User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 676 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 67 out of 676
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 18, 2013
    9
    Les Mis just whisks you away with its charm and dramatic characters. The singing is okay by the actors, but you have to give them credit, as they don't sing in movies often. Also, director Tom Hooper (The King's Speech) directs the movie in such a way that we are captivated by its awe and wonderment.
  2. Aug 24, 2014
    6
    The bold, harsh emotion of the musical is certainly still present. Les Miserables suffers from one too many miscasts and a godawful performance from Russell Crowe as Javert. Nevertheless, Anne Hathaway gives the finest performance of her career to date--closely matched by an impeccable Samantha Barks.
  3. Dec 30, 2012
    10
    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 runIf 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
  4. Jan 11, 2013
    0
    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.
  5. Dec 4, 2014
    7
    Even if it overstays its welcome, Tom Hooper's epic adaptation of the Hugo classic is remarkably well performed and finely staged with jaw-dropping sets and brilliant imagery.
  6. Mar 23, 2013
    9
    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.
  7. Jan 11, 2013
    1
    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.
  8. Jan 5, 2013
    9
    Hugh Jackman is nothing short of phenomenal in this film. There are a couple of scenes in which I felt both chills and tears within moments of one another. Anne Hathaway is also tremendous in a supporting role. Most importantly for me - as someone who saw the musical over 20 years and did NOT enjoy it - I could hear every word of dialogue of very clearly, and every facial expression isHugh Jackman is nothing short of phenomenal in this film. There are a couple of scenes in which I felt both chills and tears within moments of one another. Anne Hathaway is also tremendous in a supporting role. Most importantly for me - as someone who saw the musical over 20 years and did NOT enjoy it - I could hear every word of dialogue of very clearly, and every facial expression is captured beautifully, so I didn't have to struggle empathize with these characters. Revolutionary passion, wrongful incarceration, the unyielding rule or law, young love, and unrequited love - it's all here, and it's beautifully presented. Yes, the film vastly exceeded my expectations. I am surprised that the professional critics did not embrace it more enthusiastically. Expand
  9. Feb 6, 2013
    6
    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 watchingA 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 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
  10. Dec 30, 2012
    9
    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. SamanthaI 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
  11. Dec 28, 2012
    5
    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 haveI 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
  12. Feb 6, 2013
    10
    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
    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
  13. Jan 28, 2013
    9
    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.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
  14. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    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 HughAnyone 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
  15. Feb 21, 2013
    7
    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 breaksMusicals 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
  16. Apr 1, 2013
    6
    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 BaronMaybe 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
  17. Jan 6, 2013
    8
    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 loveOverall 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
  18. Feb 4, 2013
    4
    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 greatI 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
  19. Jan 8, 2013
    8
    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 whoIt'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
  20. Dec 14, 2013
    8
    Through the stand-point of someone who despises most musicals in general. This one is actually my favorite! I got really into the style this movie tried to achieve and even the musical numbers given by this fantastic cast. While a little slow to get into in the beginning, it still picks itself up throughout the film and beyond. The best part of the movie for sure is Hugh Jackman'sThrough the stand-point of someone who despises most musicals in general. This one is actually my favorite! I got really into the style this movie tried to achieve and even the musical numbers given by this fantastic cast. While a little slow to get into in the beginning, it still picks itself up throughout the film and beyond. The best part of the movie for sure is Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Jean Valjean. He really reels in the best of all the songs with his incredible acting and even singing. Overall, truly the best musical I've seen in motion picture history! And that's saying something. I give it an A-! Expand
  21. Nov 13, 2014
    9
    "Les Miserables" 10 Scale Rating: 8.5 (Excellent) ...

    The Good: I was dubious about the cast, but that quickly faded. Great job all around as Jackman, Hathaway, and yes ... even Crowe ... did amazing jobs. The film seems to stay true to the source material as scenes that are typically left out of film versions were left in. Despite it's long run time (which was a drawback), I'm glad
    "Les Miserables" 10 Scale Rating: 8.5 (Excellent) ...

    The Good: I was dubious about the cast, but that quickly faded. Great job all around as Jackman, Hathaway, and yes ... even Crowe ... did amazing jobs. The film seems to stay true to the source material as scenes that are typically left out of film versions were left in. Despite it's long run time (which was a drawback), I'm glad those were left in. They were important scenes.

    The Bad: It runs long and feels it sometimes. While I'm glad they left important scenes in, they could have done without others to shorten the film. Far, FAR too many closeups as you'd sit for several minutes just watching someone's face as they sang. That aspect felt a little lazy.
    Expand
  22. Sep 2, 2013
    8
    I`m not a fan of musicals at all, so I watched this expecting to hate it, but I liked what it was all about. If you can get through the singing and focus on the story it`s a good watch.
  23. Dec 25, 2012
    8
    Having seen the musical version of
  24. Lyn
    Dec 30, 2012
    5
    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").
  25. Jul 30, 2014
    4
    "Les Miserables" is great-looking and features some touching performances. Its colourful cinematography, though, outshines the dark tone that makes Hugo's novel so engaging, and its inexperienced youths seem incompetent to mark a want-to-be classic with their weak performances. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe feel out of place, even with some competent acting, while Hathaway is too dramatic"Les Miserables" is great-looking and features some touching performances. Its colourful cinematography, though, outshines the dark tone that makes Hugo's novel so engaging, and its inexperienced youths seem incompetent to mark a want-to-be classic with their weak performances. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe feel out of place, even with some competent acting, while Hathaway is too dramatic to be believable, but it is obvious that by every cry and every drop she comes closer to the Oscar. Expand
  26. Mar 23, 2013
    6
    "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"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 spectacle, 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
  27. Sep 2, 2014
    9
    This is quite an incredible movie. Having never seen the play nor read the book (yet!), I thought this was a great film. It had great acting, beautiful songs, and a bittersweet plot. I really had no problem with the length because the movie had me so engrossed and entertained, and I was lost in the music. It's an absolutely amazing film.
  28. Oct 31, 2013
    8
    The first hour was brilliant. How Jean Valjean cheats authorities and his fate time and again, and how he finds redemption in a child. It was touching, and the feeling could have lasted had not what followed would have followed. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway acted with such finesse that it would take something especially non-human not to feel for them. Even the songs during this durationThe first hour was brilliant. How Jean Valjean cheats authorities and his fate time and again, and how he finds redemption in a child. It was touching, and the feeling could have lasted had not what followed would have followed. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway acted with such finesse that it would take something especially non-human not to feel for them. Even the songs during this duration were better. Alas, the feeling could not last. The movie quickly degenerated into a sort of love triangle. Who could give a damn about them when we'd just been exposed to possibly one of cinema's saddest protagonists? Yet the director persists and spoils any good feeling we might have about the movie, and we are on the brink of begging him to bring Valjean back. Fortunately the tone turns serious again and the plot focussed on the revolutionaries. But the lustre from before was lost and could not be regained. Not to mention that Eddie Redmayne is the most unmanly, overrated actor today. At over two and a half hours, it leaves you deeply exhausted to your bones. 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. Collapse
  29. Jun 4, 2013
    9
    "Les Mis is simply an astounding, captivating rendition of one of the most beloved musicals in history. Its not the best movie of the year but Filled with breathtaking performances, this three hour long spectacle is truly, what i like to say, incredible." A-
  30. Dec 31, 2013
    7
    Em certos pontos foi um bom filme, porém a direção incompressível detona um pouco filme, mais há pontos positivos, como sua fabulosa direção de arte e seus personagens e sua trilha sonora.
  31. BKM
    Jan 9, 2013
    5
    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.
  32. Jan 20, 2013
    8
    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, LesLes 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
  33. Jan 4, 2013
    8
    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) andIt'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
  34. Jan 2, 2015
    6
    e Miserable es un musical que sin dudas logra resaltar con su gran ambientación de la época en que se desarrolla esta película, pero, tristemente, en muy pocas veces llega a dar un entretenimiento factible.

    Esta película se libera de una manera satisfactoria en cuanto a muchas cosas del apartado técnico, como, por decir, el vestuario, que se enfoca bien en la época del film, o también
    e Miserable es un musical que sin dudas logra resaltar con su gran ambientación de la época en que se desarrolla esta película, pero, tristemente, en muy pocas veces llega a dar un entretenimiento factible.

    Esta película se libera de una manera satisfactoria en cuanto a muchas cosas del apartado técnico, como, por decir, el vestuario, que se enfoca bien en la época del film, o también se puede resaltar su banda sonora, pero en algo que falla en un punto un tanto declinado en este largometraje es en no transmitir en buen nivel un entretenimiento factible al público o entablar una relación sufrible con el espectador., aunque sí logra entablar una relación sentimental con el mismo, y eso hace que la historia se pueda sentir en un tono más indagable y fluyente, dándole así un mejor ambiente, volviéndose más ilustrada, prepotente y audaz.
    Expand
  35. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    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 soTom 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
  36. Jan 28, 2013
    8
    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 theLes 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
  37. May 20, 2013
    6
    Les Miserables is a powerful and depressing which is just what the adaptation needs. However, despite Anne Hathway great acting, Tom Hooper basically just made the musical with more awesome sound eits. So my message to this mixed film is, if you want to be a musical, then dammit Hooper make a freaking musical for crying out loud.
  38. Jan 21, 2013
    8
    As a huge fan of musical movies, I had been waiting for thiz. It
  39. Aug 28, 2013
    7
    Definitely entertaining whether it's above average I can't decide. In a movie where 99% of the dialogue is in song the actors have to be able to sing. Eddie Redmayne and Anne Hathaway are the best of the cast and sing perfectly. Most of the other actors are alright and sometimes sound like Mr Bean but there bearable. Amanda Seyfried is terrible at singing in this, she's better than me, butDefinitely entertaining whether it's above average I can't decide. In a movie where 99% of the dialogue is in song the actors have to be able to sing. Eddie Redmayne and Anne Hathaway are the best of the cast and sing perfectly. Most of the other actors are alright and sometimes sound like Mr Bean but there bearable. Amanda Seyfried is terrible at singing in this, she's better than me, but seriously get some lessons. Expand
  40. Feb 3, 2013
    9
    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 aI´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 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
  41. Jan 18, 2013
    8
    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.
  42. Mar 24, 2013
    5
    “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“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 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
  43. Jan 31, 2013
    6
    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 amazingLes 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
  44. Mar 31, 2013
    3
    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?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
  45. Jan 12, 2013
    9
    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.
  46. Oct 27, 2013
    8
    i don´t know why people hate so much this film,it was a good adaptation of the vitor hugo book and there was a great prodution in this film so why the hell the critics aren´t giving good grades for this movie.
  47. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    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.
  48. Apr 18, 2013
    9
    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.
  49. Dec 28, 2012
    5
    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
    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
  50. Mar 3, 2015
    9
    I really did not expect to enjoy this movie but well, it turned out I did! I don't really understand how people dislike Russell Crowe's performance but I thought it was great (then again, I don't know much about singing). All the songs were memorable, especially One Day More. I recommend for anyone who likes musicals or not!
  51. May 12, 2013
    7
    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 theMixed 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
  52. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    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.
  53. Jan 15, 2013
    8
    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 anThe 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
  54. Dec 26, 2012
    7
    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 watchThis 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
  55. Jan 13, 2013
    9
    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.
  56. Mar 3, 2014
    6
    Having unintentionally dodged this story for so long, the first I see of it is this adaption, which I know is a great shame. It mostly feels like a homage to those who know this story well, and I know they rave about it. I'm sure the story is brilliant on stage. However, for those who have no real knowledge of the piece, the characters are thrown at you pouring their hearts out and it'sHaving unintentionally dodged this story for so long, the first I see of it is this adaption, which I know is a great shame. It mostly feels like a homage to those who know this story well, and I know they rave about it. I'm sure the story is brilliant on stage. However, for those who have no real knowledge of the piece, the characters are thrown at you pouring their hearts out and it's strangely hard to get emotionally invested until towards the end. I can't deny that I didn't enjoy it though. Expand
  57. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    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..
  58. Feb 6, 2013
    6
    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 ofAny 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
  59. Oct 20, 2013
    5
    when I finished watching this movie I did not know that was the rewarding feeling or was that a good movie or was because I hold an entire movie in which all the dialogues are sung
  60. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    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 isFans 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
  61. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    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 hisAs 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
  62. Jan 26, 2013
    9
    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 iThe 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
  63. Dec 28, 2012
    4
    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 soundsWhat 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. Expand
  64. Jun 13, 2013
    0
    So I already hate musicals, and this one just confirms how awful they are. Anne whats her name is so bad it makes Vince Vaughn look like a good actor. Disgusting, boring, and just plain terrible.
  65. Jan 15, 2013
    7
    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 musicalI 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
  66. Jan 24, 2013
    9
    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 filmTom 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
  67. Feb 8, 2013
    5
    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), CroweTwo 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
  68. Jan 24, 2013
    9
    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 theLes 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
  69. Jun 20, 2013
    8
    I think the film is best appreciated if you watch it like you were watching an opera. Of course, there are no "closeups" in opera, but the nonstop singing, the oversized emotions, the multiple deaths for hopeless and lost causes--these are truly the building blocks of grand opera. And from time to time Les Miserables really does earn the right to be compared to grand opera.
  70. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    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 acceptingPeople 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
  71. Feb 3, 2013
    2
    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 reallySelf 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 really 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
  72. Jan 31, 2013
    10
    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 - someThis 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
  73. Jun 17, 2013
    1
    A miserable attempt to adapt this beloved musical for a film audience. Don't get me wrong, I like Russel Crowe under proper direction and in the right role, but his performance in this film was absolutely dreadful.
  74. May 18, 2013
    10
    Now, this review is coming from someone whom had never heard of the theatrical production of 'Les Miserables' nor read of the book, but I can soundly say this movie had me thoroughly impressed. Whilst I know movies rarely follow the exact footsteps of a book, I was quickly drawn in by the storyline, memorable characters and emotional instances.
    Never has reality been delivered with this
    Now, this review is coming from someone whom had never heard of the theatrical production of 'Les Miserables' nor read of the book, but I can soundly say this movie had me thoroughly impressed. Whilst I know movies rarely follow the exact footsteps of a book, I was quickly drawn in by the storyline, memorable characters and emotional instances.
    Never has reality been delivered with this amount of perfection and emotion, with a score you will not forget. My only complaint, as all modest reviews must discuss, is that some characters are introduced too late in the film, that the audience does not build up as strong an emotional bond as they would have, if the characters were brought in earlier.

    Overall, the best film I have seen so far this year; I cannot wait to see the production!
    Expand
  75. Jan 2, 2013
    7
    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 soThe 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
  76. Jan 27, 2013
    5
    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 theyLet 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
  77. Apr 1, 2013
    1
    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
  78. Dec 26, 2012
    9
    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.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
  79. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    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.
  80. Mar 2, 2013
    4
    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
  81. Jan 20, 2013
    10
    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
  82. Apr 16, 2013
    10
    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, becauseHaving 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
  83. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    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 firstBe 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
  84. Mar 4, 2014
    10
    An absolutely wonderful movie! Very powerful, very touching and all-around extremely enjoyable! The songs are also very memorable and awesome! One of my favourite 2012 movies.
  85. May 19, 2013
    7
    This is a creative way to bring a musical to a film.Even though it's weird hearing all the diolage spoked though singing,it is a very beautiful well developed film.
  86. Jan 9, 2013
    4
    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 reasonMy 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
  87. Jan 14, 2013
    10
    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, ITom 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
  88. Jun 7, 2013
    10
    the is the best big screen adaptation of a Broadway musical in 5 years. tom Hooper takes to preserve many of the great original moments for the show. Hugh Jackman is incredible as valjean and Anne Hathaway is heart wrenching as the tragic Fantine. It is stirring, sad, and thought provoking Victor Hugo would have been singing along too.
  89. Dec 28, 2012
    0
    By far the funniest musical I've ever seen. Never mind that it isn't supposed to be funny. If you read this review and then go see Les Miserables anyway, you better know how to entertain yourself. I laughed my way through the final two hours by making up Weird Al style verses to substitute for the piteous wailing and moaning and brow beating and self-flagellation that makes up theBy far the funniest musical I've ever seen. Never mind that it isn't supposed to be funny. If you read this review and then go see Les Miserables anyway, you better know how to entertain yourself. I laughed my way through the final two hours by making up Weird Al style verses to substitute for the piteous wailing and moaning and brow beating and self-flagellation that makes up the actual verses. Even my 66 year-old mother was making wisecracks by the end of it. Her final verdict was the movie needed less singing and more fighting. Sadly Les Miserables also lacks a guillotine, so you will have to hear the entire cast of characters go on and on in sobbing song until you long for a short, unmusical death scene. Preferably a scene involving the entire cast. Expand
  90. Jan 28, 2013
    10
    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?) singingIf 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
  91. Dec 28, 2012
    6
    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 recordA 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
  92. Apr 13, 2013
    9
    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.
  93. Jan 22, 2015
    6
    The stage show is far, far superior. That goes without saying. I don’t ever want to hear Russell Crowe sing again......Instead of making a filmic version of the theatre production, it’s like they’ve tried to convey what a theatre production would be if it was a film. So everything is sort of pantomime. Nothing is real looking, it’s all staged and theatrically lit which doesn’t work as aThe stage show is far, far superior. That goes without saying. I don’t ever want to hear Russell Crowe sing again......Instead of making a filmic version of the theatre production, it’s like they’ve tried to convey what a theatre production would be if it was a film. So everything is sort of pantomime. Nothing is real looking, it’s all staged and theatrically lit which doesn’t work as a feature film.......They have used big names to fill out most of the cast, many of whom just don’t do a good enough job. That said I was completely enamoured by the original cast so I’m utterly biased..........Redeeming factors: easyish to follow. Attractive people singing good songs to a fairly decent standard. Amid all the silly things it’s a great story.

    Full review available at the ponderflix site on wordpress.
    Expand
  94. Jan 5, 2013
    4
    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 herI 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
  95. Jan 7, 2013
    8
    "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.
  96. Jan 4, 2013
    8
    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.
  97. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    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 andI 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
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 41
  2. Negative: 2 out of 41
  1. Reviewed by: Helen O'Hara
    Jan 7, 2013
    80
    Occasionally, like its characters, ragged around the edges, this nevertheless rings with all the emotion and power of the source and provides a new model for the movie musical.
  2. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Jan 1, 2013
    50
    We're all familiar with the experience of seeing movies that cram ideas and themes down our throats. Les Misérables may represent the first movie to do so while also cramming us down the throats of its actors.
  3. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Dec 31, 2012
    50
    It's a relief to see Sacha Baron Cohen, in the role of a seamy innkeeper, bid goodbye to Cosette with the wistful words "Farewell, Courgette." One burst of farce, however, is not enough to redress the basic, inflationary bombast that defines Les Misérables. Fans of the original production, no doubt, will eat the movie up, and good luck to them. I screamed a scream as time went by.