User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 633 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 67 out of 633

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. 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.
  2. 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 to be believable, but it is obvious that by every cry and every drop she comes closer to the Oscar. Expand
  3. Mar 25, 2014
    9
    When I first saw previews of Les Miserables, and realized that it was a musical, I had no desire whatsoever to see it. On a whim, I watched the movie with no positive intentions, and I can say that by the end my mind was blown. The story line, actors, scenery: everything was beautiful. As a former skeptic, my "judging a book by a cover" was proved entirely wrong. The music and acting goes straight for the heart and will leave you in tears with the heart wrenching ending. The only way I can describe this movie without babbling all day would be to call it pure genius. Its an absolutely stunning film. Expand
  4. 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.
  5. 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's strangely hard to get emotionally invested until towards the end. I can't deny that I didn't enjoy it though. Expand
  6. Jan 27, 2014
    9
    Overall reaction:
    WOW. I was absolutely blown away. I cried and I laughed-basically showed more emotion then in real life. A must see. Anne Hathaway has a beautiful voice and gave such a heart-grabbing performance. Eddie and Amanda had such an amazing chemistry, I thought is was real and not acting. Watch it. It won Oscars for a reason.
    Bad side:
    Russel Crowe couldn't sing to save his
    life, but he did a splendid job acting and portraying a man at war with himself. Expand
  7. 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.
  8. 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'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
  9. Nov 17, 2013
    5
    Was all the singing really nesessary? No, with the budget that the director had, he should have made a proper epic. All the singing actually destracts from the story. As for the characters, this film would be falling apart if it were not for Crowe. Just a matter of personal opinion.
  10. 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 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. Expand
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Sep 4, 2013
    3
    the story is great, the picture is so good but I did not like the musical theme which the movie was based on! so I couldn't complete it until the end!
  15. 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.
  16. 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, but seriously get some lessons. Expand
  17. Aug 22, 2013
    2
    Well I haven't laughed that much for ages! Lots of good actors making fools of themselves. It's amazing that they all took on the project! Can't be enough scripts around I guess. Loved the Liam Neeson version, much much more entertaining.
  18. Aug 16, 2013
    5
    Didn't work for me. I preferred the 1998 distribution with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. Having said that, I did like "some" parts but I was mostly annoyed by the singing. Too much of it.
  19. Aug 10, 2013
    8
    It was a very interesting movie. Never having read the book or play, it will be an unbiased review. I enjoyed this movie. The directing of the movie was great, acting even better, and the music was incredible. The singing itself, well, was hard at times. Between sobs and lots of people singing at once it was sort of hard to follow. Not too hard that I didn't understand it. It had romance with a runaway mixed together which what made the movie good. I will probably watch it again to be able to get the singing parts again. The characters were likable and it was humorous at times. It was a well of movie. Expand
  20. Aug 10, 2013
    8
    Deep and strong theme. Unforgettable characters. Superb acting. Gorgeous photography.

    The singing is a bit tiring sometimes, and renders the film slow at moments. Also, the fight scene at the barricades is awkward and not very well though out.

    But other than that, loved it.
  21. Jul 21, 2013
    10
    For those of you who haven't seen the stage version of this musical I wish to clarify something. EVERY LINE is supposed to be sung. This movie does justice to the longest running stage musical. The Oscars were deserved. The only qualm I have with this musical is that Samantha Barks deserved an Oscar Nomination for her role and Hugh Jackman deserved the Oscar due to a much better portrayal of Jean Valjean than Daniel Day Lewis in this portrayal of Lincoln. Expand
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Jun 15, 2013
    10
    Flawless LIVE acting and even singing. Each cast member proved worthy of their parts. I believe this movie deserves a much better rating considering all of the effort put into this movie. Even the barricade was real! Regardless, this is the first time they ever turned a musical into a movie and I think they exceeded their standards. This movie is a masterpeice, truly outstanding work. This movie got me crying so much, it's like they put their heart and soul into this production. I really hope they continue to do this to other musicals as well. Expand
  25. 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.
  26. Jun 9, 2013
    8
    Les Miserables is one of the best musicals that I have ever seen. It is based on true story. The songs are very good, for example I like Javert. I really recommend this movie..
  27. 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.
  28. 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-
  29. May 28, 2013
    9
    I am not a "musical" person by any stretch of the imagination, but when my friend pleaded with me to go see it with her, of course I did, that's what friends do. I had heard that the live musical version was good, so I thought if anything it wouldn't kill me in the end, and all I can say is WOW, what an amazing movie. I never thought that I could "suffer" through a few minutes of a musical, much less fall in love with the entire 2+ hours of this movie. I have not only seen it in theaters, but I have seen it on an 8.5 hour flight to Russia, twice and have it downloaded on my iPad to watch again whenever I feel like it. The story, the message and the delivery of this was spot on. I couldn't care less that it might not be professionals singing as many critics seem to care about, but that is what makes this so much better. You feel as though you can feel their pain and emotions because they aren't professional singers, but rather letting their own personal emotions guide them. Of course there are always parts that I can criticize but won't in this review, all in all, it is a MUST SEE even if you don't enjoy musicals you might just fall in love as much as I did. Expand
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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
    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
  33. May 16, 2013
    5
    Looking at this movie entirely from the single perspective of itself, instead of comparing it to its musical counterpart (To which i hear is brilliant). It is a good musical, with a cast to which any film would happily boast, with some outstanding performances from a plethora actors whom most would never relate to a musical, yet in some instances it is clear singing isn't their strong point.

    The over use of singing is also ironically its downfall, the subtext is entirely removed with little to no speaking dialogue, instead a strange blend in certain scenes of song talk instead of some of the more apparent staged musical numbers. The rather odd over use of themed characters moments gives the French backdrop a strange feel, to how it feels more like "Oliver" at points.

    As the film goes on (Mostly near to the start of the third act) i felt myself more distracted by patchy cinematography and began to be bored, not say the final stand of the revolutionaries was not interesting, its just how long takes and little change can begin to drag. It was heavily clear throughout that Tom Hooper was more focused upon during the Musical moments, the singers rather than these amazing sets.

    to summarise, the film deserves praise for showing that Musicals can have a serious tone instead of the likes of "Hairspray" and the actors within in it deserve meritorious praise, yet it fails due to a long running time and lack of change, with little use of the large budget sets.
    Expand
  34. May 14, 2013
    10
    Great movie with awesome songs. It is the best musical of all time. It is filled with emotions that is very amusing. The ending almost made me want to cry. It is the best
  35. 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 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
  36. May 8, 2013
    8
    The only reason I do not give Les Miserables a 9 or a 10 is because I hate Musicals. The story was gripping, the cast phenomenal, the character development was excellent. It was an emotional film that made me shed a tear more than once.
  37. Apr 29, 2013
    10
    People seem to be confusing their subjective taste in movies to an objective appraisal of the movie if a movie is not to your taste, it does not make it a bad movie, and you shouldn't base your rating on whether you liked it or not. People making ratings based on their taste are making the movie rating here unreliable.

    The people who voted 0 or 1, I'm talking to you. How can you not
    give credit to the amount of details that have been put into the movie? How can you not give credit to the performances put forward by these actors and actresses acting and singing simultaneously is not easy, especially when it is done live. Those of you complaining about how the actors cannot sing, and they should have hired professional singers. let me ask you, would you rather watch professional singers who can sing but who can't act in a movie? That would have been worse. This is a movie, not a stage opera. Apples to oranges.

    There are many other examples but my point is that the movie is not getting credit where credit is due, because people are throwing ratings out based on their taste, and not based on how the movie actually is.
    Expand
  38. Apr 29, 2013
    7
    I had never seen the musical before I watched this film, and I'm confident enough to say that this was a good introduction to the multitude of Les Miserables's. The musical production in the film is amazing with live performances from Hugh Jackman and Academy Award Winner for Best Supporting Actress Anne Hathaway (who was only in the film for 20 minutes). Unfortunately though, there are a few drawbacks. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen play the caretakers of Cosette. In other words, THEY PLAY THE EXACT SAME CHARACTERS FROM SWEENEY TODD. Apparently, the director just resorted to whoever played two goofballs in the nineteenth century in a movie: THESE TWO. It was annoying seeing that they were only in the movie to play the exact same parts as in Sweeney Todd. It took me out of the movie and it always reminded me that these two are from an entirely different film. Other than a few camera issues, such as the infamous bobbing, the film is marvelous and rich with musical entertainment. Expand
  39. Apr 21, 2013
    10
    A beautiful, touching film with a wide and recognizable cast. Although the singing is slightly off at times, the atmosphere will sweep any doubts away.
  40. 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.
  41. 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, 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
  42. Apr 13, 2013
    8
    Les Misérables directed by Tom Hooper, a great movie, good interpreters, big emotions, good songs, very interesting movie, There are two impressive moments in which two actresses make a big test, beautiful scenery and beautiful picture, in short, I recommend the film, a lot of emotions this film.
  43. 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.
  44. Apr 4, 2013
    10
    I'm going to make this short and say les miserable is the best movie I've seen seen all of 2012 to me a definite 10 out of 10 definitely see this movie you wont regret it.
  45. 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 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
  46. 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
  47. 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? 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
  48. Mar 26, 2013
    8
    Though I am not a fan of musicals, and though it took me a good 15 minutes into the film to adjust to the constant musical numbers, I became immersed into quite a theatrical experience I haven't felt in a long time (with an amazing line of acting from talented actors to support it). This movie will perhaps open my eyes and force me to reconsider the genre of musicals.
  49. Mar 26, 2013
    10
    It's a great movie one of the best of the year as it has all actors, music, production, love, everything I loved it and it was one of my favorites to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
  50. Mar 25, 2013
    8
    It's the one of the deepest movies I've seen. Although to speak by singing is a little bit frustrating I enjoyed it. The screenplay is incredibly nice, and the film has a special atmosphere, you must see it, must enjoy :D
  51. 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 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.
    Collapse
  52. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    I saw the musical version of Les Miserables, it was very good and I enjoyed this movie. It is very long, almost three whole hours, I loved it and I think everyone will.
  53. Mar 23, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm not typically one for writing reviews but I decided after suffering through this movie that I needed the catharsis of doing one. I'll begin by saying that I am a fan of the musical. I saw it with a touring group when they came through and I own the "Dream Cast" concert version. I believe Les Mis has some of the most beautiful music and themes I've ever seen in a musical, albeit presented through a loosely woven story. Unfortunately this latest version, while attempting to stay closer to the musical production, didn't seem to be assembled with the same quality. The most distracting thing to me was that many of the cast were weak singers. They were unable to reach their notes without straining or giving up before hitting them. Some of Javert's music was even rearranged to accommodate Mr. Crowe. I appreciate the actors' ability to break down emotionally when needed but the voices were not as strong as their performance and many times took away from the impact that a song could have had. Mr. Crowe and Mr. Jackman's solos were often muffled or nasal respectively. I cringed before Valjean began his "God on high" at the barricade uncomfortably fearing what was about to come. And Javert's Stars solo, which would normally be belted out with a strong baritone fell flat.

    The cinematography was done in an odd manner. There were a lot of artistic angles presented. Some were interesting, like the sweep over the cross into the city toward the beginning. Others were very distracting like the butterfly on the gate during Cosette's duet with Marius in the garden. Valjean was annoyingly upstaged by a large-eyed banner during his solo at the barricade. The camera seemed handheld much of the time as well.

    I greatly appreciated the cut during Fantine's first sexual encounter as a prostitute I was watching this with my family and questioned if I needed to do some editing of my own. Yet we were all taken aback at the decision to follow Javert all the way down to his bone crunching end in the Seine. I believe this would have been better had it been left to the imagination. It was actually distracting when done in such a blatant manner.

    All in all I appreciated the sets and some of the singing as well as most of the art. I am glad someone made an attempt to bring the musical to video. Sadly, I think I would have enjoyed it more had they just filmed the actual stage play (like the 2011 Royal Albert Hall Phantom of the Opera). I decided to rate this a "0" to even out the unrealistically positive reviews. This should really be around a 6 in my book. Thanks for reading if you got through this!
    Expand
  54. 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.
  55. 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 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
  56. Mar 19, 2013
    10
    In my opinion, this is an excellent movie. Extremely touching form it's begining, altough i found really hard to watch musicals, this is a different one, based on a classic novel, tells a great story. I must said i didn't see the show, only the movie, so I based my critic only as a film addict, and not a les mis expert. The cast did a an excellent job. Hugh Jackman espectacular, Anne Hathaway outstanding, great job of Amanda Seyfried and and Russell Crowe. Also reallly impressive Samantha Barks on her debut. Expand
  57. Mar 16, 2013
    10
    That's the best musical ever with the role of Anne Hathaway portraying Fantine being one of the best roles in 2012 movies. Hugh Jackman has a nice voice.
  58. 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
  59. Feb 27, 2013
    4
    I do love musicals. I am a big fan of Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Ginger Rodgers, and Cyd Charrise, The greatest musical has to be either Fiddler on the roof or Singin in the Rain. The problems with Les Miserable stem from the actual Broadway musical itself. The story "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo is a chronicle of french life in the french revolution era. The purpose of the story was to show the hardships and exploitation of the French people in the most important eras in French history. To create a musical based on these hardships would trivialize and take away Hugo's masterpiece. The other problem is the language.Why create a musical that is in predominately in English (yes, there are french translations) that totally disrupts and destroys the cultural context of what the story is suppose to be about? When considering the 2012 version, an adaption of a huge Broadway musical with a colossal amount of fans waiting to see it makes it a for sure money maker.Yet, it does not allow an unacquainted audience to embrace the story or music. The story is redundant and the music, while I admit is great, really gets boring after the first 20 minutes of the cast screeching it in my face and really forcing me to like it. I felt the film had great points in photography and costuming, the film felt long and tiring. The pace of the film was like a roller coaster ride that after the 15th rendition of the same three songs, I gave up. The lack of professional singers (i.e. Russell Crowe and High Jackman) really made me doubt their musical prowess and I just hoped they were able to hit the really high notes. Th final problem is the song dialogue. I felt it was gimmicky and unnecessary. The great musicals of "Singin in the Rain" and "Fiddler on the Roof" used dialogue to move the stories forward and make the songs more enjoyable. "Les Mis" oversang their songs that could have potentially be a great musical. Yet, it disappointed this musical lover! Expand
  60. Feb 25, 2013
    10
    such a touching movie. i cried from halfway all the way to the end. Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried work really well together and i am totally hooked on the songs from les mis. I think this movie deserves loads of awards and amanda and eddie should date (in my opinion)
  61. Feb 23, 2013
    8
    Hugh Jackman you deserve an Oscar for your performance "All Cast take a bow superb performances" Russell Crowe you where great as always singing was in character loved your portrayal
  62. Feb 23, 2013
    5
    The story is great, but I'm judging it as a musical and I will have to give it a 5/10. In general I found the songs ridiculous and weird, yes there were good ones such as the Susan Boyle song or the song about revolution, but the rest was plain songs filled with obvious rhymes and bad singers. I can't compare this movie to musicals such as Singing in The Rain, or The Phantom of Opera.
  63. 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 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
  64. Feb 19, 2013
    10
    Les Miserables is an amazing musical now created into an on screen film. The songs are sung beautifully and passionately, and all actors and actresses sing gloriously, including Amanda Seyfried, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Samantha Banks and Eddie Redmayne. I loved this film even more than the musical. Very moving and powerful and up there with a lot of the top films. Not surprised at all that this film has already won tonnes of awards and now nominated for several Oscars, including best supporting actress, best production design, best costume design, make up, original song and sound mixing!! Expand
  65. Feb 16, 2013
    10
    A wonderful tribute to the 1982 French musical. And yes, time has passed since the 1980s and its torrents of emotion and tears but the initial concept is here, honored and magnified. Surely, one the best musical on screen after Moulin Rouge.
  66. Feb 14, 2013
    8
    I never read the book (or see the musical) but most of the story is part of general knowledge in France, everybody know Jean Valjean and the candlestick, the Tavernier or the song of Gavroche for example.
    The film is great, really. The visual is amazing with several memorable shot, musics are splendid and most of the actors fits fully in their character (Russel Crow is incredible).
    But
    the "98% song" of the movie is probably too much. I like musicals but song lose their impact when characters were already singing just before and continue just after. And few times it sounds quite ridiculous to heard someone sing just for 3 words. Plus I'm not sure that the story need a comic part with characters originally awful. Finally some turning point of the story don't have epic music like what could have been expected.
    PS: the fact that all the writing and few single words are in French is a nice touch (necessary but nice)
    Expand
  67. Feb 13, 2013
    10
    I HATE MUSICALS. But...this movie was fantastic. Thank God the singing was real and not recorded and then lip synched to the action. One of the best movies I have ever seen. High Jackman should get an Oscar for this movie!!! Totally NOT my type of movie at all but even I could see its brilliance and I really enjoyed it. The entire audience applauded at the end as if there were live performers. Expand
  68. Feb 13, 2013
    7
    An amazing film! Emotionally draining but for good reason, although do not watch if you are tired. I have never seen the stage production but would definitely like to after watching the film. Anne Hathaway's performance as Fontine is tear jerking and amazing, it has such an impact on the whole film especially as she only has 15 minutes of screen time in a 3 hour film. Also brilliant performances from Eddie Redmayne and Hugh jackman. The singing is all recorded live apart from the first scene because of the water hazard, and this allows you to really connect with the emotions of the songs and enjoy the rawness of the voices with every crackle in the actors voices only helps to tell to tell their character's story. Expand
  69. Feb 12, 2013
    10
    Les Miserables is cinematic gold. It is the movie that has confirmed the renaissance in movie making. A healthy story line that is complemented by strong relationships between the characters is captivating from start to finish. Hugh Jackmans performance as Jean Valjean is exceptional and leaving me for one captivated along with many other performances. Anne Hathaway had me casting her as Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady as I just admired her performance a performance to me that Hollywood has longed for. Even Russell Crowe had you warming to him in the end and surprised me in the way he gave such a Steller performance. Les Miserables is an epic in all sense of the word. For such a movie to be vying for attention with the likes of Argo, Django Unchained, Lincoln etc is a compliment in itself and the choice of using song as the narrative was maybe daring but certainly genius. Could the movie been made any more better. Personally the answer is no and the reason why I give this film such a high score. Expand
  70. Feb 12, 2013
    10
    Fabulous cinematography amazing acting (apart from Russell Crowe whose singing us abysmal) Hugh Jackman shines and Anne Hathaway us simply amazing. I did not expect to enjoy this movie but left the cinema completely in love with it
  71. Feb 10, 2013
    8
    Let me start by saying that over all this was a great movie. It isn't necessarily as perfect as some people say it is. First, Anne Hathaway was incredible in every form of creating herself as Fantine and could connect emotionally winning over every audience truely deserving every award she is nominated for. The reason this doesn't exactly get a ten in my book is because not all of the actors in this movie delivered amazing performances. Amanda Seyfried turned a ten dimensional character into just one and I felt like the guy playing Marius was just static the whole time. Everyone also must remember that Les Miserables is a contemporary opera meaning that basically every word is being sung. Overall, the movie was fantastic and I recommend that everyone should see it. Expand
  72. Feb 10, 2013
    8
    Really brought 19th Century France to life. Having never watched the musical, I'm not able to compare it to that, but it seemed to be pretty good in its own right. Music was great although some of the actors were really straining to sing their parts at times.
  73. Feb 10, 2013
    0
    The whole movie is tedious. The singing was too much and acting was pretentious.
    It's totally the opposite experience while I was watching Moulin Rouge. Moulin Rouge is way much better than Les Miserables.
  74. Feb 8, 2013
    7
    It had been some time since the last time I saw a movie musical. I don't flock to just any. Mamma Mia and Chicago were the last ones I saw. When I heared that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway were doing a movie together and that Tom Hooper who directed The King's Speech was doing it I thought how could it miss? Well Hugh, Anne and newcomer Samantha Barks aside, I had some issues with it. Russell Crowe for instance. He's a really good actor. He's just not plausible in a movie musical. While I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baren Cohens parts and thought Eddie Redmayne was adorable the rest of the film felt overstuffed. Hathaway is the best thing about the movie. Jackman is the second best thing about it. Expand
  75. 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), 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
  76. 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 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
  77. 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 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
  78. 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
    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
  79. Feb 5, 2013
    9
    A beautifully immersive take on a timeless musical. The acting and singing were equally amazing. I was definitely not disappointed with this film and would recommend a watch to anyone.
  80. 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 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
  81. Feb 4, 2013
    4
    My wife and I both cried watching this movie. The problem is we cried for different reasons. She had an emotional attachment to the movie because of her childhood. I cried because this was horrible. Letting the actors sing live and going with that was a big mistake. I have to believe that people voting this good, even the Oscar nominations, are all because you are SUPPOSED to like this rather than anyone actually liking it. Every time someone other than Anne Hathaway sang, you are pulled out of the movie. I have heard better singers at a Karaoke bar. they need to go back and clean up the terrible singing before they release this on DVD. While this isn't the worst movie I have seen this year (Movie 43) this was far more difficult to sit through. Expand
  82. 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 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
  83. 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 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
  84. Jan 31, 2013
    7
    Les Miserables, the new adaptation by Tom Hooper of the classic novel written by Victor Hugo is absolutely touching, emotional and overwhelming. There is nothing to say about the story because is a universal masterpiece, so the stronghold is the performances and the interpretations of the typical songs. The most incredible jobs are the ones of Jackman as Valjean, whose most amazing performance is Suddenly, the only original song in this version of Les Miserables; then we have the surprising Anne Hathaway, who with a heart full interpretation of I Dream a Dream in just one take, can make anyone shiver; also there is Crowe as Javert, who gives an excellent representation of the ambivalence of the character. Other well played characters are Gavroche and the Thenardiers. However the protagonist couple is deficient, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne as Cosette and Marius are not believable at all. Other beautiful songs are Look Down, At the End of the Day, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables and Do You Hear the People Sing? This is a more than acceptable adaptation and Tom Hopper did a fine job in directing, apparently he likes to show an enormous conflict but from the perspective of a single human being trying to change his life, the same as in The Kings Speech. Expand
  85. 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 - 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
  86. Jan 30, 2013
    8
    As a person who isn't a huge fan of musicals, I was surprised by how good the film is. It drew me in with its amazing acting, inspiring music and visuals, and the vocals were truly immense; you could tell that each actor gave it 100% to ensure that they acted throughout their music. A captivating tale featuring an extremely talented cast, especially the rightly acclaimed Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, whose performances drew me to tears on more than one occasion, with goosebumps throughout. A classic musical helmed by a brilliant director, Les Misérables is sure to go home happy on Oscars night. Expand
  87. Jan 28, 2013
    5
    Les Miserables had several talented actors and actresses however it had too many slow parts to it. The movie really made me just want to fall asleep. I literally did fall asleep for about ten or fifteen minutes of it. I was also disappointed that Anne Hathaway was only in such a small portion of the movie. I expected her to have appearances the whole movie and not just mainly in the beginning. Also, the movie was just to long. I could not focus on the movie at all. I did not give it a rating of below a five because the one thing they did good was the graphics and the excellent musical aspects. I would recommend that everyone see's the movie, but wait until it is on DVD so you can start and pause the movie as it seems to drag on and on. Expand
  88. Jan 28, 2013
    9
    This movie is a Rorschach Test for moviegoers. Some people love it, some hate it. I'm in the former camp, and don't understand the vitriolic rants of the latter. Some of the anger that foments from this movie suggests to me that the reviewers might have more issues than the movie.

    Come on. Its a musical. It's light entertainment to cheer you up, lift your spirits. In that regard its a
    wonderful movie.

    Ok, let's evaluate the film on very basic levels: Entertaining=yes, Cast=great, Visually rich=yes, Music=great songs of course. Some users/reviewers actually base their rating/impression of the movie on the camera work ("the camera work was shoddy"). Go see it. Ignore the snotty reviews.
    Expand
  89. Jan 28, 2013
    4
    Rather disappointing considering all the hype...

    IMHO, the worst thing about this movie wasn't any single performance since the acting was generally good and no better or worse than most big-cast movies...rather, it was the direction. When you take a musical with a pretty full plot, it's not easy but the director did not take advantage of the fact that a movie was being made. Compared
    to Chicago, another musical turned movie, the direction and sets in Chicago made you feel believe the singing adapted and suited the plot and not nice versa. Some details, without any spoilers...
    - there were way too many closeups of people's faces and for too long. This is what they do in musicals, i.e., focus on one character at a time. But this is a movie and you can zoom out and show the environment, give the audience a better feel of the surroundings, and create a scene that's not limited to what can fit on a theatre stage. I felt the director lost sight of this as during most songs, all you saw was one face on about 2/3 of the screen, and had no idea what, if anything, was in the background. I think this, above all else, ruined the film
    - I don't think the plot was clear and wasn't laid out very well considering it was about the same length as the show and the show does it soooooo much better
    - Too much focus on crying and not as much on acting
    - Having known the plot in advance and having seen the rebellion before, I didn't think it was clear why there was a revolution at all
    - Some very good performances, such as Jean Valjean, Gavroche, Marius, and to a lesser extent, Fantine
    - Not so good performances included Javert, Cosette (her acting was fine, but she was the wrong voice type for her talent and I felt they just really wanted her to be in the movie), and young Cosette
    - I was indifferent with the innkeeper, his wife, and Eponine. Again, not a lot of acting and too much concentration on getting the notes right (less so for Eponine who was a little better than that)
    - I was impressed and not many will have recognized that the man who played the priest who takes pity on Valjean was none other than Colm Wilkinson, the original Phantom in Toronto, and who has also played Valjean many times on stage. That was a nice touch :)

    1. Russell Crowe has tone but no power and cannot hold any of the long notes...sound like he was yelling. Also, not much acting as he seemed to be trying to concentrate on hitting the notes correctly and his facial expression never changed.

    2. Anne Hathaway can sing but again, like Rusell Crowe, didn't have enough power in her voice. I'm being picky here but she has a number of bad habits in her singing, like taking a breath at times that seemed inappropriate with the melody of the songs

    3. Hugh Jackman was worth watching and I would say he has the best voice in the cast as well as actually acted too.
    Expand
  90. 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 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
  91. 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. 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
  92. 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?) 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
  93. 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 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
  94. Jan 27, 2013
    10
    When I saw it the first time and started crying in empty chairs and empty tables and didn't stop till the end, i have never seen the play versions but i am positive that the emotion in them could not of compared with that of the movie. I nagged my friends to see it for about a month and finally when they wouldn't allow us to see the rated R movie we planned on we went to see it. Before they said things like "that's not my kind of movie" and "i am not going to like it" but after it they gave me a hug and thanked me for nagging because that was the best movie they have ever seen. Me and my friends loved it and so will you! Expand
  95. Jan 27, 2013
    8
    Director: Tom Hooper
    Producer: Cameron Mackintosh
    Actors: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russel Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Helena Botham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen

    If you haven't heard of Les Miserables or "Les Mis" before you are in for a treat. Well kind of. A 3 hour-long musical about the life of Jean Valjean and his adversary Javert may sound daunting for most people
    so if you despise musicals you may not bother going. There is little to no dialogue other than used to fill in a minute gap- I'm not joking. For example Javert tells Valjean to pick up a flag and then once it put down, they start singing again.

    However, Tom Hooper manages to successfully bring the stage musical to the big screen by preserving what makes all stage musicals set above their polished counterparts- live singing. All the sharp notes and glorious imperfections have been preserved on camera and in my opinion, is all the better for it. For a musical that is driven by narrative it wouldn't make sense for a character like Fontine to be at her very bottom in life but still sound like she came from a recording studio. But this comes with its downsides; you may have heard about Russel Crowe- he isn't a great singer- and for many seemed like a odd cast considering he will be singing for the majority of the film. Is it a gamebreaker? No, I quite liked it but in a severly awkward, Dad singing at a bar kind of way. The lead Hugh Jackman acts his heart out but vocally, he struggles with the big notes in songs such as "Bring him Home".
    Carter and Cohen act as much needed comic relief in the film, so don't need to be up to their best vocally and they know it.
    I have to mention Amanda Seyfried. I know she can sing but personally, I hated her voice- so shrill and high and the way she does that vibrato-urgh! But mostly as a whole the singing and acting is solid with a special mention to first-time film actress Samantha Barks who reprises Eponine from the stage version. Wow!
    This film offers something for everyone. It may not be the best version of this musical -go and see the stage version if you can- but it's a bloody good attempt at it.
    Expand
  96. 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 i expect to be seeing them in other movies in the future. Expand
  97. Jan 26, 2013
    5
    I love the story, but found this musical version perplexing. I understand the need for "stars" involvement to drive the box office, but the resulting effect was that while most acting was good, singing ranged from acceptable to downright painful. My prayers that Russell Crowe would just abandon any pretenses of "singing" and speak his part, went unanswered and I don't understand how the director/producers could have allowed this major distraction to go on, since it negated most of the pluses of this production. In the end the only feeling I was left with was despondency for what could have been. Expand
  98. Jan 25, 2013
    8
    A Sweeping, dramatic adaptation of the musical "Les Miserables" based on Victor Hugo's novel. Strong performances and beautiful cinematography make this a really good movie. Despite minor changes to the chronology of the play and small cuts in songs, even die-hard fans will enjoy this. One criticism? It was all at a big level of drama, with no room to breathe. This could be seen as positive to some, but all events and emotions are given the same heartbreaking treatment. Key moments: Eddie Redmayne singing "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables", Hugh Jackman's performance throughout and Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Fantine's downward spiral. Bring tissues. Expand
  99. 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 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
  100. Jan 24, 2013
    10
    Let me start by saying I know very little of the source material and the broadway show. But I felt this movie was just jaw-dropping. Les Mis has so many moments of intensity and passion; characters battling their own inner-turmoil on screen, ultimately rising above it to act with conviction. And I didn't even want to like Les Mis! I was angry that here was another two-and-a-half hour Oscar contender I had to sit through. Les Miserables rises above a pack of VERY worthy 2012 films. 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.