be absolutely blown away by Les Miserables. If you find the musical to be an absolute knockout, for other reasons than just Javert's character alone, you will probably love this movie as I did.… Expand

Les Miserables was spectacularly done! It was beautiful to watch and was filled by outstanding performances by the entire cast. Yeah sure Russell Crowe was the weakest singer in the film but he wasn't bad. In fact I was surprised by the fact that he did a fairly good job singing the entire time. One thing I noticed while watching this movie is how well the atmosphere was set by the lighting and color saturation at certain times. Overall Les Miserables is beautiful to look at, engaging and filled with songs that will get stuck in your head for weeks. I'd definitely recommend it. And yes Anne Hathaway did have an amazing performance that could easily make grown men cry.… Expand

Les Misérables is a stunning musical epic that will touch the even the coldest hearts, and it results in one of the best films of the year. I have been anxious to see this movie for a long time, as I have never seen the Broadway play, but I have read the novel by Victor Hugo, and I am now excited to see the Broadway version of this story. It was also9 being directed by the brilliant Tom Hooper so how could I not go see this film? Well now that I have seen it, I can honestly say it… Expand

The was pretty intence at times, The casting was perfect and well it is a musical as you know, which i really prefer not to go see, but it was really well made and i guess i got used to every one singing instead of talking. Ann hathaway was amazing, she sang beautifully. i felt it as a little long and it made me laugh a little to. there were a lot of other actors who did very well and i expect to be seeing them in other movies in the future.… Expand

Two things to clarify 1. I am not a musical movie fan in general 2. I have never seen the stage show of Les Mis. With that in mind, maybe this film was always facing an uphill battle to impress me. However I had heard some great stuff from friends and family going in so I had the best of intentions. And for the first 45 minutes, things went fine. Jackman was immense (throughout), Crowe seemed a suitable foil and Hathaways short span in the film contained (for me) the best performance and song. So far, so good.

But then things started to sag. The songs didnt grab as the first few had (although not for lack of performance). New characters came and added little (I would even argue the revolutionaries detracted) and the plot wobbled along. Then in the final third it creaked and pretty much fell over. The love story is tacked on, at best. The resolution to Javerts pursuit of Valjean is... well, its bloody stupid to be honest. And by this point, my arse had grown numb thanks to the 150+ minutes running time. I left the cinema wondering what the fuss was about.

Still, as I clarified, maybe this was never for me. I can recognise that Jackman was terrific throughout and that some of the numbers are iconic. The set design in the first half is lovely too (the barricades near the end, however, look like a musical). But at the end of the day, I didn't enjoy it. Worse, it wouldn't encourage me to take in the actual musical either.… Expand

The King

I was so emotionally affected during the first ten minutes of the film. Actors did such a superb job at expressing themselves whilst singing. Not easy, but they delivered it. The message of the movie was clear, and Jean Valjean depicts the image of Christ in this movie. Plot and script were good. The only things that could've been better were the 3D effects & the continuous musical throughout the whole movie.… Expand

I´m not that into musicals and I was a virgin when it comes to this one: Les Miserables. I don´t know if there have been better adaptations before this one (I doubt it). I was a little afraid before seeing it cos such a long movie and all singing, or at least 90%, I had never experienced before... But damn, I was in shock at some of the songs, the performances, the atmosphere. There is a f first part a little bit more tedious if you want (still with some amazing scenes). But the rest was just incredible. Could not wait to see what was going to come next and it was a big roller coaster of emotions non stop. So emotive and passionate. The performances: all of them so great including the kids. It´s true Russell Crow´s voice is not made for musicals but it was nice to see his different singing style in his scenes. So it was even a plus for me. Probably the highlight as a solo performance is Anne Hathaway´s "I dreamed a dream" but I´m serious when I say there are so many equally impact ful moments from the rest of the cast after that as the story continues
I was surprised and impacted. I need to check more musicals I guess… Expand

Self indulgent and pretentious. This defines pretty well what Tom Hooper´s Les Miserables is. The camera is always in the wrong place. The tight shots make the production design seem like a waste and the actors look bad, embracing their over-acting. There is no dialogue, everything is sung, there is no silent moment and there is absolutely no subtlety. Everything is bad, nobody can reallyy sing (especially Russel Crowe) and the performances are so weird and over the top. The only thing that saves this movie from complete disaster is the beautiful production design. Definitely not a must-see.… Expand

This movie is the best musical movie i have ever seen. It can make you laugh, smile and make you want to sing with them too. To some of you have said this movie was bad, i think you should watch it again and think of what you have said to this movie before

Wonderful masterpiece! If you dont have a stone as your heart this movie will touch you, move you and make you cry. And who will not a deeply feel sorry for.....I am certainly not a big fan of musicals but this movie made it.

Overall this movie was great. I was insisted to see it because of how much acclaim the play got and the acting nominations. Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and others (Sasha Baron-Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, etc.) were great, and this is a must see.

Tom Hooper took the classic book, and Broadway play, and formed it into an amazing 19th Century universe that was real and remarkable. I was skeptical about this movie and it being essentially a Broadway production in movie format. But as soon as the movie started, I found myself enjoying it. The musical pieces were amazingly done, and the cast couldn't have been better chosen for a film such as this. What an amazing movie, a classic. Its a good thing sequels don't exist in the Les Miserables universe, because classics such as this don't deserve to be ruined by a sequel. Loved every single minute of this movie. The music may have seemed as the big focal point of the movie, but the story and the music were a perfect mix, especially when it came to Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe's encounters. Beautiful storytelling, and beautiful music, what more could you ask for?… Expand

I had never seen anything of Les Miserables before this movie. Not even a single song. It turns out I had a great time and was impressed by all the actor's singing abilities. The effects and sets were very impressive also, which was nice to see in a musical adaptation. I did not really feel the length, as the movie introduces characters deep into the running time, which keeps things fresh. You will probably hear many people talk of how depressing and sad this movie is. I will not deny that, but I found the movie's message to be invigorating, rather than deflating.… Expand

My biggest issue with "Les Mis" is I don't buy into the main story. Why on earth would someone go to prison for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread? Why would Javert be SO obsessed with capturing Valjean because he broke parole after being released? Maybe that is the way the law worked at that place and time in history, or maybe it's meant to symbolize oppression, thus providing reason for the peasants' uprising later in film. Either way, that plot line is just hard for me to swallow as an American citizen in the 21st century, where matters of crime and punishment tend to be at least a bit more just than that.
Otherwise, I found the film to be both breathtaking and bewildering. The sets, costumes and several of the solo/duo numbers ("I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," "A Little Fall of Rain" and "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" in particular) were enchanting and wonderful. The cinematography, on the other hand, was awful. Why did the filmmakers decide to shoot almost exclusively in close-ups? I felt like I was trapped in boxes with these people every time they sang, and while in real life I wouldn't mind being trapped in a box with Hugh Jackman (ha ha), it felt too suffocating while viewing this film. In almost every scene, the singing characters and their songs weren't given room to breathe on screen, and the narrow shots made it hard to perceive how other characters in the same given scene were reacting. I understand the need to show us the misery and desperation of these characters, but I think that could have been done in a manner more creative than just shoving the viewers down the throats of the performers.
So I suppose if you can buy the major plot line (or at least suspend your disbelief), you might enjoy this film more than I did, but it's hard for me to understand how anyone can rate this film "in the green" when the cinematography was so god-awful. It pretty much single-handedly destroyed this film.… Expand

One of my most favorite movies of 2012 and worthy to be one of my favorite of all time. When first hearing about the film, I thought it would be overrated for being a Broadway production brought to the big screen, but I was definitely moved by the very memorable experience within the cast and wonderful music.

Mixed feelings about this film. Production values were very high and some of the performances were very good. I felt the singing was a bit hit and miss, particularly Russel Crowe who put in a disappointing performance. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen characters were too nasty, with not enough comedy. I feel they should have reduced the length of the film by cutting out the filler. I've seen the theatre production and although 3 hours is acceptable for that, 3 hours for a film is just too long. The film was dull, drawn out and grim before picking up half way through. Good editing would improve this, reducing the total length by a third by cutting out the less memorable songs would improve things a lot.… Expand

I love this story, it

The movie was actually just as entertaining as the book, and other various takes on in on stage productions and movies but this definitely seemed to be much longer than expected. The story truly draws you in; you laugh, you cry, and you get squirmy in your chair mostly due to the fact that it seems to go on and on, and on.... more like a 5 hour production. It was entertaining but I am so glad that I decided to go to the matinee and not take in a later showing because I'm sure I would've fallen asleep.… Expand

Tom Hooper's direction is flawless, absolutely genius! Hathaway's performance steals the show despite being on screen for less than 20 minutes, but Jackman's performance is utterly stunning. The music is amazing and you can notice the benefits of having the actors sing live, then recording the music to the singing, the scenes flow beautifully. The film is consistently entertaining, I didn't want it to end. An incredible film and it deserves every piece of recognition it gets! A true British Masterpiece! I simply don't understand people saying that it is overly emotional and over-acted... at the end of the day people, it is a musical!!! it is going to be emotional, very dramatic and yes, believe it or not there is going to be a lot of singing! if you don't like musicals like some people have said in their reviews, why go and waste money and time going to see it just to post a ridiculously stupid and inaccurate review.… Expand

A disclaimer before I make my review: this is the first iteration of Les Miserables I've ever seen. The film showcases spectacular performances, headed by Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking portrayal of Fantine. Others who deserve sure praise are: Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, and Samantha Barks. That being said, the film struggles hold the performances together. Hooper's decision to record the audio live on set surely helped push these performances to their peak, but it feels like it constrained the way he shot the film. In order to get these great performances, we get a lot of close, continuos shots, which hinders the film from feeling "cinematic". Another adverse effect: star power seems to have influenced how much screen time each character gets, sometimes to a fault. Some characters, namely Eponine, get swept under the rug, and don't get the time they need to fully touch the audience's hearts.… Expand

"Le Miserables" doesn't hold its breath when in comes to delivering amazing vocals. Having no prior experience with the content, I walked both in and out of the theater excited, pleased, and giving of one of my top films of the year.

Great movie, with great performances by the cast. The singing was raw and packed with emotion, and the characters were well sculpted with a helpful pageantry.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. N MY OPINION **MAY CONTAIN SPOIILER S** by CtheTav I had heard great things about this film going into it. It had Oscar buzz and had already taken multiple best picture awards. Apparently I saw a different version of the film because the film I saw was terrible! The "singing" in this film by the main cast is reminiscent of Mama Mia! Or Moulin Rouge as in big name karaoke at best. The majority of the big names can't sing with the exception of Russel Crow who is a bit better than the rest but still a long way off staring a singing career after this film, and to give Hugh Jackman the lead role when he is the worst singer of the lot is unforgiveable and a stupid move by the casting director. Another problem with this film is the fact that there is very little talking and everything is sing talked which, takes away from the songs as its difficult to tell when a song starts and ends which is why when initially writing this review I struggled to recall even 2 songs (2 hours after watching the film). Back to the plot now, so carefully hinged on the back drop of a French revolution showing that everyone's super poor or mega rich and the no one likes the king at the moment so it, revolution! There is no character development in this film at all after the first 5 minutes. Jon Valjean goes from angry thief to God loving good guy in 10 seconds or 8 years of unseen moments in the plot, feels guilty for not being granular about his employees actions, buys some kid, raises her and then realises "actually I lied to get where I am today but I'm okay with that", gets a mystery illness whilst lifting luggage and dies. Javert Javert goes from letter of the lawman (he literally sang a song about it) to a suicidal fool who can't deal with being given a second chance. The young revolutionary goes from tactician to screw it I'm in love over the course of 1 night (the same night he saw his entire friendship die horribly). At the end of this film the people at the barricade are all dead this is touted as a happy ending. This ending is miserable all of those who died as martyrs achieved nothing, so well done everyone, NOT! This film has the worst action sequences ever. Being shot in the chest and not bleeding? Why not? Did the budget not allow for fake blood to be used? Then the character has the audacity to sing for three minutes before dying, not dying immediately like most of the other idiots foolish enough to point the barrel of a gun at themselves and not just away from everyone Rubbish! Rating 1 out of 10 An awful film that received too much praise due to the stage production it was based on… Expand

Having seen the play, and having read the original novel, I don't think this movie could've been any better. Bits of the book that aren't in the stage musical are wisely added into the film. GOOD changes from the play are made in the film, and every actor involved, even those in smaller parts, are sublime. I wish more material could've been created for Hathaway and Samatha Barks, because they were probably the best. Overall though, it's an extremely touching film that will make anyone with a soul, shed a few tears.… Expand

Be forewarned: I had never seen the stage production of Les Miserables prior to watching the movie, nor had I read the book. All I knew about the story was that it was set in France sort of around the time of the French Revolution (several years later, I came to find out). That being said, the story FEELS like a story, rather than something that could actually happen (e.g., love at first sight is used as a major plot device, characters often find the characters they're looking for out of sheer coincidence, etc.). Despite that, it is still a very solid movie. The acting is phenomenal. Anne Hathaway's and Samantha Barks' solos are heart-wrenching, and really help bring the movie to life. And all the songs are recorded live, i.e., we're hearing what we see, rather than a studio recording. Again, I have never seen any other version of Les Mis, but it certainly feels like the director did everything in his power to bring this classic back to life.… Expand

I personally can't believe how negative the critics reviews have been for the film. I think in terms of musical numbers, acting and story, this is one of the best adaptations from musical to film. Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne really knocked out of the park, while Russell Crowe (somewhat weird voice) did just fine. I thought the cameo additions of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter was tremendous, adding a light side to such a dark tale. I don't know what movie a good percentage of critics saw.… Expand

Anne Hathoway is the ONLY redeeming character in this film. The only reason it even receives a 5 from me is because the source material is a masterpiece.

A masterpiece crumbled into unrecognizable pieces.

the only thing good about this movie is the performances of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, i hate it when all the movie is songs and there is not an actual dialogue, it gets boring

People who have seen the play on Broadway with an incredible cast may not like the film because the singing (other than the actors who play Eponine and ok---Jean Val Jean) don't have Broadway-caliber voices (although the priest seemed to be one of the original Jean Val Jeans). Even though I saw the original Broadway cast, I enjoyed the movie because I went with the intention of accepting this version as a movie. The weakest performance was Russell Crowe's. He couldn't pull off the emotion required to explain suicide. Overall, the movie is beautiful.… Expand

The story is great, but I'm judging it as a musical and I will have to give it a 5/10. In general I found the songs ridiculous and weird, yes there were good ones such as the Susan Boyle song or the song about revolution, but the rest was plain songs filled with obvious rhymes and bad singers. I can't compare this movie to musicals such as Singing in The Rain, or The Phantom of Opera.

Though I am not a fan of musicals, and though it took me a good 15 minutes into the film to adjust to the constant musical numbers, I became immersed into quite a theatrical experience I haven't felt in a long time (with an amazing line of acting from talented actors to support it). This movie will perhaps open my eyes and force me to reconsider the genre of musicals.

If you hate musicals don't go see this, you will hate it. I went in thinking there would be a few songs, not that the whole movie would be non-stop singing and knew next to nothing of the story. I'm not a fan of musicals, but I am a fan of well made movies. This was a well made movie. I enjoyed the story and the music, some of the performances blew me away. Anne Hathaway (sp?) singing "I dream a dream" was the best movie moment I've seen in a loooong long time. She will win an Oscar for it. I'm forced to give this movie a 10/10 even as not a fan of musicals.… Expand

Let us begin by acknowledging that this is a MUSICAL. Okay, now that we have that elephant in the room cleared, this movie falls short as a musical mainly because of its mainstream, Hollywood casts. The camera work was fantastic and the plot is universally cherished, yet what slashed this movie as one this year's undeserving hyped films is the lack of emotion among the casts when they sing. It doesn't matter if the acting is ingenious in the musical when the cast cannot even stay on pitch. Though I despise musicals simply because characters SING their thoughts instead of the audience proactively engaging consciously with the character, the excitement of musicals come from each character's dramatic but hearty rich tone when they BELT out their emotions. Samantha Barks (played Eponine) was possibly the ONLY actor that solved this fundamental equation.

ps I will hold my own revolt if Russell Crowe decides to release a full length studio album just because of this one gig...… Expand

A beautifully immersive take on a timeless musical. The acting and singing were equally amazing. I was definitely not disappointed with this film and would recommend a watch to anyone.

I saw it again, 2 days after seeing it the first time. Remember, I have seen the stage play 8 times, in 5 different venues, and adored every one. I have the 10th and 25 anniversary DVDs and play them a couple of times a year. The more I think about this movie, despite its attractiveness as spectacle, it does the stage play a gross disservice. While Ann Hathaway is brilliant in her sadly brief performance, Hugh Jackman is acceptable, and Russell Crowe is abysmal. The inner torment of Javert is such a critical element of the story and is best articulated in his two solos: Stars and the suicide. Crowe totally misses this essential character element and, as a consequence, his portrayal is pitiful. The play has 2 essential and wonderfully executed comic reliefs: the Thenardiers Master of the House, and The Wedding. The director has destroyed the comic relief aspect, omitted incredibly amusing and vital portions, and grossly miscast Helen Bonham Carter as Madam Thenardier. Sasha Baron Cohen could have executed better, but didnt , either due to Hooper or his own limitations. Hooper fundamentally misunderstands where Les Mis, the play, gets its power. It's the music and how it is presented. Hooper spends too much of his energy on the spectacle and setting of 19th century France, and not enough on the magnificent music and the powerful story the music can tell. Damn shame too.… Expand

Whether you are interested in musicals or not, Les Miserables is something you should see. That's not to say you should see this movie specifically, but it's a story and series of songs you should treat yourself to knowing. Let's get this out of the way - the musical pieces are incredible, and the initial draw to this film for me, like with so many others, was due to the fact that the singing is comprised of live performances as they're acting and are not pre-recorded/lip-synced. The musical's flagship song, "I Dreamed a Dream", performed by Anne Hathaway, is the chilling centerpiece for the movie, and will quite literally send shivers down your spine with the absolute intensity of her voice. This is true with many of the songs in the movie, and I recommend that if you aren't familiar with them that you listen to the soundtrack of the movie again after watching. There are problems with the movie, however. Russell Crowe's singing is just not that amazing. He's on key, for sure, but his voice isn't strong enough for the part nor does it contain the proper bass needed for the part. On top of this, many of the scenes themselves are a bore, especially in the French Revolution sections. Overall, I feel that the movie drags as a whole near the end, which unfortunately draws away from the alluring music. It really does become a bit of a crawl to reach the end unless you're absolutely engaged in the soundtrack. So in the end, it's not perfect, nor is it the best movie of the year by any means, but it still contains some amazing musical performances and is sure to please your ears.… Expand

This album brought tears to my eyes! Amazing acting, fantastic songs, and of course a genius story. All portrayed in the most perfect way possible. I recommend going to see this movie ASAP!!!

such a touching movie. i cried from halfway all the way to the end. Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried work really well together and i am totally hooked on the songs from les mis. I think this movie deserves loads of awards and amanda and eddie should date (in my opinion)

My wife and I both cried watching this movie. The problem is we cried for different reasons. She had an emotional attachment to the movie because of her childhood. I cried because this was horrible. Letting the actors sing live and going with that was a big mistake. I have to believe that people voting this good, even the Oscar nominations, are all because you are SUPPOSED to like this rather than anyone actually liking it. Every time someone other than Anne Hathaway sang, you are pulled out of the movie. I have heard better singers at a Karaoke bar. they need to go back and clean up the terrible singing before they release this on DVD. While this isn't the worst movie I have seen this year (Movie 43) this was far more difficult to sit through.… Expand

An amazing film! Emotionally draining but for good reason, although do not watch if you are tired. I have never seen the stage production but would definitely like to after watching the film. Anne Hathaway's performance as Fontine is tear jerking and amazing, it has such an impact on the whole film especially as she only has 15 minutes of screen time in a 3 hour film. Also brilliant performances from Eddie Redmayne and Hugh jackman. The singing is all recorded live apart from the first scene because of the water hazard, and this allows you to really connect with the emotions of the songs and enjoy the rawness of the voices with every crackle in the actors voices only helps to tell to tell their character's story.… Expand

Quite a movie but more like a cinematic opera. At times it drags and is overdone, but did keep my attention. Hugo's themes ring true throughout. The performances are outstanding and I although the vocals were not perfect, the added some realism to the story and emotion.

As a person who isn't a huge fan of musicals, I was surprised by how good the film is. It drew me in with its amazing acting, inspiring music and visuals, and the vocals were truly immense; you could tell that each actor gave it 100% to ensure that they acted throughout their music. A captivating tale featuring an extremely talented cast, especially the rightly acclaimed Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, whose performances drew me to tears on more than one occasion, with goosebumps throughout. A classic musical helmed by a brilliant director, Les Misérables is sure to go home happy on Oscars night.… Expand

It's a great movie one of the best of the year as it has all actors, music, production, love, everything I loved it and it was one of my favorites to win the Oscar for Best Picture.

Les Misérables directed by Tom Hooper, a great movie, good interpreters, big emotions, good songs, very interesting movie, There are two impressive moments in which two actresses make a big test, beautiful scenery and beautiful picture, in short, I recommend the film, a lot of emotions this film.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's safe to say that Les Mis has ruined my week. My eyeballs hurt from all the rolling they've done. The only part I enjoyed was when Russell Crowe jumped off the bridge. At least we didn't have to listen to his wretched singing any more. I'm not even sure what the film was about -- well I THINK it's about a bunch of folk who pile some furniture up in the middle of the street in Gay Paree and then hide behind it for a while, but hey, that's just me.j… Expand

This wonderful film version of the musical play is truly a delight on so many levels. Several years ago I viewed the theatre version in London and, although the music was grand, it was hard to understand the story - I had not read the book by Victor Hugo. For example, the very funny sequence, "Master of the House," did not make any sense. Well, that is all cleared up in this film - some comedy is necessary to balance the enormous human suffering, both emotional and physical which is the plight of the masses in nineteenth centure France under the kings. This movie definitely has its flaws, especially going in and out of focus on the close ups of the solos and some of the singing - Russel Crowe sometimes is flat or off key at times. The director, Hooper, took great risks by filming the singing live instead of the usual methods. But, these matters pale in comparison to the power of the emotional drama and the impact on an audience. Crowe gives a brilliant performance as Javert. This film will go down as an extraordinary classic of the cinema.… Expand

I had no previous experience with "Les Mis" before watching this movie; so as a virgin to the musical, I thought it was absolutely fa nominal. The acting was Oscar worthy, the voice's were enchanting, and the casting was 'parfait'! The live singing made the movie real, the passion from all of the actors was contagious, and the story was well executed. Simply amazing.

This was a pretty good portrayal of Les Miserables the musical, sadly, the vocal performances were not up to par.

Hugh Jackman tried, but failed miserably. His counterpart, Russell Crowe was even more dismal. The only vocal performance which was good was sung by the actress who played Eponine. I know that she was also a cast member for the 25th anniversary performance of Les Miserables, clearly she has some musical theater background. Everyone is raving about Anne Hathaway. Yes, she did a good job. Yes, you felt her performance emotionally. However, her tears and whining got in the way of one of the vocal highlights of Les Miserables, "I Dreamed a Dream."

If you like the musical, go see the movie, it's a fun time. However, you might want to lower your expectations of the vocals.… Expand

Incredible! ly boring. Amazing! ly bloated. Terrific! ally overwrought and tasteless. When everything on display is Earnest! and Heartfelt!, it renders it all meaningless. Never subtle, always strained, the musical is shockingly claustrophobic instead of soaring, and needlessly literal at all turns.

A few observations: When making a musical, it might be a good idea to hire singers for the lead roles.
Helena Bonham Carter seems to have wandered in from Sweeney Todd, the prostitutes seem to think they are in Cats, and good deal more of the cast seems to think they are in Oliver! (isn't this supposed to be France?)
Finally, be careful about your end-of-life haircut choices, as apparently the cut follows you to Heaven!… Expand

I confess this movie is my first encounter with Les Miz. I rated it higher than I would have due to what I understand and assume has been the theme of the Les Miserables' story: the relative value of compassion and love vs. duty. Sasha Baron Cohen's effectiveness at very broad comedy amused a relatively sophisticated audience and me. The CGI art direction gave a sound stage look to this film. The solo vocal performances were generally poor. Except for the interesting tension between the different values involved, I would have given this movie a "4."… Expand

Absolutely wonderful movie! I've seen the play many times. It's the story that is compelling, and these actors did an absolutely brilliant job! i will see this again and again!

I feel that there is an obvious difference in singing ability between the theatre/opera singers and the regular hollywood actors/actresses. For example, Hugh Jackman's acting was excellent, but I feel that his singing voice is only an ok fit for the role of Jean Valjean. And Russell Crowe is not a great singer, but again his acting was great. This probably describes both the good and bad sides of doing a live recording of their singing. Their emotions are expressed much better compared to regular musicals where the actors/actresses are only lip-syncing, but at the same time, the weaknesses are also more obvious because it cannot be tweaked and polished in the recording studio. I also feel that they had too many close ups in the earlier parts of the movie. I understand that they wanted to show the character's faces and emotion, but when the close up is too long, it becomes a bit awkward. What I did love was that despite those minor complaints, I found the overall experience very enjoyable, I cared for the characters and was greatly moved by parts of it. Overall this was a great movie and I will watch again.… Expand

I really enjoyed this movie and thought that it did a good job of doing a great original story justice. Jackman and Hatheway are definitely the outstanding performers for me but the rest of the cast was good as well. At times the singing of dialogue seems out of place especially on Crowes part. I feel like the movie could have been better if the actual dialogue was spoken and acted out and then characters go into the big songs from the musical.… Expand

I had never seen the musical before I watched this film, and I'm confident enough to say that this was a good introduction to the multitude of Les Miserables's. The musical production in the film is amazing with live performances from Hugh Jackman and Academy Award Winner for Best Supporting Actress Anne Hathaway (who was only in the film for 20 minutes). Unfortunately though, there are a few drawbacks. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen play the caretakers of Cosette. In other words, THEY PLAY THE EXACT SAME CHARACTERS FROM SWEENEY TODD. Apparently, the director just resorted to whoever played two goofballs in the nineteenth century in a movie: THESE TWO. It was annoying seeing that they were only in the movie to play the exact same parts as in Sweeney Todd. It took me out of the movie and it always reminded me that these two are from an entirely different film. Other than a few camera issues, such as the infamous bobbing, the film is marvelous and rich with musical entertainment.… Expand

Wonderful. Just saw the show with my wife. She wanted to stand up at various junctures of the movie and clap. We saw the broadway show at least 6 times and believe that the movie did the show justice. It is the rare movie that people we see it several times.