Les Miserables

6

ponderflixJan 22, 2015

The stage show is far, far superior. That goes without saying. I don’t ever want to hear Russell Crowe sing again......Instead of making a filmic version of the theatre production, it’s like they’ve tried to convey what a theatre productionThe stage show is far, far superior. That goes without saying. I don’t ever want to hear Russell Crowe sing again......Instead of making a filmic version of the theatre production, it’s like they’ve tried to convey what a theatre production would be if it was a film. So everything is sort of pantomime. Nothing is real looking, it’s all staged and theatrically lit which doesn’t work as a feature film.......They have used big names to fill out most of the cast, many of whom just don’t do a good enough job. That said I was completely enamoured by the original cast so I’m utterly biased..........Redeeming factors: easyish to follow. Attractive people singing good songs to a fairly decent standard. Amid all the silly things it’s a great story.

Full review available at the ponderflix site on wordpress.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

CynthiaTentacleMay 7, 2019

Look, I love 30 Odd Foot of Grunt frontman Russel Crowe as much as anyone, but he's badly miscast by the truly terrible, gimmicky, and over rated director of the film. (Tom Hooper, of Danish Girl and Kings Speech Fame) Ann Hathaway isLook, I love 30 Odd Foot of Grunt frontman Russel Crowe as much as anyone, but he's badly miscast by the truly terrible, gimmicky, and over rated director of the film. (Tom Hooper, of Danish Girl and Kings Speech Fame) Ann Hathaway is whatever, Eddie Redmayne is typically awful, and Amanda Seyfried's Cosette is a snooze, but the beautiful Samantha Banks absolutely shines in the role of Eponine! Hugh Jackman is also wonderful, elevating the material in every scene he's in. All in all, I would recommend seeing it at least one, and do think everyone involved, even including Tom Hooper, did the best job they could. Also, I will say that the film certainly feels expensive, if nothing else.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BKMJan 9, 2013

In the end Les Miserables is too much. Too much singing, too many closeups, too many underdeveloped characters and plot lines, etc. Its saving grace lies with its stars. Hathaway and Jackman provide an emotional kick whenever the filmsIn the end Les Miserables is too much. Too much singing, too many closeups, too many underdeveloped characters and plot lines, etc. Its saving grace lies with its stars. Hathaway and Jackman provide an emotional kick whenever the films starts to meander (which is frequently) and Russell Crowe provides an underrated performance as the heartless Javert.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

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

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

5

ovoon7Jan 2, 2013

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

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

bitburnAug 16, 2013

Didn't work for me. I preferred the 1998 distribution with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. Having said that, I did like "some" parts but I was mostly annoyed by the singing. Too much of it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

AwesomeReviewerMar 24, 2013

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

5

reddave2Feb 8, 2013

Two things to clarify 1. I am not a musical movie fan in general 2. I have never seen the stage show of Les Mis. With that in mind, maybe this film was always facing an uphill battle to impress me. However I had heard some great stuff fromTwo things to clarify 1. I am not a musical movie fan in general 2. I have never seen the stage show of Les Mis. With that in mind, maybe this film was always facing an uphill battle to impress me. However I had heard some great stuff from friends and family going in so I had the best of intentions. And for the first 45 minutes, things went fine. Jackman was immense (throughout), Crowe seemed a suitable foil and Hathaways short span in the film contained (for me) the best performance and song. So far, so good.

But then things started to sag. The songs didnt grab as the first few had (although not for lack of performance). New characters came and added little (I would even argue the revolutionaries detracted) and the plot wobbled along. Then in the final third it creaked and pretty much fell over. The love story is tacked on, at best. The resolution to Javerts pursuit of Valjean is... well, its bloody stupid to be honest. And by this point, my arse had grown numb thanks to the 150+ minutes running time. I left the cinema wondering what the fuss was about.

Still, as I clarified, maybe this was never for me. I can recognise that Jackman was terrific throughout and that some of the numbers are iconic. The set design in the first half is lovely too (the barricades near the end, however, look like a musical). But at the end of the day, I didn't enjoy it. Worse, it wouldn't encourage me to take in the actual musical either.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

riferrariFeb 23, 2013

The story is great, but I'm judging it as a musical and I will have to give it a 5/10. In general I found the songs ridiculous and weird, yes there were good ones such as the Susan Boyle song or the song about revolution, but the rest wasThe story is great, but I'm judging it as a musical and I will have to give it a 5/10. In general I found the songs ridiculous and weird, yes there were good ones such as the Susan Boyle song or the song about revolution, but the rest was plain songs filled with obvious rhymes and bad singers. I can't compare this movie to musicals such as Singing in The Rain, or The Phantom of Opera.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

5

mhildenDec 30, 2012

I'm sure there will be plenty of people who feel this is an oscar worthy film, but for me, it was a disaster. The jittery camera work, and the forced vocals were just too overwhelming to rate this film higher for me. The costumes wereI'm sure there will be plenty of people who feel this is an oscar worthy film, but for me, it was a disaster. The jittery camera work, and the forced vocals were just too overwhelming to rate this film higher for me. The costumes were beautiful, the cinematography and grand sets were brilliantly done and probably worthy of an oscar.

I felt most of the female singing roles were well done. Ms Hathaway's performance should land her at least an Oscar nomination. The younger Cosette and the young rebellious boy sang beautifully. I believe Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne did brilliant as the older Cosette and Marius.

For me, that's where the brilliance stops. Hugh seemed strained most of the time and I never felt he had control of his voice the whole film. I'm not a music coach, but my ear knows what it likes. Russell Crowe was worse and never sold me on his character as Javert.

As far as musicals go, this was no where near what Chicago offered and makes me wonder why Mr Hooper decided to recreate an actual musical on the big screen. There's probably a reason why it hasn't been done before. I felt like I had been treated to a musical without even the option of an intermission. I would have rather watched a real musical than this mess of a performance.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

rasbury4Jan 9, 2013

Please bring the show back to Broadway--I so wanted the film to be better but it just didn't excite me the way the show has always done. It should have been a bigger spectacle and amazingly enough it felt much smaller. I guess because youPlease bring the show back to Broadway--I so wanted the film to be better but it just didn't excite me the way the show has always done. It should have been a bigger spectacle and amazingly enough it felt much smaller. I guess because you spend the entire film in the character's faces. The effort the actors made with the camera up their nose was incredible and they should win prizes for that. But the singing was secondary and added to the overall disappointment when you compare the show with the film. On the plus side, the film is much cheaper to see.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

duromiJan 26, 2013

I love the story, but found this musical version perplexing. I understand the need for "stars" involvement to drive the box office, but the resulting effect was that while most acting was good, singing ranged from acceptable to downrightI love the story, but found this musical version perplexing. I understand the need for "stars" involvement to drive the box office, but the resulting effect was that while most acting was good, singing ranged from acceptable to downright painful. My prayers that Russell Crowe would just abandon any pretenses of "singing" and speak his part, went unanswered and I don't understand how the director/producers could have allowed this major distraction to go on, since it negated most of the pluses of this production. In the end the only feeling I was left with was despondency for what could have been.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

LivvyRae14Jan 28, 2013

Les Miserables had several talented actors and actresses however it had too many slow parts to it. The movie really made me just want to fall asleep. I literally did fall asleep for about ten or fifteen minutes of it. I was alsoLes Miserables had several talented actors and actresses however it had too many slow parts to it. The movie really made me just want to fall asleep. I literally did fall asleep for about ten or fifteen minutes of it. I was also disappointed that Anne Hathaway was only in such a small portion of the movie. I expected her to have appearances the whole movie and not just mainly in the beginning. Also, the movie was just to long. I could not focus on the movie at all. I did not give it a rating of below a five because the one thing they did good was the graphics and the excellent musical aspects. I would recommend that everyone see's the movie, but wait until it is on DVD so you can start and pause the movie as it seems to drag on and on.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

diego9901Oct 20, 2013

when I finished watching this movie I did not know that was the rewarding feeling or was that a good movie or was because I hold an entire movie in which all the dialogues are sung

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

FreetochoosNov 17, 2013

Was all the singing really nesessary? No, with the budget that the director had, he should have made a proper epic. All the singing actually destracts from the story. As for the characters, this film would be falling apart if it were not forWas all the singing really nesessary? No, with the budget that the director had, he should have made a proper epic. All the singing actually destracts from the story. As for the characters, this film would be falling apart if it were not for Crowe. Just a matter of personal opinion.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

EwanDaveyKeefeMay 16, 2013

Looking at this movie entirely from the single perspective of itself, instead of comparing it to its musical counterpart (To which i hear is brilliant). It is a good musical, with a cast to which any film would happily boast, with someLooking at this movie entirely from the single perspective of itself, instead of comparing it to its musical counterpart (To which i hear is brilliant). It is a good musical, with a cast to which any film would happily boast, with some outstanding performances from a plethora actors whom most would never relate to a musical, yet in some instances it is clear singing isn't their strong point.

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

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

to summarise, the film deserves praise for showing that Musicals can have a serious tone instead of the likes of "Hairspray" and the actors within in it deserve meritorious praise, yet it fails due to a long running time and lack of change, with little use of the large budget sets.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Least_FrenchManOct 11, 2022

The Film, Les Misérables (Les Miz, colloquially), was an attempt at tackling Victor Hugo's masterpiece of French Romantic literature in a different method. Prior to this film, there were several attempts to adapt Victor Hugo's work to the bigThe Film, Les Misérables (Les Miz, colloquially), was an attempt at tackling Victor Hugo's masterpiece of French Romantic literature in a different method. Prior to this film, there were several attempts to adapt Victor Hugo's work to the big screen before, but Tom Hooper decided, in order to differentiate himself, would adapt instead the 1985 musical of Les Misérables with a star-studded cast, featuring the likes of Russel Crowe (Yes, from Gladiator), Hugh Jackman (Yes, Wolverine), and Anne Hathaway. It is important to note this now, as the mediocrity of many portions of the film can be explained by what Motivated the director in making this--that is to say, a chance to quickly produce a differentiated Les Miz film with big shiny Hollywood superstars so that he could make a name for himself. I seek not to attack this man, but I would have wanted him to have instead put in the time and respect to make the production worthy of the fame of the Book and beloved music, in that way, he, Tom Hooper, could have been celebrated for such an achievement instead of settling as he did.

The film had a lot of spirit in it. For those who are not aware of the story of the novel, it covers the 1832 June revolution in France against the July Monarchy, told through the lens of several characters, in particular, the thief searching for redemption Jean Valjean as he avoids the clutches of the law obsessive Inspector Javert. The production was magnificent in many regards, and certain set pieces were done well. The performance of Anne Hathaway in the number "I Dreamed a Dream" has already received its awards, so I feel no obligation to praise it here. However, the movie is terribly lacking in the whole "musical" department, for reasons I fail to see as anything higher than settling for mediocrity. Hugh Jackman is not a terrible singer, we see in the film "The Greatest Showman" that he has the talent to perform in a musical, and Russel Crowe, from what I have seen in videos he has done such as "Russell Crowe and Jeff Leyton Confrontation from Les Misérable" can sing the songs very well, yet both performers fail in their execution for this movie particularly. These criticisms would be light if it were not for the fact that we have to listen to both of these actors give sub-mediocre performances in two-thirds of all the musical numbers. Some additions to the story and choices though, I believe, were absolutely needed, or, perfect fanservice for fans of the musical. The attention to these detail grants us the audience, which he (Tom Hooper) knows to be musical fans, so much catharsis. For instance, there is a scene where Russel Crowe's character dignifies one of the fallen revolutionaries in the latter act (I am not saying who it is for those who have not seen the film), which grants audiences a great deal of closure on that character that otherwise would have been lacking in the stage-play. Additionally, with Les Miz's entire moral being forgiveness and growing in Saint Hood, the idea that Hugh Jackman's Character, Jean Valjean, the thief whose whole journey in the play is becoming a saint, is put on this journey by the bishop character at the beginning of the film who is played by Colm Wilkinson (The man famous for playing Jean Valjean in the Stage-play). That casting is brilliant and gives a meta-improvement to the well-established themes of the story that only true fans would get and such a message that such an improvement gives makes the message of the story all the more Inspiring as one realizes that the plot contains closure told through the medium of movies, via its casting, in this one scene.

Concluding, the story of Les Miz is such a Truth-filled masterpiece and study of the human person in its deep monologs of guilt and penance and heroic ballads on the pursuit of freedom, that I believe that no adaptation could truly destroy the magnificence of the work. However, I find it greatly disheartening as a fan of the musical and of the French romantic genre, that the director had such potential to use his actors and budget to create an epic out of this material, but instead settled for mediocrity. I love all of the people who worked in this production, but many of the creative choices were quite poor, and really brought down the adaptation. I would not recommend this movie to anyone who has never encountered the story of Les Mis, it is not totally unwatchable for someone familiar with the material.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

brewsterJan 5, 2013

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

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

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

4

BikerjamesFeb 4, 2013

I know now why they call it "Les Miserables". I was miserable watching it! First of all, there is no spoken dialog, so be prepared for that. When they are singing the dialog it is absolutely tuneless and meandering. I liked Hugh Jackman'sI know now why they call it "Les Miserables". I was miserable watching it! First of all, there is no spoken dialog, so be prepared for that. When they are singing the dialog it is absolutely tuneless and meandering. I liked Hugh Jackman's upper register but didn't care for his lower register, but his acting was flawless. Anne Hathaway also has a nice voice and turns in a great performance. People are complaining about Russell Crowe's voice, but I thought he did a fine job. He sings in tune, he just doesn't have a voice that projects. It's fine for the movie version. There are many unnecessary extreme close-ups throughout the film, and the film is a downer throughout. One over-dramatic moment after another. This is a long movie and I looked at my watch many times hoping it would end soon. The acting is good throughout, but the story was boring and I didn't care for the opera-style musical with no spoken dialog.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

jasherJan 9, 2013

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

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

4

zied12Mar 2, 2013

the only thing good about this movie is the performances of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, i hate it when all the movie is songs and there is not an actual dialogue, it gets boring

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

PaganostaghettiJan 23, 2013

The King

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

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

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

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

4

Carol1000Jan 28, 2013

Rather disappointing considering all the hype...

IMHO, the worst thing about this movie wasn't any single performance since the acting was generally good and no better or worse than most big-cast movies...rather, it was the direction. WhenRather disappointing considering all the hype...

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

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

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

3. Hugh Jackman was worth watching and I would say he has the best voice in the cast as well as actually acted too.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

ZarchonFeb 4, 2013

My wife and I both cried watching this movie. The problem is we cried for different reasons. She had an emotional attachment to the movie because of her childhood. I cried because this was horrible. Letting the actors sing live and goingMy wife and I both cried watching this movie. The problem is we cried for different reasons. She had an emotional attachment to the movie because of her childhood. I cried because this was horrible. Letting the actors sing live and going with that was a big mistake. I have to believe that people voting this good, even the Oscar nominations, are all because you are SUPPOSED to like this rather than anyone actually liking it. Every time someone other than Anne Hathaway sang, you are pulled out of the movie. I have heard better singers at a Karaoke bar. they need to go back and clean up the terrible singing before they release this on DVD. While this isn't the worst movie I have seen this year (Movie 43) this was far more difficult to sit through.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

thairocks88Feb 27, 2013

I do love musicals. I am a big fan of Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Ginger Rodgers, and Cyd Charrise, The greatest musical has to be either Fiddler on the roof or Singin in the Rain. The problems with Les Miserable stem from the actual BroadwayI do love musicals. I am a big fan of Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Ginger Rodgers, and Cyd Charrise, The greatest musical has to be either Fiddler on the roof or Singin in the Rain. The problems with Les Miserable stem from the actual Broadway musical itself. The story "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo is a chronicle of french life in the french revolution era. The purpose of the story was to show the hardships and exploitation of the French people in the most important eras in French history. To create a musical based on these hardships would trivialize and take away Hugo's masterpiece. The other problem is the language.Why create a musical that is in predominately in English (yes, there are french translations) that totally disrupts and destroys the cultural context of what the story is suppose to be about? When considering the 2012 version, an adaption of a huge Broadway musical with a colossal amount of fans waiting to see it makes it a for sure money maker.Yet, it does not allow an unacquainted audience to embrace the story or music. The story is redundant and the music, while I admit is great, really gets boring after the first 20 minutes of the cast screeching it in my face and really forcing me to like it. I felt the film had great points in photography and costuming, the film felt long and tiring. The pace of the film was like a roller coaster ride that after the 15th rendition of the same three songs, I gave up. The lack of professional singers (i.e. Russell Crowe and High Jackman) really made me doubt their musical prowess and I just hoped they were able to hit the really high notes. Th final problem is the song dialogue. I felt it was gimmicky and unnecessary. The great musicals of "Singin in the Rain" and "Fiddler on the Roof" used dialogue to move the stories forward and make the songs more enjoyable. "Les Mis" oversang their songs that could have potentially be a great musical. Yet, it disappointed this musical lover!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

Apemonkey666Mar 31, 2013

Musicals are not my thing. Up until now I have seen only 2 that worked: Moulin Rouge and Romeo Julliet (yes both Baz Luhrman's). With all the positive reviews and the high imdb score I was willing to give it a fair chance...but after 5,5Musicals are not my thing. Up until now I have seen only 2 that worked: Moulin Rouge and Romeo Julliet (yes both Baz Luhrman's). With all the positive reviews and the high imdb score I was willing to give it a fair chance...but after 5,5 mins I had reached the limits of my patience, I had to turn it off. This is just unbearable! Do they really have to sing EVERY SINGLE LINE of dialogue? No wonder this thing clocks in at 158 mins. It's better to burst out into song for no reason then to continuously pound people in the face with them. Some performers are great actors, sure, but that doesn't mean they have a great singing voice. Be realistic, no one is good at everything. I guess this film has a certain audience (it made 433 m$ worldwide) but I'm pretty certain I'm not one of them … Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

3

gracjanskiMay 12, 2020

They are singing all the time. Yes all the time and some of the actors even not so good. Why dont they sing only sometimes? I would endure this movie better.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

alis956Sep 4, 2013

the story is great, the picture is so good but I did not like the musical theme which the movie was based on! so I couldn't complete it until the end!

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

2

JMcJan 8, 2013

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

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

2

mmweissFeb 3, 2013

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

8 of 18 users found this helpful810

All this user's reviews

2

RakkulJan 9, 2013

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

2 of 12 users found this helpful210

All this user's reviews

2

DonkeybrainAug 22, 2013

Well I haven't laughed that much for ages! Lots of good actors making fools of themselves. It's amazing that they all took on the project! Can't be enough scripts around I guess. Loved the Liam Neeson version, much much more entertaining.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

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

1

Trev29Jan 11, 2013

If it wasn't but some very brief moments, and I mean brief, this movie would be a complete disaster. It is so horribly long and boring with absolute no dialogue. It is filled with dreadful songs and melodramatic acting.

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

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

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

1

drnineteenJan 2, 2013

From the second it begun to its end, I was not interested. The characters did not pull me and the singing was not that good, especially compared to the musical. The only part that was actually entertaining were the Thenardiers, they were aFrom the second it begun to its end, I was not interested. The characters did not pull me and the singing was not that good, especially compared to the musical. The only part that was actually entertaining were the Thenardiers, they were a very good comic relief for the boring plot. Altogether the story was boring, the singing wasn't up to par, and the characters were not interesting at all.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

1

CtheTavApr 1, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. N MY OPINION **MAY CONTAIN SPOIILER S** by CtheTav I had heard great things about this film going into it. It had Oscar buzz and had already taken multiple best picture awards. Apparently I saw a different version of the film because the film I saw was terrible! The "singing" in this film by the main cast is reminiscent of Mama Mia! Or Moulin Rouge as in big name karaoke at best. The majority of the big names can't sing with the exception of Russel Crow who is a bit better than the rest but still a long way off staring a singing career after this film, and to give Hugh Jackman the lead role when he is the worst singer of the lot is unforgiveable and a stupid move by the casting director. Another problem with this film is the fact that there is very little talking and everything is sing talked which, takes away from the songs as its difficult to tell when a song starts and ends which is why when initially writing this review I struggled to recall even 2 songs (2 hours after watching the film). Back to the plot now, so carefully hinged on the back drop of a French revolution showing that everyone's super poor or mega rich and the no one likes the king at the moment so it, revolution! There is no character development in this film at all after the first 5 minutes. Jon Valjean goes from angry thief to God loving good guy in 10 seconds or 8 years of unseen moments in the plot, feels guilty for not being granular about his employees actions, buys some kid, raises her and then realises "actually I lied to get where I am today but I'm okay with that", gets a mystery illness whilst lifting luggage and dies. Javert Javert goes from letter of the lawman (he literally sang a song about it) to a suicidal fool who can't deal with being given a second chance. The young revolutionary goes from tactician to screw it I'm in love over the course of 1 night (the same night he saw his entire friendship die horribly). At the end of this film the people at the barricade are all dead this is touted as a happy ending. This ending is miserable all of those who died as martyrs achieved nothing, so well done everyone, NOT! This film has the worst action sequences ever. Being shot in the chest and not bleeding? Why not? Did the budget not allow for fake blood to be used? Then the character has the audacity to sing for three minutes before dying, not dying immediately like most of the other idiots foolish enough to point the barrel of a gun at themselves and not just away from everyone Rubbish! Rating 1 out of 10 An awful film that received too much praise due to the stage production it was based on… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

AlexanderLuthorJun 17, 2013

A miserable attempt to adapt this beloved musical for a film audience. Don't get me wrong, I like Russel Crowe under proper direction and in the right role, but his performance in this film was absolutely dreadful.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

Kdog152Jan 4, 2023

I understand that this is a successful performance, and if you like, like a lot of ppl do, that's fine. But honestly, this film was very boring and this is ridiculously underrated.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

csw12Jan 11, 2013

Oh boy, what a terrible mess. Acting horrifying, singing ear bleeding, a story of absolute garbage and a movie that suffocates you on the length. The talk and sing style trash isn't only irritating, it makes the movie almost impossible toOh boy, what a terrible mess. Acting horrifying, singing ear bleeding, a story of absolute garbage and a movie that suffocates you on the length. The talk and sing style trash isn't only irritating, it makes the movie almost impossible to follow. Les Miserables not only takes the title of worst movie of the year but of all time. Move over Chicago, we have a movie even worse.… Expand

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

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

0

Tulips111Feb 10, 2013

The whole movie is tedious. The singing was too much and acting was pretentious.
It's totally the opposite experience while I was watching Moulin Rouge. Moulin Rouge is way much better than Les Miserables.

1 of 12 users found this helpful111

All this user's reviews

0

BiffBarnacleMar 23, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm not typically one for writing reviews but I decided after suffering through this movie that I needed the catharsis of doing one. I'll begin by saying that I am a fan of the musical. I saw it with a touring group when they came through and I own the "Dream Cast" concert version. I believe Les Mis has some of the most beautiful music and themes I've ever seen in a musical, albeit presented through a loosely woven story. Unfortunately this latest version, while attempting to stay closer to the musical production, didn't seem to be assembled with the same quality. The most distracting thing to me was that many of the cast were weak singers. They were unable to reach their notes without straining or giving up before hitting them. Some of Javert's music was even rearranged to accommodate Mr. Crowe. I appreciate the actors' ability to break down emotionally when needed but the voices were not as strong as their performance and many times took away from the impact that a song could have had. Mr. Crowe and Mr. Jackman's solos were often muffled or nasal respectively. I cringed before Valjean began his "God on high" at the barricade uncomfortably fearing what was about to come. And Javert's Stars solo, which would normally be belted out with a strong baritone fell flat.

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

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

All in all I appreciated the sets and some of the singing as well as most of the art. I am glad someone made an attempt to bring the musical to video. Sadly, I think I would have enjoyed it more had they just filmed the actual stage play (like the 2011 Royal Albert Hall Phantom of the Opera). I decided to rate this a "0" to even out the unrealistically positive reviews. This should really be around a 6 in my book. Thanks for reading if you got through this!… Expand

0 of 9 users found this helpful09

All this user's reviews

0

MovieMan12Jun 13, 2013

So I already hate musicals, and this one just confirms how awful they are. Anne whats her name is so bad it makes Vince Vaughn look like a good actor. Disgusting, boring, and just plain terrible.

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

0

ArmoricalexMay 1, 2016

A true humanist "chef d'oeuvre"A true humanist "chef d'oeuvre"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

DrBlahBlahNov 28, 2020

This unbearable adaptation of an unbearable musical travesties Hugo's great novel and assaults the ear with the musical stylings of Crowe and Jackman.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

JahosafatsSep 17, 2017

News flash ... Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe CAN NOT sing but insisted on doing so the whole movie. Extremely painful to watch. Anne Hathaway was pretty good but there is no way she could save this turd.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

Les Miserables

User Reviews