Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 2012
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 738 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
544
Mixed:
123
Negative:
71
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
TheKingJackDec 25, 2012
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 asAbsolutely 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
19 of 25 users found this helpful196
All this user's reviews
8
GreatMartinDec 25, 2012
Having seen the musical version of
16 of 26 users found this helpful1610
All this user's reviews
10
SDMOVIEGOERJan 6, 2013
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!
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
eldinalaaDec 30, 2012
Our plan was to see "Lincoln" but we reluctantly ended up with "Les Miserables" because of a time shift. What a pleasant surprise this was ! ... The movie was incredibly incredible to say the least. I have not seen such a well put togetherOur plan was to see "Lincoln" but we reluctantly ended up with "Les Miserables" because of a time shift. What a pleasant surprise this was ! ... The movie was incredibly incredible to say the least. I have not seen such a well put together movie from all its aspects for the longest time and I would indeed considered it a classic for the ages. The story and the picture glued me to my seat and connected me emotionally at all times. It is the sort of movie that you live in and somehow you do not want it to end because it is appealing to all your senses. I know already that I would acquire this movie for my home collection as soon as this is possible and will be visiting it frequently knowing that it will only get better with time. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
RockXLightJan 4, 2013
I would wholeheartedly recommend this movie to not only anyone who likes musicals, but afficionados of cinema itself. Simply breathtaking from start to finish.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
PoundedChickenJan 6, 2013
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 wouldBeautiful 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
nickgreene11Dec 28, 2012
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: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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
poetreviewerDec 29, 2012
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 bePeople 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
AnoriDec 28, 2012
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 intoMy 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
SwatiOct 31, 2013
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 JackmanThe 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
KennyMeetsMetaCDec 28, 2012
Les Miserables - An adapted musical drama of Victor Hugo's novel, Les Miserables.

Casting [4/4] Excellently cast, specifically Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Russell Crowe. Every actor was able
Les Miserables - An adapted musical drama of Victor Hugo's novel, Les Miserables.

Casting [4/4]
Excellently cast, specifically Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Russell Crowe. Every actor was able to work effectively as a group, and the Hugh Jackman/Russell Crowe conflict was superb.
Acting [14/16]
Great performances all around, especially from Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman. Jackman and Hathaway should both expect nominations in their respective categories. Then again, acting in a musical is difficult to judge, and despite many highlight performances, talent was occasionally wasted in lazy scenes.
Costume/Make-Up [7/8]
Visually appealing robes help create a realistic scene and often contribute to the character development (fr example, Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter's ridiculous outfits reflected their thieving lifestyles)
Visual Effects [6/8]
Grandiose and majestic, but often too exaggerated. The visual effects sometimes clouded the appropriate representation of the scene (although more frequently than not they aided in delivering the "pow" of the scene)
Setting [11/12]
Every scene was wonderful and had the true vibe of post-revolution urban France. Rich colors and vibrant hues maintained the turmoil or peace of each moment almost flawlessly. There were rate scenes, though, where the setting was right, but too blasé for the eye to handle.
Script [11/12]
Each musical number was unmistakably genius in the lyrics (adapted from previous theatrical performances, like that on broadway). The messages were unmarred by useless fillers, although some lines were difficult to understand (but fun to listen to).
Soundtrack [12/12]
Beautiful and unobtrusive, letting the vocals be heard clearly and the action scenes be enjoyed wholly. A superb job, indeed.
Storyline [10/12]
Sweet and heartfelt (sometimes tearful), but when you least expect it to, it'll trudge and march slowly (like the marching bands in parades that bore you, but get you excited for a much more fulfilling event in the near future). Nevertheless, the story was complete and understandable.
Direction [14/16]
You'd expect more from Hooper (after The King's Speech), but the way he addressed this dramatic tragedy is in no way shameful. He successfully incorporated the talents of each actor, the action and intensity of the revolution, and the personalities of the characters cleanly and neatly, all in the fun-to-view format of a musical.
Additional [-2]
2 hours and 40 minutes was simply too long for this film. Hooper should've shaved off at least 20 minutes from the film, especially in the tiresome revolutionary scenes.
Final score - 87 [Must-See!]
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
NormandJan 7, 2013
I thoroughly enjoyed this musical and by time forgot it was a musical. It was successfully captivating because of its natural believable characters. Rather than the professional repetitive opera rendition, it was more than refreshing toI thoroughly enjoyed this musical and by time forgot it was a musical. It was successfully captivating because of its natural believable characters. Rather than the professional repetitive opera rendition, it was more than refreshing to experience real acting with a tangible connection. I rarely applaud after a performance, but I couldn't refrain after this performance. Efficiently carried through and excellence on all accounts: costumes, sets, casting & direction. Perfect and exuberant. A unique movie-musical incomparible to any computerized, phoney, spectacles, we are accustomed to viewing. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
LiretteRatingsMar 24, 2013
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
DBPirate1129Mar 3, 2015
I really did not expect to enjoy this movie but well, it turned out I did! I don't really understand how people dislike Russell Crowe's performance but I thought it was great (then again, I don't know much about singing). All the songs wereI really did not expect to enjoy this movie but well, it turned out I did! I don't really understand how people dislike Russell Crowe's performance but I thought it was great (then again, I don't know much about singing). All the songs were memorable, especially One Day More. I recommend for anyone who likes musicals or not! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
Cherry88Oct 21, 2015
The film "Les Misérables", a modern screen version of the historical novel by Victor Hugo, is worthily ranked among good films in my personal collection. After watching the trailer to this film I was full filled of expectations and went toThe film "Les Misérables", a modern screen version of the historical novel by Victor Hugo, is worthily ranked among good films in my personal collection. After watching the trailer to this film I was full filled of expectations and went to the cinema. And the film didn't disappoint me.
It's a great work. It is complete from the first minute to the last one. Nevertheless the film lasts about two hours and a half, it doesn't seem to be overextended. I was watching it in one breath, like enchanted. For me everything was perfect in this film. But I am going to say about everything step by step.
First, it is significant to mark the work of the director. Bright and colorful scenes of Paris in 19 century are worthy of praise. The environment is truly conveyed. Close-ups are amazing. They show the genuine emotions. Second, it is the acting technique. The actors did their best. They lived their characters' lives on the screen. They have proved that the star-studded cast is not only famous names but consummate professionals!
Third, the film shows startling originality. It was a bold experience to make a musical but it was a success. The lack of dialogues does not prevent viewers from understanding the deep message of the film. Music and songs are very powerful and catchy so that you can't get them out of your head. They grab your attention, maintain your interest and keep you in suspense till the very end. Live singing is so sincere. It makes everything more realistic. You feel actors' emotions and try to go through all peripeteias together with them.
To sum up, "Les Misérables" left a lasting impression. But I have to confess the film is not for mass audience. However in my opinion it's only one more advantage of this film.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
GreenZombieDec 26, 2012
I fell in love with Les Miserables as a book first in high school, followed shortly by the love of the movie with Liam Neeson, and finally the musical. I cannot sing for the life of me, but I auditioned just to be in the background for theI fell in love with Les Miserables as a book first in high school, followed shortly by the love of the movie with Liam Neeson, and finally the musical. I cannot sing for the life of me, but I auditioned just to be in the background for the school production we were putting on. I have watched the 25th anniversary concert a million times. Finally, from the time they announced there would be a movie, I have been obsessively following every announcement from casting, to trailers, to featurettes. To say that I am a die hard fan would be certainly putting it lightly. I finally saw this movie yesterday and I have to say that I am impressed. Some songs were out of order, and pieces of songs were missing, but I felt that it made sense to the storyline. Redmayne's performance of "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" was brilliant and touching, Hathaway's Performance in "I Dreamed a Dream" had me in tears, Samantha Barks was just stunning and I hope this starts a long movie career for her, and finally Hugh Jackman did an amazing job. Crowe and Seyfriend both did adequate jobs to play their characters, but both paled in comparison with the others when it comes to singing alone. I feel that Crowe is an amazing actor, and he pulled of Javert's emotional side very well. He did a great job singing the part, but his real contribution as Javert was just how amazing he is as an actor. Most people portray the cruel side of Javert, but have a hard time showing the conflict inside him. Crowe did fantastic! The decision in the movie to have Javert leave his badge on Gavroche, was so good, especially when showing the emotional conflict that Javert is facing. Hooper did a great job. This is now my favorite movie and I cannot wait to see it again! Expand
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
10
iamacriticDec 26, 2012
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 liveI 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. Expand
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
10
phillytomDec 25, 2012
Wonderful. Just saw the show with my wife. She wanted to stand up at various junctures of the movie and clap. We saw the broadway show at least 6 times and believe that the movie did the show justice. It is the rare movie that people weWonderful. Just saw the show with my wife. She wanted to stand up at various junctures of the movie and clap. We saw the broadway show at least 6 times and believe that the movie did the show justice. It is the rare movie that people we see it several times. Expand
9 of 11 users found this helpful92
All this user's reviews
8
huffnat890Dec 25, 2012
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 thatI 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
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
9
MichaelDNDec 25, 2012
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 musicalAs 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
11 of 14 users found this helpful113
All this user's reviews
10
KingerSaysDec 25, 2012
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 personalAlso 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
7 of 9 users found this helpful72
All this user's reviews
10
MadDadDec 26, 2012
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.
9 of 12 users found this helpful93
All this user's reviews
10
dgaillarDec 25, 2012
While not a perfect film, it was everything a Les Miserables fan could have asked for and more. The camera work was both intimate and sweeping, the art direction was stunning, and the performances really brought the music to life. While someWhile not a perfect film, it was everything a Les Miserables fan could have asked for and more. The camera work was both intimate and sweeping, the art direction was stunning, and the performances really brought the music to life. While some of the singing left a bit to be desired (Russell Crowe's voice, while good, is not meant for musicals) the performances brought emotion and pathos to the music that the musical alone could not. Not in the least bit subtle, this adaptation expands upon the musical, adding missing information from the novel into the movie to tie the storyline together in a masterful way that makes the overarching themes of faith and redemption even more meaningful. A must see. Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
8
m_eldersJan 3, 2013
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 (severalBe 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
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
PreachDec 26, 2012
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 itThis 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
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
7
OroiaelDec 26, 2012
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 numbersThis 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
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
9
lonamoDec 26, 2012
The source material and many individual performances saved the movie. The close-ups wouldn't have been a problem, if they had EVER done a wide shot during the scene. LOVED Sacha Baron-Cohen.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
9
EldaverDec 26, 2012
Forget all the middling reviews, this is a terrific movie. You don't have to be "emotionally susceptible," as The Hollywood Reporter claims, to enjoy this film, but I do suppose you must have the capacity to be stirred by noble themes, greatForget all the middling reviews, this is a terrific movie. You don't have to be "emotionally susceptible," as The Hollywood Reporter claims, to enjoy this film, but I do suppose you must have the capacity to be stirred by noble themes, great acting, and, of course, powerful music. Go see it. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
defendrojusticeDec 26, 2012
I am not sure why others are giving this bad reviews. The cast choice was amazing, and the singers were amazing. I am someone who lives and breaths music. These were top notch singers. My only complaint goes with Russell Crowe as Javert. It'sI am not sure why others are giving this bad reviews. The cast choice was amazing, and the singers were amazing. I am someone who lives and breaths music. These were top notch singers. My only complaint goes with Russell Crowe as Javert. It's not that he can't sing, I just think his style of voice wasn't as suited and didn't match up for this musical as well as the other stars of this musical. Overall, a very touching and uplifting movie. I would recommend it for anyone. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
PreciselyJan 1, 2013
There has been a great deal of division amongst reviewers of Les Miserables. Quite honestly, the people with the most vocal and negative opinions are the people who don't really have any understanding of what they're talking about. TheThere has been a great deal of division amongst reviewers of Les Miserables. Quite honestly, the people with the most vocal and negative opinions are the people who don't really have any understanding of what they're talking about. The majority of critiques are from people who walked into the movie expecting and wishing it to fail. Naturally, when you want something to be bad, it will be. To you. Objectively, you will still be wrong and look like an idiot, but you can be wrong if you want to. That said, I really do not see how this movie could possibly improve. The vision for this movie was simply executed as exact as the project was planned. The cinematography was excellent, as expected. People complained that it was in peoples faces too much. That, to me, is just a childish complaint that isn't even worth paying attention to. There are just as much long distance shots as there are close-ups (I specifically looked for this). People are just giving unnecessary emphasis on the close-ups. It's fine, people. Get over it. Now, on to the concept. One thing must first be said. This is first and foremost a "movie." NOT a musical. The musical aspect comes second. This means the cast's acting must be judged at a higher priority than singing ability. Secondly, this is not a normal musical. Characters are not just singing songs, they are "acting" them. I can't tell you how many reviews I've seen claiming all kinds of "flat" notes that issued forth. Nonsense. Not only is that ridiculous in light of the refinement this project had before the final optimization of every single song, but it is a ridiculous claim in light of the project itself. Like I said, they are not simply singing the songs. They are singing some parts of the song, and speaking/yelling/crying other parts of the song. That is to be expected. However, some more ignorant people are overlooking this fact and seeing those parts of songs as "flat" notes.

Now, the cast. I'm sure nobody would disagree with me that the most controversial selection for this movie is Russell Crowe. It would be avoiding the elephant in the room to avoid talking about him. People are still to this day trashing Crowe's performance, some saying he ruined the movie. That's like getting a paper-cut and saying you're going to die. These people are so dramatic. Crowe's performance was more than excellent. There is no better Javert than Crowe, I'm sorry. Some people will say "...But his singing!..." -was great. Crowe was never flat, and his acting was excellent. If you know anything about Hugo's description of Javert from the actual book, you'll know that Victor Hugo spends the majority of the time describing in great detail the physical appearance of Javert, and the atmosphere/presence he gives off. THAT is most important, according to the "author" of this entire story. I'm sorry, that is more important than anything else. For example, Javert is described to look like a wolf and have an extremely intimidating presence. Crowe is biologically suited for this role. Someone like Norm Lewis (Javert, 25th Anniversary) may be considered better than Crowe vocally in terms of Opera, Lewis is far from intimidating. Also, you don't expect a character like Javert to have some clean, crisp voice. You expect what you get from Crowe. A rugged and rough voice. There is just no comparison. Crowe fits the uniform better than anybody. Nina Gold (Casting Director) knew what she was doing. Ironically, all this fuss about Crowe shows his performance was not forgettable. I hear not a single person talking about Amanda Seyfried's performance, because it was probably the most forgettable of the entire cast. Not to say she did a bad job (she didn't), she was just boring. One thing I find funny is that you can always tell the childish critic by one simple feature. Their review after the movie is identical to their review before the movie. They walk into a movie with bias and preconceived notions, and this effects their entire opinion of the movie before they even see it. It's a shame. If you're going to see this movie, understand first what you are going to see. If you understand that and go with an open mind (not expecting this to be just a parrot of the 10th or 25th anniversary), you will love this movie.
Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews