Les Miserables

9

heyitsmegrif4Dec 30, 2012

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 packingI 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

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

9

scriptsmotionDec 30, 2012

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 athttp://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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

wmichaeldDec 30, 2012

Though the fantastic performances of Hathaway, Barks, Redmayne, and little Huddlestone carries much of this film, the astoundingly sub-par performances of Jackman, Crowe, and Seyfried hide the beauty of Hugo's novel. This rushed performanceThough the fantastic performances of Hathaway, Barks, Redmayne, and little Huddlestone carries much of this film, the astoundingly sub-par performances of Jackman, Crowe, and Seyfried hide the beauty of Hugo's novel. This rushed performance skims through the complexities and beauties of Les Miserables, seemingly to arrive at a "showstopping" number. With shallow depth-of-field throughout, the obvious focal point is the star cast, abandoning the setting which and the characters who make up Les Miserables.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

LynDec 30, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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").… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

10

TVJerryDec 30, 2012

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, oftenIf 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

singndoctorDec 30, 2012

I have never been more disappointed. I've seen the stage and concert versions and while it was great visually, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were PAINFUL to listen to. The power of the drama which comes from good singing was totally lost.I have never been more disappointed. I've seen the stage and concert versions and while it was great visually, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were PAINFUL to listen to. The power of the drama which comes from good singing was totally lost. One needs to hear a really good singer sing Bring Him Home (like Thomas Hampson) to know how truly BAD Jackman was. He just didn't have the voice to carry it. There are plenty of people who could have done better! The best singers were the smaller parts. I feel they ruined what could have been a classic by using such poor singers. I don't care if they had a big name, they can't sing! This is a show that NEEDS good singing. I'm so very disappointed. Could go on and on.… Expand

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

9

rrunboy12Dec 29, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

youngthespian42Dec 29, 2012

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: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… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

LeftyRightyGuy2Dec 29, 2012

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!!!

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

VorchDec 29, 2012

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.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

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

10

FraenLynnDec 29, 2012

I fell in love with this musical as soon as I heard the first lyric. I've seen it on stage countless times, I have bought the 25th anniversary show on DVD, and have every single recording of the show. I was afraid that the movie would letI fell in love with this musical as soon as I heard the first lyric. I've seen it on stage countless times, I have bought the 25th anniversary show on DVD, and have every single recording of the show. I was afraid that the movie would let down the amazing show that is Les Mis. It did not. The scale of this movie is immense. The songs were sung on set, rather than recorded and dubbed later, making the songs 'acted' more than 'sung'. Some may see this as a bad thing. "This is a musical! The focus should be on the music!" I have heard time and time again. But when every song makes you cry because of the emotion infused in each actor, you forget you are watching a musical. You become inside the movie. You just want to say, "Don't worry! Jean Valjean will save you!" The characters become real rather than people just singing to a tune.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

ScosorDec 28, 2012

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 shockinglyIncredible! 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

4 of 19 users found this helpful415

All this user's reviews

5

worleyjamersDec 28, 2012

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

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

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

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

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

0

CorvinDec 28, 2012

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 twoBy 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

3 of 15 users found this helpful312

All this user's reviews

4

AaronMDec 28, 2012

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 matchWhat 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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

Bruce722Dec 28, 2012

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 areAnyone 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

KarthXLRDec 28, 2012

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 ofThe 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

5 of 13 users found this helpful58

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 ableLes 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

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

10

montfortDec 27, 2012

Great themes permeate the beautifully sung and brilliantly acted film version of the long-running stage show. In addition to updating the operatic form, the movie embraces its epic destiny. Instead of playing to the short attention spans ofGreat themes permeate the beautifully sung and brilliantly acted film version of the long-running stage show. In addition to updating the operatic form, the movie embraces its epic destiny. Instead of playing to the short attention spans of those who love the bloated excesses of Batman, or the adolescent charm of the Avengers, Les Miserables has the courage to examine just how hard it is to change anything for the better, and the redemption available for those willing to try. I have seldom been so moved by a motion picture and never by a musical. Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter and the luminous Samantha Barks shine. Cynics and those immune to the terrific score should maybe opt out. Those who can still feel their hearts beating should head to the barricades. Best film of 2012.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

ChairsAndTablesDec 27, 2012

This is an absolute must-see! All the performances were phenomenal, and you'd have to be heartless to not get swept up in all the emotion beautifully conveyed through song. Hathaway, Barks, and Seyfried were all great. Jackman was absolutelyThis is an absolute must-see! All the performances were phenomenal, and you'd have to be heartless to not get swept up in all the emotion beautifully conveyed through song. Hathaway, Barks, and Seyfried were all great. Jackman was absolutely breath-taking. You could just see how devoted he was, and I can honestly say that is an Oscar-worthy performance. Brought me to tears multiple times. Also, Redmayne as Marius was extremely talented as well. Crowe, though the weak-link, was still fantastic. His acting was so convincing, and it really got to me. I can't wait to see this again in theaters as well as buying the DVD when it comes out. Even if you are not a fan of musicals, you will be for this one!… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

RossDec 27, 2012

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,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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

cpsmithDec 27, 2012

Adored every second of this film. Suspend disbelief and you will be swept up into an emotional and cathartic love-fest. It takes the best of theatre and film and delivers a stunning rendition of the popular story. The close-up solos (Adored every second of this film. Suspend disbelief and you will be swept up into an emotional and cathartic love-fest. It takes the best of theatre and film and delivers a stunning rendition of the popular story. The close-up solos ( especially Anne Hathaway's Fontine) are literally breath-taking.
I was skeptical of an operetta style ( all sung) but it worked. This film is a feast for the eyes and soul.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

DanedadDec 27, 2012

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 someQuite 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.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

9

archtitanDec 27, 2012

This is one of the the most moving show I watched this year, it definitely made me cry. I love the acting and singing of the casts, especially that of Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. Definitely recommended if you like musicals, and even ifThis is one of the the most moving show I watched this year, it definitely made me cry. I love the acting and singing of the casts, especially that of Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. Definitely recommended if you like musicals, and even if you don't you should catch it cause it has become a classic about love and redemption despite their harsh circumstances.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

earlezDec 27, 2012

Having seen the Broadway show 4 times I was so excited going in. To me, it is very hard to bring some of those rousing stage numbers to the big screen without giving up the energy and passion of those songs. "One Day More" cutting fromHaving seen the Broadway show 4 times I was so excited going in. To me, it is very hard to bring some of those rousing stage numbers to the big screen without giving up the energy and passion of those songs. "One Day More" cutting from actor to actor was jarring and did not have the full impact; the same was the case with other songs. Eddie Redmayne, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and a few others really stood out. I thought The Tenardier's songs were more gross than funny and, although I am a huge fan of Sacha Baron Cohen, he looked bored and uninspired with his character. I also did not need his silly ad libs during his numbers. It was great to see Colm Wilkinson as the priest! Nice cameo! Russell Crowe was just o.k., not having the range for "Stars" did hurt him. Yes, I still filled up several times during the movie, but there was an emotional cohesiveness lacking. This is one movie which needed an intermission just so we, the audience, could relax for a moment instead of being thrust into a constant barrage of sadness, despair, pain and suffering, without a break.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

Musicman_pamvDec 27, 2012

Having seen the stage version multiple times, including both the original staging and 25th anniversary edition, I have anticipated the film version since announced. Overall, I was pleased with the result. The biggest negative for me is theHaving seen the stage version multiple times, including both the original staging and 25th anniversary edition, I have anticipated the film version since announced. Overall, I was pleased with the result. The biggest negative for me is the acting of Russell Crowe as Javert. It's not that he can't sing or act. He just can't do both at the same time. His voice timbre and range are also wrong for the role. Compared to the rest the cast, Crowe just looks and sounds uncomfortable, and he rarely expresses through his face and voice the deep passion and reverence this character carries that drives his obsession across the years. Not to belabor the point, but only in rare moments did I not see Russell Crowe rather than Inspector Javert. On the other side, both Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman deliver as Fantine and Jean Valjean. This film version allows an intimacy that is just not possible on the stage. For me, the live singing absolutely works for nearly every performer. We get raw, emotional and heartfelt rendering of the music. Most of the changes made for the movie worked for me. I could quibble with of the director's choices for camera position and editing but for most of the movie, Les Miserables simply soars.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

HarmiclirDec 26, 2012

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 andInert. 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.… Expand

1 of 9 users found this helpful18

All this user's reviews

9

jsowersDec 26, 2012

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 toI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

ColeymanDec 26, 2012

I wasn't thrilled about going to a musical but I have to admit, this was a really great movie! The scenery was incredible and the acting was worth an academy award! I think the critics will be out voted when the awards come out. This one is aI wasn't thrilled about going to a musical but I have to admit, this was a really great movie! The scenery was incredible and the acting was worth an academy award! I think the critics will be out voted when the awards come out. This one is a masterpiece!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

8

tallanxDec 26, 2012

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 fitI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

10k_VoltsDec 26, 2012

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 movieThere 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

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

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

8

libbycritiquesDec 26, 2012

I love this story, it

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

DiscoStuDec 26, 2012

This was an boring, overblown mess of a movie. Anne Hathaway's performance is the single highlight where she radiates pure pathos. Meanwhile, Russell Crowe was just embarrassing to watch.

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

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

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

9

Jessied44Dec 26, 2012

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. AThe 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

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

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

4

VirtualDramaDec 25, 2012

The millions of faithful followers of this no-spoken-dialogue pop opera will flock to any incarnation. For everyone else, try to be kind. Producers clearly wanted the A-list actors (Hugh Jackman/Valjean, Anne Hathaway /Fantine, AmandaThe millions of faithful followers of this no-spoken-dialogue pop opera will flock to any incarnation. For everyone else, try to be kind. Producers clearly wanted the A-list actors (Hugh Jackman/Valjean, Anne Hathaway /Fantine, Amanda Seyfield/Cosette, Russell Crowe/Javert -- who auditioned like American Idol hopefuls) for two reasons: for box office clout, and to make the soap-opera-smaltzy sung dialogue seem almost credible, at least in super closeup. Anne Hathaway gives a moving performance as the ill-fated (and early departing) Fantine, and Hugh Jackman, who won a Tony for the Boy from Oz and played Curly in a West End production of Oklahoma, will probably be the greatest surprise to film fans. But when the "real" singers arrive -the young revolutionaries and the wonderful Samantha Barks as Eponine -- all the leads except for Jackman seem out of place. (I notice they didn't include Sam Barks in the finale.) More successful is the staging of the comedy numbers like "Master of the House" with Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the grifters, although those numbers seem odd set in director Tom Hooper's ultra-realistic Parisian slums. My suggestion: on a long trans-oceanic flight, try Kindle-sampling Victor Hugo's sprawling 1,500 page novel.… Expand

5 of 20 users found this helpful515

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

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

12 of 15 users found this helpful123

All this user's reviews

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 26 users found this helpful197

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

1

CineTigreDec 25, 2012

Laborious. Strained male voices. They should have worked on it in the cutting room a bit further. Hugo's story is a classic, but the attempt at the operatic style will not be loved by the average American I feel. Why do we need this inLaborious. Strained male voices. They should have worked on it in the cutting room a bit further. Hugo's story is a classic, but the attempt at the operatic style will not be loved by the average American I feel. Why do we need this in the theater now? Why couldn't they show what these "poor, innocent" Revolutionaries did to the aristocrats? No sign of the guillotine here! How many times did the audience need to hear of the crimes of the man? I'm afraid it is mirroring what is happening in America today. They advertised it wrong. It was an opera, not a musical. I love these actors, but they should have hired singers for this movie. I love music and I couldn't even turn on the radio going home because my ears hurt so much. Those people ruined Paris and great art. Why are we rewarding them today? I'd love to see it as a good movie and not as an opera. I bet those men were embarrassed to sing like that. Sad, sad, sad.… Expand

3 of 35 users found this helpful332

All this user's reviews

8

GreatMartinDec 25, 2012

Having seen the musical version of

17 of 27 users found this helpful1710

All this user's reviews

10

GoGoGadgetGunDec 25, 2012

Although I would have loved more background, I understand that you can't do everything in the book, in the movie. The acting, the singing, the pageantry - wow, what a musical. (Stars was SUPERB!)

7 of 10 users found this helpful73

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

Les Miserables

User Reviews