Les Miserables

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

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.

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

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

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

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").

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

Flawless. One of the greatest musical adaptations I have ever seen, and all I can say without spoiling much of the film is that Anne Hathaway better win the Oscar.

I would wholeheartedly recommend this movie to not only anyone who likes musicals, but afficionados of cinema itself. Simply breathtaking from start to finish.

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

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

First of all, let me just emphasize that I am a HUGE fan of musicals so I was very excited for the release of this film. And as I was watching the film I SO wanted to love this film; however, as high as my expectations and anticipation were, my disappointment was equally high. Now, I have to say that I thought the casting was perfect and in that vein, I also thought the acting (and singing! the actors' vocals were fine!) was tremendous. Where I thought the film fell short was in its directing and oh my goodness, in my opinion, the directing was terrible! Bad compositions, bad camera work, bad choreography, bad art direction (well, mostly) and HORRIBLE editing! The film ended up roughly being a series of singing heads and I have to say that really tries even my patience and believe me that is not easy to do! RR… Expand

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

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

I fell in love with Les Miserables the first time I read it. It's story of redemption,faith, and hope has survived for over a century. I was fairly excited for this movie and have to say that I was only a tad disappointed. The one thing that sells this movie is the phenomenal performances from the entire cast. Everybody does a fantastic job and who knew that Russel Crowe could sing? The film is just as depressing as the book is which I'm sure everyone is expecting. If you don't get choked up at least 3 times during this movie you are broken. The scene where Anne Hathaway sings "I Dreamed a Dream" is both heartbreaking and beautiful. I also think that this is the best performance of that song ever. Instead of writing about the things everyone is sure to write about such as Hugh Jackman's career defining performance and the incredible set design I am going to talk about my few complaints because the compliments are too obvious. I really only have two complaints and one is relatively minor. The first is that Hooper doesn't know how to direct action at all. During the few scenes that are heavy on action the camera is often chaotic and at times can possibly lose the viewer. Besides that Hooper did a really good job and I applaud him. My biggest complaint and even though I am a huge Les Mis fan I must address the films length. At 2 and 1/2 hours plus the film drags a bit in certain places. The story is very long I realize, but some things could have been amended or adjusted to just make the movie a little bit shorter. Besides that the movie was excellent and any Les Mis fan deserves to see this wonderful movie. For every complaint I have there are a dozen compliments and the movie is the best cinematic musical since Chicago.… Expand

The film affectingly stumbles over its own grandeur. While many of the actors do a fine and occasionally memorable job, they also seem to be given more freedom to express their roles the way they choose, which can cause serious problems. The structure of the film was shoddily slapped together and the director botched it. Such a shame as his previous work is of note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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..

I am not a musical person and was unfamiliar with the story but went to this on a date - a little too long but amazing cinema photography and music. I almost cried a few times

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

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

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

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

Beautiful production and sets. Standout performance by Anne Hathaway. Not so, Russell Crowe. At time's the singing seems becomes laborious, but with the film running about 45 minutes longer than necessary, that's to be expected. Less would have been more.

Also being a diehard fan of the musical, and now a huge fan of this film, I have to disagree with MichaelDN. I actually found that Russell Crowe was the strongest characterisation of Javert since Philip Quast - even better than my personal favourite, Norm Lewis. Javert isn't a true antagonist - in reality, he's an anti-hero, because while he is the rival of the Jean Valjean, he is simply "doing [his] duty, and nothing more". He's cold, calculating, emotionless and remorseless, which I think Russell captures perfectly. You're not supposed to hate Javert - in my opinion, you should pity him, because his unrelenting attachment to the law and unwillingness, in fact, his inability to be merciful makes him the perfect lawman yet it is also his downfall. Otherwise, I agree with everything else.… Expand

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

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

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

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

The transition from stage to screen isn't perfect, but it is glorious. Jackman, Hathaway, Redmayne, and Barks stand out both in voice and presence. If it suffers at all it is that it feels crowded even with some of the songs shortened. A three hour stage show with a Playbill for exposition has been shrunk to 2:40 to keep within perceived movie limits. You need to know the story. Other than that just let the music wash over you, and if there is any justice hand Jackman and Hathaway their Oscars.… Expand

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent film....I very rarely feel glued to the screen but this film did it for me..I am a fan of Les Mis and have both 10th and 25th anniversary DVDs....this film stands on its own and should not be compared as its a different art form but with the story you love and the songs you love... The music is superb the shots are superb Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are Superb...they should not be compared to tenors like Alfie Boe...singing might not be as powerful but the film and acting and emotion more than makes up for it and then some!....
I would definitely go and see again!… Expand

There are undoubtedly some amazing scenes in there, almost all the feature songs of the original musical have really been captured well considering just how vastly different film really can be from the stage. What I believe let this movie down are the bits in between, while acting was excellent in just about everything the same can't be said for the singing. There were some amazing moments where acting and singing merged together to produce an art that will be almost guaranteed to put a tear in your eye, but they were just glimpses now and then, for the most part the singing lacked the same kind of spirit and intensity that the acting was showing.… Expand

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

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

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

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

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

This is an amazing movie!! The music is wonderful, heart-wrenching, and glorious all at the same time!! The actors are all great, especially with Samantha Barks' heartbreaking performance and her version of "On My Own", but Anne Hathaway steals the show as Fantine. Her version of "I Dreamed A Dream" is absolutely brilliant and devastating as she puts her heart and soul into her performance. She deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress! This is a wonderful film that will make even the coldest people shed tears of sadness and joy!… Expand

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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)

This movie had some amazing stand out performances. However the technique used to capture the actors' singing while was effective at some points was also very problematic. For a full review go here: http://youngthespian42films.blogspot.com/2012/12/les-miserables.html

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.

Having seen the musical version of

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

A masterpiece crumbled into unrecognizable pieces.

The 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

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

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

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

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

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.… Collapse

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

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

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

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

I love this story, it

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 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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Absolutely incredible - easily matches the likes of The Hobbit, Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty as one of the best films this year. Best musical film adaptation since Chicago. Jackman's 'Bring Him Home' is sure to go down in Les Mis history as the best since the likes of Colm Wilkinson; the same can be said for Eddie Redmayne's 'Empty Chairs', which is easily on par with the legendary Michael Ball. Surprisingly, Russell Crowe does very, very well as Javert - he's not a fantastic singer but his vocals are still very good. Stars is within the top five of the film.

EDIT: 'CineTigre' clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Les Miserables did NOT originate as an opera, it was a French musical which was translated into English and presented on the West End in 1985. There is no 'guillotine' because that was A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FRENCH REVOLUTION. The entirety of the main cast, other than Amanda Seyfriend and Russell Crowe, have significant experience when it comes to musical theatre, so they indeed hired singers. He/she is either a Les Mis purist who is far too clingy to the source material or a troll who is simply trying to lower the score, possibly in comparison to that *other* big christmas movie.… Expand

The King

The acting was alright but this movie is a musical. Good actors but no singers. The plot was unoriginal and the movie progressed very slowly. This is a good movie for those people who give good ratings to poor movies but for the rest of us, this movie is one that should be avoided.

http://scriptsmotion.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/les-miserables/
I normally don't even give a musical a chance. The only musical I ever liked, and yes it is a musical as defined by the director, was The Blues Brothers.
Imagine my surprise at how well Les Misérables resonated with me.

My first Les Mis experience was also one of the most moving movies I ever seen. I find it very hard to believe that someone cannot be moved by this; even people who do not enjoy musicals. From the very first "look down" I was sucked into this musical, philosophical, and religious journey. My ONLY issue is that I found Russel Crowe's singing a little flat; but perhaps that lent well to his very spartan like character he must convey (this of course, has absolutely no bearing on his acting, which is sublime as usual)… Expand

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

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

This film is a cinematic masterpiece. What really makes Les Miserables stand out amongst musical films is the bare emotion and reality depicted in the characters, it stays true to the nature of non-stop musical storyline that makes it incomparable to anything else in the genre. The vocals are near-perfect, with the exception of Russell Crowe's incompetent range, which he makes up for with his characterization of a man whose conflicting emotions lead him to his grave. This film stayed so true to the musical on so many levels, and exceeded expectations in terms of delivery, beauty, and pure cinematic mastery. It is overfilled with incredible meaning, timeless music and wonderful characters that are depicted so rawly and truly that it hurts. Les Miserables is a must-see, for die-hard fans and those unfamiliar alike.… Expand

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

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

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

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

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.

Inert. Bloated. A relic of the 1980s that should have been left where it belongs. Needed to be edited down by at least 15 minutes--would not have affected storyline but the pacing would have been much better. A lot of time, energy and money used to produce a very mediocre musical.

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

A beautiful, touching film with a wide and recognizable cast. Although the singing is slightly off at times, the atmosphere will sweep any doubts away.