Other than Crowe's singing (which isn't terrible), the musical absurdities (which is just a wavelength thing), & its extreme sincerity (which I consider a strength), it's pretty unimpeachable. There are so many powerful moments: Do You Hear?, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, the battle on the garbage barricade, etc...and, of course, I Dreamed a Dream. Say what you will about Hathaway being a bit much at times; she was put on this earth to perform that scene.
1,079 Reviews
Les Misérables
tinulthin22 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The guiding ethic of any film adaptation of a legendary source must be: "Change as little as possible." Those in charge of Les Miz knew precisely what they were working with. A few songs are shortened, a handful of lines altered, and a few scenarios condensed or adapted to their original literary form, but the whole remains gloriously and satisfyingly intact.
The Work Song is set to the image of a hundred convicts battling a stormy sea to pull a listing ship into dry dock—and only here does the film's live-recording ethic fall short, as the music and voices lack the power to match the imagery, seemingly washed out by the sea noise, where the live musical would normally captivate from the first note.
Neither of them theatrical belters, Jackman and Crowe's performances feel subdued in the opening scene. But the film finds its gravitas the instant Colm Wilkinson appears as the Bishop of Digne, and from that instant, the next two and a half hours are nothing less than the repeated sliding of the viewer's soul up and down a finely-honed blade.
The ability to take close-ups gives the film an intimacy that is unattainable on a Broadway stage, and power numbers are sometimes reduced to a chilling whisper. Anne Hathaway destroys herself to bring Fantine to life, and her incredible, personal pain washes in waves from the screen. The tooth removal, normally excised from the musical, is even back from the book—though modified in location. Confrontation is then viscerally set as a full-on close-quarters sword fight.
Film also allows a depth of scale that challenges the stage. The transition to At the End of the Day is a grim and powerful scramble through the slums of Paris, shaking the screen with the palpable rage of a nation. Look Down is another tour de force, while Do You Hear the People Sing emerges from a quiet, elegiac call to arms that organically overtakes General Lamarque's funeral procession.
Samantha Barks' Éponine lights up in her every interaction with Marius, and shots of her in the background of A Heart Full of Love are soul-rending. But she suffers just enough tiny cuts that A Little Fall of Rain is not quite as arresting as it should be, and the constant close-ups amputate the power of a scene that should captivate not only through its intimacy, but through the inactivity that washes across the entirety of a once-violent stage.
Russel Crowe's soft-voiced Javert takes some getting used to, and while it works more often than one might expect, he sometimes seems to be singing with a sock in his mouth—most notably during One Day More, where he seems to have been mixed in at a different volume level from the rest of the cast. Yet the cinematography of Stars is simple yet stunning, and Javert's Suicide suffers nothing in this interpretation.
M. Thénardier endures a few cuts (most notably the truncation of Dog Eats Dog), but Sacha Baron Cohen steals enough asides and chews enough scenery that his part hardly feels reduced.
The background has been filled in with elements from the novel, and those who have read Hugo's epic will appreciate nods to Fauchelevent and the Petit-Picpus convent, Gavroche's elephant-home, Marius' grandfather, and the tavern behind the barricade. There is even a quick cut to Gavroche when Éponine is shot, winking at their normally undisclosed sibling relationship.
Even the finale remains perfectly and satisfyingly intact. The only challenge with a film that so precisely parallels its stage inspiration is resisting the necessity to deliver a standing ovation once the final note has been sung. If only they had found a way to incorporate a curtain call.
The Work Song is set to the image of a hundred convicts battling a stormy sea to pull a listing ship into dry dock—and only here does the film's live-recording ethic fall short, as the music and voices lack the power to match the imagery, seemingly washed out by the sea noise, where the live musical would normally captivate from the first note.
Neither of them theatrical belters, Jackman and Crowe's performances feel subdued in the opening scene. But the film finds its gravitas the instant Colm Wilkinson appears as the Bishop of Digne, and from that instant, the next two and a half hours are nothing less than the repeated sliding of the viewer's soul up and down a finely-honed blade.
The ability to take close-ups gives the film an intimacy that is unattainable on a Broadway stage, and power numbers are sometimes reduced to a chilling whisper. Anne Hathaway destroys herself to bring Fantine to life, and her incredible, personal pain washes in waves from the screen. The tooth removal, normally excised from the musical, is even back from the book—though modified in location. Confrontation is then viscerally set as a full-on close-quarters sword fight.
Film also allows a depth of scale that challenges the stage. The transition to At the End of the Day is a grim and powerful scramble through the slums of Paris, shaking the screen with the palpable rage of a nation. Look Down is another tour de force, while Do You Hear the People Sing emerges from a quiet, elegiac call to arms that organically overtakes General Lamarque's funeral procession.
Samantha Barks' Éponine lights up in her every interaction with Marius, and shots of her in the background of A Heart Full of Love are soul-rending. But she suffers just enough tiny cuts that A Little Fall of Rain is not quite as arresting as it should be, and the constant close-ups amputate the power of a scene that should captivate not only through its intimacy, but through the inactivity that washes across the entirety of a once-violent stage.
Russel Crowe's soft-voiced Javert takes some getting used to, and while it works more often than one might expect, he sometimes seems to be singing with a sock in his mouth—most notably during One Day More, where he seems to have been mixed in at a different volume level from the rest of the cast. Yet the cinematography of Stars is simple yet stunning, and Javert's Suicide suffers nothing in this interpretation.
M. Thénardier endures a few cuts (most notably the truncation of Dog Eats Dog), but Sacha Baron Cohen steals enough asides and chews enough scenery that his part hardly feels reduced.
The background has been filled in with elements from the novel, and those who have read Hugo's epic will appreciate nods to Fauchelevent and the Petit-Picpus convent, Gavroche's elephant-home, Marius' grandfather, and the tavern behind the barricade. There is even a quick cut to Gavroche when Éponine is shot, winking at their normally undisclosed sibling relationship.
Even the finale remains perfectly and satisfyingly intact. The only challenge with a film that so precisely parallels its stage inspiration is resisting the necessity to deliver a standing ovation once the final note has been sung. If only they had found a way to incorporate a curtain call.
Simply splendid
TheLittleSongbird21 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the somewhat mixed reviews, I really wanted to see Les Miserables. I love the musical, it is not the most accessible of musicals- it is lengthy and feels very like an opera(a genre that I adore but can see why others don't)- but it never fails to give me goosebumps or move me and the music is just incredible. I wouldn't go as far to say that this movie version is completely flawless, there are occasions where the camera angles are a little dizzying and Russell Crowe has an underpowered and nasal timbre that doesn't really appeal to me(it also has a soft-grained rock-opera style that is at odds with the rest of the singing). But I found it a simply splendid film on its own merits as well as a solid adaptation of both the musical and the book.
Apart from some of the camera angles, I thought Les Miserables was stunning to look at. The costumes, locations and sets are both stunning(some of the best of the entire year for me) and evocative(complete with grubby faces and rotting teeth, Fantine's plight is very seedy and nightmarish which makes you relate to her without being forced to). I personally liked the close-ups, whether there were too many is up for debate and I can definitely see why, but they did succeed in giving numbers like Empty Chairs and Empty Tables, On My Own, Stars(visually resplendent in its simplicity), Bring Him Home and especially I Dreamed a Dream a very personal touch.
I can definitely see why people won't like the film. Like the musical and the book it is lengthy and the story is quite heavy-going and quite exhausting from an emotional standpoint. But even with the length- I am probably one of the few who didn't think it was overlong- I was riveted throughout, not only was it so good musically as you'd expect but the storytelling felt coherent and easy to engage with. While there are some amusing moments with the Thenardiers and One Day More was very cleverly staged, there were many moments that really moved me. I Dreamed a Dream is by far the standout rendition of the film and along with On My Own, Eponine's death and Empty Chairs and Empty Tables moved me to tears, but it was the ending that left me an emotional wreck. Valjean and Javert's confrontation has been more convincing on stage, but there were definitely signs of intensity.
The music is incredible, one of those musicals where I don't dislike a single song. The orchestration and how it's played will stir many emotions, and the chorus, their best moment being Do You Hear the People Sing(closely followed by One Day More), also do powerful work. I thought the cast were great. Crowe is the weak link vocally, but I do think his acting is better than it is given credit for. The emotional detachment and grittiness did suit Javert's character and there is signs of authority. Amanda Seyfried is lovely and innocent and her chemistry with Eddie Redmayne is great. And on the most part, apart from some shrillness and quivery vibrato in the upper register, her singing is sweet-toned and delicate. Redmayne is a dashing and very moving Marius, and his singing is full of emotion. You only had to see him in Empty Chairs and Empty Tables to see that he understood and felt every word.
Samantha Barks is perfectly cast also as the well-meaning and vulnerable Eponine, and her beautiful voice and how she presents herself has really come on since the Nancy-finding contest I'd Do Anything(where it was very good even then). Daniel Huttlestone's scene-stealing Gavroche and Isabelle Allen's adorably haunting Young Cosette also impress, and the Revolutionaries are a rousing and determined lot, particularly Enjolras. Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen- she with her facial expressions and he with how he calls Cosette the wrong names- are hilarious as the Thenardiers and don't feel out of place at all.
Hugh Jackman is outstanding, capturing every side of Valjean's tormented character, whether benevolent with young Cosette, all broken and close to death in the final convent scene, dignified as he saves people from harm(young Cosette especially) or intense in the confrontational parts between him and Javert. Apart from some high-note strain, his singing is fine and he sings every note and word with emotion. To me having a good voice is just one part of singing, you do need to know what you're singing about, otherwise people won't connect with you. And I have never seen Anne Hathaway as good as she is here, you can tell that she threw herself into the role of Fantine and it shows in a truly devastating and unforgettable portrayal. I Dreamed a Dream will not just move you to tears, it will render you speechless also, like Jackman and Redmayne it was clear how deeply felt her singing was.
All in all, a splendid film. It's not for everybody but it's undeniable that a lot of effort was put into this film and you can clearly see this in the acting, the period detail and the emotion behind the singing. 9/10 Bethany Cox
Apart from some of the camera angles, I thought Les Miserables was stunning to look at. The costumes, locations and sets are both stunning(some of the best of the entire year for me) and evocative(complete with grubby faces and rotting teeth, Fantine's plight is very seedy and nightmarish which makes you relate to her without being forced to). I personally liked the close-ups, whether there were too many is up for debate and I can definitely see why, but they did succeed in giving numbers like Empty Chairs and Empty Tables, On My Own, Stars(visually resplendent in its simplicity), Bring Him Home and especially I Dreamed a Dream a very personal touch.
I can definitely see why people won't like the film. Like the musical and the book it is lengthy and the story is quite heavy-going and quite exhausting from an emotional standpoint. But even with the length- I am probably one of the few who didn't think it was overlong- I was riveted throughout, not only was it so good musically as you'd expect but the storytelling felt coherent and easy to engage with. While there are some amusing moments with the Thenardiers and One Day More was very cleverly staged, there were many moments that really moved me. I Dreamed a Dream is by far the standout rendition of the film and along with On My Own, Eponine's death and Empty Chairs and Empty Tables moved me to tears, but it was the ending that left me an emotional wreck. Valjean and Javert's confrontation has been more convincing on stage, but there were definitely signs of intensity.
The music is incredible, one of those musicals where I don't dislike a single song. The orchestration and how it's played will stir many emotions, and the chorus, their best moment being Do You Hear the People Sing(closely followed by One Day More), also do powerful work. I thought the cast were great. Crowe is the weak link vocally, but I do think his acting is better than it is given credit for. The emotional detachment and grittiness did suit Javert's character and there is signs of authority. Amanda Seyfried is lovely and innocent and her chemistry with Eddie Redmayne is great. And on the most part, apart from some shrillness and quivery vibrato in the upper register, her singing is sweet-toned and delicate. Redmayne is a dashing and very moving Marius, and his singing is full of emotion. You only had to see him in Empty Chairs and Empty Tables to see that he understood and felt every word.
Samantha Barks is perfectly cast also as the well-meaning and vulnerable Eponine, and her beautiful voice and how she presents herself has really come on since the Nancy-finding contest I'd Do Anything(where it was very good even then). Daniel Huttlestone's scene-stealing Gavroche and Isabelle Allen's adorably haunting Young Cosette also impress, and the Revolutionaries are a rousing and determined lot, particularly Enjolras. Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen- she with her facial expressions and he with how he calls Cosette the wrong names- are hilarious as the Thenardiers and don't feel out of place at all.
Hugh Jackman is outstanding, capturing every side of Valjean's tormented character, whether benevolent with young Cosette, all broken and close to death in the final convent scene, dignified as he saves people from harm(young Cosette especially) or intense in the confrontational parts between him and Javert. Apart from some high-note strain, his singing is fine and he sings every note and word with emotion. To me having a good voice is just one part of singing, you do need to know what you're singing about, otherwise people won't connect with you. And I have never seen Anne Hathaway as good as she is here, you can tell that she threw herself into the role of Fantine and it shows in a truly devastating and unforgettable portrayal. I Dreamed a Dream will not just move you to tears, it will render you speechless also, like Jackman and Redmayne it was clear how deeply felt her singing was.
All in all, a splendid film. It's not for everybody but it's undeniable that a lot of effort was put into this film and you can clearly see this in the acting, the period detail and the emotion behind the singing. 9/10 Bethany Cox
They sung it live...
grtsmarket13 March 2022
I could listen to the sound track all day, everyday. And this is my favorite cinematic production.
Tom Hooper did a great job as director of a powerful star studded cast and Danny Cohen as cinematographer.
This production carry's me to Victor Hugo's epic imagination based on the reality of life during his lifetime, imprinted on our extraordinary literary accomplishment-a timeless classic surviving over 150 years... as well all the previous theatrical and cinematic productions since 1984.
The optics are an enthralling cinematic accomplishment capturing the sung live scenes... and the actors all out effort to make this as true to the emotional turmoil of a horrendous life in early 18th century Paris; all the begotten injustices on the very fabric of humanity's birth right for freedom- known later as The Birth of Enlightenment.
Anne Hathaway sings "I DREAMED A DREAM" with a definitive voice of a dying woman elevated to divine presence. Kudos!!!
Jackman and Crowe compliment each other's roles to perfection. Spellbinding.
Eddie Reymane and Amanda Seyfried as well make it all the more real. They brought me to tears.
I could go on, but in light of the negative, rather jaded reviews of this production, it goes without my saying that some people just have to be negative about anything that's actually well performed.
Sad because Hugo's timeless message is lost to them who focus on the actors themselves instead of seeing the Fourth Wall in front them.
As a theatrical producer, playwright, musical performer and director, the efficacy it takes to bring a production of this genre is in and of itself in a category of an epic artistic ideal to be met.
I've seen the theatrical production as well. Both revenues are complimentary at best. Neither can be compared as one being better than the other. That's a mistake to be made when reviewing Hugo's legacy. Here we have poetry, drama and prose that rise to the heavenly heights of cinematic theater.
Tom Hooper did a great job as director of a powerful star studded cast and Danny Cohen as cinematographer.
This production carry's me to Victor Hugo's epic imagination based on the reality of life during his lifetime, imprinted on our extraordinary literary accomplishment-a timeless classic surviving over 150 years... as well all the previous theatrical and cinematic productions since 1984.
The optics are an enthralling cinematic accomplishment capturing the sung live scenes... and the actors all out effort to make this as true to the emotional turmoil of a horrendous life in early 18th century Paris; all the begotten injustices on the very fabric of humanity's birth right for freedom- known later as The Birth of Enlightenment.
Anne Hathaway sings "I DREAMED A DREAM" with a definitive voice of a dying woman elevated to divine presence. Kudos!!!
Jackman and Crowe compliment each other's roles to perfection. Spellbinding.
Eddie Reymane and Amanda Seyfried as well make it all the more real. They brought me to tears.
I could go on, but in light of the negative, rather jaded reviews of this production, it goes without my saying that some people just have to be negative about anything that's actually well performed.
Sad because Hugo's timeless message is lost to them who focus on the actors themselves instead of seeing the Fourth Wall in front them.
As a theatrical producer, playwright, musical performer and director, the efficacy it takes to bring a production of this genre is in and of itself in a category of an epic artistic ideal to be met.
I've seen the theatrical production as well. Both revenues are complimentary at best. Neither can be compared as one being better than the other. That's a mistake to be made when reviewing Hugo's legacy. Here we have poetry, drama and prose that rise to the heavenly heights of cinematic theater.
A Well-Executed And Powerful Musical
CalRhys26 September 2014
A well-executed and powerful musical from Tom Hooper, 'Les Misérables' stood alongside 'Skyfall' as Britain's two main entries at the 2013 Academy Awards and left with 3 Oscars. Featuring some bravura performances from an all-star cast including Anne Hathaway (Oscar winner), Hugh Jackman (Oscar nominated), Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Set against the sweeping backdrop of 19th-century France, 'Les Mis' tells an enthralling and emotional story of passion, love and redemption, accompanied by some stunning cinematography, uplifting musical numbers and flawless direction. While it does drag on at parts, 'Les Mis' is generally an impeccably crafted musical to be enjoyed by all.
Breathtaking - A Musical with Heart
antesdespues12 December 2012
I went to an awards screening of Les Miserables and left the cinema speechless. Tom Hooper's direction and the cinematography, costumes, art design and editing are nothing short of genius.
Hooper's idea to have the actors sing live really brings a deeper emotion to the film not seen in other movie musicals. Hugh Jackman is absolutely incredible as Jean Valjean and carries the film with spectacular grace. Anne Hathaway is magnificent in her fleeting role as Fantine - the film's sequence in which she goes on a downward spiral is one of the it's best moments, and her ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE HEARTFELT rendition of 'I Dreamed A Dream' will win her the Oscar by itself.
Also, a great supporting turn from newcomer Samantha Barks as the heartbroken Eponine (look out for her waist - it's absolutely tiny!), who is sure to be shot into stardom. Eddie Redmayne, Russell Crowe and Aaron Tveit are also good, and there's some great comedy relief from Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen.
It will leave you laughing, crying, and feeling inspired. A great watch, sure to win some major awards this year! 10/10!
Hooper's idea to have the actors sing live really brings a deeper emotion to the film not seen in other movie musicals. Hugh Jackman is absolutely incredible as Jean Valjean and carries the film with spectacular grace. Anne Hathaway is magnificent in her fleeting role as Fantine - the film's sequence in which she goes on a downward spiral is one of the it's best moments, and her ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE HEARTFELT rendition of 'I Dreamed A Dream' will win her the Oscar by itself.
Also, a great supporting turn from newcomer Samantha Barks as the heartbroken Eponine (look out for her waist - it's absolutely tiny!), who is sure to be shot into stardom. Eddie Redmayne, Russell Crowe and Aaron Tveit are also good, and there's some great comedy relief from Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen.
It will leave you laughing, crying, and feeling inspired. A great watch, sure to win some major awards this year! 10/10!
Magnificent Adaptation
Kaite92711 December 2012
This film is amazing. Absolutely incredible. I don't understand what people are saying about pacing issues, I thought it flowed beautifully. The changes made worked very well. And I didn't think there was any weak link in the cast. I honestly loved Russell as Javert. He wasn't traditional by any means, but what he did worked.
The cgi was not the best, but it kind of created this fantastical other world while still being realistic and grounded.
So many of the acting choices were brilliant and subtle. For example Jackman ever so slightly altered his voice with his characters aging, which I thought was brilliant.
There is no negative thing to say about this movie. However, I do see why a critic may not like it. It's not a critic movie. There isn't a lot of impressive violence, crazy camera shots, etc. the things critics seem to love. It's more grounded in the performances and the story, which it tells extremely well.
The only thing I can point out (because I saw it with my boyfriend who knows nothing about the story) there are two or three slightly confusing plots for those who aren't familiar with Les Mis. But they are either explained later on or not important enough to dwell on.
Anyways, that's my rant. Needless to say I will be seeing it many many times and cannot wait for the DVD so I can own it and watch it even more.
The cgi was not the best, but it kind of created this fantastical other world while still being realistic and grounded.
So many of the acting choices were brilliant and subtle. For example Jackman ever so slightly altered his voice with his characters aging, which I thought was brilliant.
There is no negative thing to say about this movie. However, I do see why a critic may not like it. It's not a critic movie. There isn't a lot of impressive violence, crazy camera shots, etc. the things critics seem to love. It's more grounded in the performances and the story, which it tells extremely well.
The only thing I can point out (because I saw it with my boyfriend who knows nothing about the story) there are two or three slightly confusing plots for those who aren't familiar with Les Mis. But they are either explained later on or not important enough to dwell on.
Anyways, that's my rant. Needless to say I will be seeing it many many times and cannot wait for the DVD so I can own it and watch it even more.
Must See
cncgjqbm20 August 2021
This is a must see film if you loved the Broadway version. The actors gave incredible performances, especially, Anne Hathaway and her singing in I Dreamed a Dream. Hathaway's performance made this film work.
Tom Hopper directed this film just like the Broadway version. I can't praise this film enough!
Tom Hopper directed this film just like the Broadway version. I can't praise this film enough!
A So-So Adaptation
griffolyon1231 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It has taken a long time, but Broadway sensation, Les Miserables, finally makes it to the silver screen with this cinematic adaptation, courtesy of director Tom Hooper. This musical set during the French Revolution, follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), from prison to finding religion while trying to evade French officer, Javert, who is after Valjean for skipping his parole board.
The strength of the film is in the performances of Hugh Jackman as Valjean and Anne Hathaway as prostitute, Fantine, who is shown kindness by Valjean on her deathbed, as she names him her daughter's guardian. There is an emotional authenticity to their performances, largely because the actors are freed and are able to act in the moment thanks to director Tom Hooper choosing to film all of the music live when they shot, rather than per-recording the tracks in the studio.
While Les Mis does hit all of the emotional beats, sending shivers down your spine during the beautiful songs, the plot feels fairly disjointed and is resoundingly flat when they're not singing one of the showstoppers. For instance, only when the characters Marius and Cosette are singing a duet do I feel emotion, but between memorable songs, the plot takes over and is full of gaping plot holes. Am I supposed to believe these two who have only met once when they are singing about how they can no longer go on without the other? Not to mention, the film's editing is often chaotic, causing confusion as to the spatial relationship in scenes with multiple characters, and the shot design never fully takes advantage of the grandeur of the tale, save for that beautiful opening shot.
To put it mildly, Les Miserables is an emotionally potent disappointment, that only has moments that never connect into a cohesive whole worthy of the beauty of the songs.
I give Les Miserables a 6 out of 10!
The strength of the film is in the performances of Hugh Jackman as Valjean and Anne Hathaway as prostitute, Fantine, who is shown kindness by Valjean on her deathbed, as she names him her daughter's guardian. There is an emotional authenticity to their performances, largely because the actors are freed and are able to act in the moment thanks to director Tom Hooper choosing to film all of the music live when they shot, rather than per-recording the tracks in the studio.
While Les Mis does hit all of the emotional beats, sending shivers down your spine during the beautiful songs, the plot feels fairly disjointed and is resoundingly flat when they're not singing one of the showstoppers. For instance, only when the characters Marius and Cosette are singing a duet do I feel emotion, but between memorable songs, the plot takes over and is full of gaping plot holes. Am I supposed to believe these two who have only met once when they are singing about how they can no longer go on without the other? Not to mention, the film's editing is often chaotic, causing confusion as to the spatial relationship in scenes with multiple characters, and the shot design never fully takes advantage of the grandeur of the tale, save for that beautiful opening shot.
To put it mildly, Les Miserables is an emotionally potent disappointment, that only has moments that never connect into a cohesive whole worthy of the beauty of the songs.
I give Les Miserables a 6 out of 10!
A BRILLIANT Adaptation of the Play and Novel
mikayakatnt3 December 2020
A near three-hour epic that one wishes was longer. The songs and emotions will be stuck with you long after you watch this film. A brilliant adaptation of the play.
The instant I started watching this film, I knew I would love it.
From the beginning, one can tell that the scale of this movie will be massive. From the overarching boats and the rich bass. Les Miserable is rich and vivid in color and song. One can tell that this is a story of redemption in a gritty world.
And does it get gritty. Anna Lynch-Robinson's clever set design makes 19th century France a world of contrasts. We see the extreme wealth and refinement of the bourgeois to the lowest depths of poverty. 19th century France is society ready to boil over.
The performances of everyone in this film is powerful and emotional. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean giving us a sense of life on the run. Russell Crowe is the unforgiving Javert. Though most people hated Crowe's performance, I enjoyed it. Anne Hathaway as Fantine, a loving mother who would do anything to give her daughter, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried), a better life. The stunning performance of Samantha Barks as Eponine stole the screen away. Not to mention Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter's performances as the comic relief Thenardier and Madame. The entire cast is star-studded and gives a performance unmatched.
Then the excitement comes once the revolution happens. The unmatched enthusiasm of the young yearning for a better France. The fight between the establishment and the rebellious. Scores of actors, action, and scenery that gives chills. Beautifully well done and artfully crafted.
I normally don't watch musicals, but the screen adaptation of the play/novel is phenomenal. There is no pause and the audience feels the events rolling as the film progresses. Les Miserables is a massive story that's told and retold time and time again. You can't watch this film without crying or tearing up.
5/5. Tom Hooper's masterpiece of a film. One of the best films of the year.
The instant I started watching this film, I knew I would love it.
From the beginning, one can tell that the scale of this movie will be massive. From the overarching boats and the rich bass. Les Miserable is rich and vivid in color and song. One can tell that this is a story of redemption in a gritty world.
And does it get gritty. Anna Lynch-Robinson's clever set design makes 19th century France a world of contrasts. We see the extreme wealth and refinement of the bourgeois to the lowest depths of poverty. 19th century France is society ready to boil over.
The performances of everyone in this film is powerful and emotional. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean giving us a sense of life on the run. Russell Crowe is the unforgiving Javert. Though most people hated Crowe's performance, I enjoyed it. Anne Hathaway as Fantine, a loving mother who would do anything to give her daughter, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried), a better life. The stunning performance of Samantha Barks as Eponine stole the screen away. Not to mention Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter's performances as the comic relief Thenardier and Madame. The entire cast is star-studded and gives a performance unmatched.
Then the excitement comes once the revolution happens. The unmatched enthusiasm of the young yearning for a better France. The fight between the establishment and the rebellious. Scores of actors, action, and scenery that gives chills. Beautifully well done and artfully crafted.
I normally don't watch musicals, but the screen adaptation of the play/novel is phenomenal. There is no pause and the audience feels the events rolling as the film progresses. Les Miserables is a massive story that's told and retold time and time again. You can't watch this film without crying or tearing up.
5/5. Tom Hooper's masterpiece of a film. One of the best films of the year.
Sing Talking gets Tiring
SnoopyStyle1 November 2013
Sing Song Talking gets real tiring. I thought I could take it, but after an hour of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe sing talking, it really got on my nerves.
Anne Hathaway does one of the most impressive and showiest singing performance. Her Oscar win is well deserved. If only the rest of the movie would stop singing, scenes like Anne's could shine more.
The story is a rambling meandering melodrama. Director Tom Hooper really embraced it and took the chance to go all out. I applaud the effort but it's not my kind of movie. Other than the one scene with Anne Hathaway, there isn't anything that is a must see.
Anne Hathaway does one of the most impressive and showiest singing performance. Her Oscar win is well deserved. If only the rest of the movie would stop singing, scenes like Anne's could shine more.
The story is a rambling meandering melodrama. Director Tom Hooper really embraced it and took the chance to go all out. I applaud the effort but it's not my kind of movie. Other than the one scene with Anne Hathaway, there isn't anything that is a must see.
I Cried in the Parking Lot
jamieblaurie26 December 2012
As a huge fan of the musical, I have religiously followed this film through its production from behind-the-scenes to trailers to sneak-peaks. And let me tell you, Les Mis did not disappoint! From the very beginning and the first swells of the orchestra's music, I was hooked. And through the whole 2.5 hour movie, I was riveted.
Singing: Everybody was great! Russell Crowe was not PHENOMENAL, but was excellent in "Stars" and "Javert's Soliloquy". Hugh Jackman, too, had his weak moments...but really wowed during "Who am I?" and "Bring Him Home". Anne Hathaway gave the best vocal performance, followed closely by Samantha Barks.
Acting: A fantastic performance from the whole ensemble. Again, Anne Hathaway blew everybody else out of the water. Samantha Barks, Eddie Redmayne, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were also excellent in terms of emotional delivery. And Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen were the much needed (and absolutely hilarious) comedic relief.
Production: One of the best period films I've seen. The costuming, makeup, hair and set design were impeccable. I really liked how people weren't made to be "pretty" as Hollywood often does; thankfully, the actors' teeth were not left movie-star white.
Overall, one of the best movies I've seen. I cried at least 10 times through the whole film, and the finale completely RUINED me. I was sobbing a full 15 minutes after the movie ended, walking through the theatre and out to the car.
Highly recommended for everyone!
Singing: Everybody was great! Russell Crowe was not PHENOMENAL, but was excellent in "Stars" and "Javert's Soliloquy". Hugh Jackman, too, had his weak moments...but really wowed during "Who am I?" and "Bring Him Home". Anne Hathaway gave the best vocal performance, followed closely by Samantha Barks.
Acting: A fantastic performance from the whole ensemble. Again, Anne Hathaway blew everybody else out of the water. Samantha Barks, Eddie Redmayne, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were also excellent in terms of emotional delivery. And Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen were the much needed (and absolutely hilarious) comedic relief.
Production: One of the best period films I've seen. The costuming, makeup, hair and set design were impeccable. I really liked how people weren't made to be "pretty" as Hollywood often does; thankfully, the actors' teeth were not left movie-star white.
Overall, one of the best movies I've seen. I cried at least 10 times through the whole film, and the finale completely RUINED me. I was sobbing a full 15 minutes after the movie ended, walking through the theatre and out to the car.
Highly recommended for everyone!
Almost Perfect
littlepheebs23 December 2012
I had high expectations for this movie. I can't say that I was completely blown away, but I enjoyed it. In the end I thought it could have been better so I am giving it a 9.
I thought the acting was pretty good. Especially Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman. The one person I thought that could've done better was Russell Crowe. He acted well and his voice is good too. It's just when the two came together it was kind of fake. There was only one scene in the movie that I thought he pulled them both off. I really like Russell Crowe so I was pretty disappointed about that.
The singing was really good. Unlike other movies, this movie's singing is recorded live and that made the performances more real. I thought all the actors had great voices and the song "Suddenly" which was written for this movie was very good. I also thought Amanda Seyfried's singing had really improved since "Mamma Mia". I really enjoyed her performances.
I've heard people complaining about the horrible CG, but I honestly think it's not such a big deal. The CG was not the best, but it's the last thing that crosses your mind after you watch this wonderful movie. I enjoyed this film, even though I had expected more from it. It's one of those movie's that people will say was a turning point for musicals in the film industry. So I think it's a movie worth watching.
I thought the acting was pretty good. Especially Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman. The one person I thought that could've done better was Russell Crowe. He acted well and his voice is good too. It's just when the two came together it was kind of fake. There was only one scene in the movie that I thought he pulled them both off. I really like Russell Crowe so I was pretty disappointed about that.
The singing was really good. Unlike other movies, this movie's singing is recorded live and that made the performances more real. I thought all the actors had great voices and the song "Suddenly" which was written for this movie was very good. I also thought Amanda Seyfried's singing had really improved since "Mamma Mia". I really enjoyed her performances.
I've heard people complaining about the horrible CG, but I honestly think it's not such a big deal. The CG was not the best, but it's the last thing that crosses your mind after you watch this wonderful movie. I enjoyed this film, even though I had expected more from it. It's one of those movie's that people will say was a turning point for musicals in the film industry. So I think it's a movie worth watching.
I really wanted to like this...
ungsuok25 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As a huge fan of the musical, I have been waiting with anticipation for this movie release. I just got back from the Christmas eve 10pm showing of this movie, and I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. There were some positives, but I feel it could have been so much better.
First the positives. There are some very strong performances here.
Also, the set/locations/scenery/costumes/make up really allow the audience to immerse into the story. I think this point is one of the greatest benefits a movie setting has over a stage production, and this movie delivers on this front. From the beautiful country settings, to the grime and grit of poverty in Montreuil and Paris, there is a strong sense of realism that you can't get in stage production (they did overdo it slightly in the sewer scene).
Now on to the negatives.
I have seen a few reviews complaining about the slow pace of the film. I thought the opposite. It felt kinda rushed. I know the stage production is 3 hours long, but I wish they hadn't sacrificed the story and proper delivery to save on run time for the movie. Some of the scene transitions are rather abrupt and leaves a sense of this being an ensemble of songs, rather than one flowing story. I'm not a purist in that I will complaint about every single change from the stage production, but some of the cuts and omissions really hurt the flow of the story and leaves some key characters and relationships woefully under-developed. Having said that, I do think one addition was brilliant: the scene with Jean Valjean singing to a sleeping Cosette in the carriage as they leave the Thenardier's inn. It really gives a great insight into the change that Jean Valjean goes through and the bond that he forms with Cosette.
Enjolras seems shuffled as a minor character, which is too bad as Aaron Tveit played the part with great passion when given the chance. Even though fleeting, Enjolras, Grantaire, and even Gavroche share some moments in the stage production that allows us to bond with these characters. I felt the movie marginalized each as their own without developing a bond between them.
Eponine also seemed to be under-developed. I can't quite place it. The individual performances were very strong, but "On my own" and "A little fall of rain" didn't quite have the same emotional impact that I thought it would. I think it was due to the lack of insight into the dynamic between Marius and Eponine. There was a lot of Eponine watching Marius fall in love with Cosette from a distance, but only one instance that I can remember of Marius unknowingly hurting Eponine during their interaction. I can think of 3 or 4 such occurrences in the stage production and really sympathizing with Eponine each time it happened. Again, subtle differences, but it really detracted from the overall story for me.
Also, I didn't care for Hugh Jackman's rendition of, and Tom Hooper's direction of "Bring him home". In the stage production, this song is very subdued with Jean Valjean singing in beautiful high falsetto while watching over a sleeping Marius. There is a beauty to its simpleness, and it is almost like a glimpse into Valjean's mind as he silently sends a prayer up to God. This movie's interpretations is much more... dynamic. Hugh Jackman delivers with a stronger force as Valjean nervously walks around the 2nd story of a building looking down on a sleeping Marius at the barricade. Certainly a very different interpretation, and it didn't work for me.
One last bit of negative was the casting of Russell Crowe as Javert. I am a fan of Russell Crowe, and while he is a great fit for the look and persona of Javert, I just did not feel he fit the vocal demands of the character. It prevented me from empathizing with Javert, my favorite character from the stage production.
With as much anticipation as I had going in, I'm afraid it was a bit of a disappointment. I really wanted to like this, but came away thinking of what could have been. Certainly a must see for all fans of the musical, but it is a shame that this movie will be the sole judgement of Les Mis for millions of viewers who may never have a chance to see the stage production.
First the positives. There are some very strong performances here.
- Anne Hathaway's performance has already drawn critical acclaim, so I won't dwell on it, except to say that the acclaim is well deserved.
- Hugh Jackman's voice tone and interpretation of Jean Valjean is quite different from anyone before, and I found myself drawn deeply to this Jean Valjean, sympathizing with his every emotion. I thought he did a great job of switching between a rough gravelly tone to a more clean ringing falsetto depending on the emotions of the character. I do have a complaint about directorial cues on one of Jean Valjean's key numbers, but more on that below.
- Eddie Redmayne as Marius gives a great performance. For the stage productions, Marius has always been one of my least favorite characters, always lacking depth with what I perceived as just immature blind infatuation for Cosette as his only emotion. In this movie, Eddie really captured each moment: his love for Cosette in the moonlight garden scene, his determination and drive for revolution, his remorse and anguish during "Empty chairs at empty tables" (a real tour-de-force performance). I thought he was wonderful.
Also, the set/locations/scenery/costumes/make up really allow the audience to immerse into the story. I think this point is one of the greatest benefits a movie setting has over a stage production, and this movie delivers on this front. From the beautiful country settings, to the grime and grit of poverty in Montreuil and Paris, there is a strong sense of realism that you can't get in stage production (they did overdo it slightly in the sewer scene).
Now on to the negatives.
I have seen a few reviews complaining about the slow pace of the film. I thought the opposite. It felt kinda rushed. I know the stage production is 3 hours long, but I wish they hadn't sacrificed the story and proper delivery to save on run time for the movie. Some of the scene transitions are rather abrupt and leaves a sense of this being an ensemble of songs, rather than one flowing story. I'm not a purist in that I will complaint about every single change from the stage production, but some of the cuts and omissions really hurt the flow of the story and leaves some key characters and relationships woefully under-developed. Having said that, I do think one addition was brilliant: the scene with Jean Valjean singing to a sleeping Cosette in the carriage as they leave the Thenardier's inn. It really gives a great insight into the change that Jean Valjean goes through and the bond that he forms with Cosette.
Enjolras seems shuffled as a minor character, which is too bad as Aaron Tveit played the part with great passion when given the chance. Even though fleeting, Enjolras, Grantaire, and even Gavroche share some moments in the stage production that allows us to bond with these characters. I felt the movie marginalized each as their own without developing a bond between them.
Eponine also seemed to be under-developed. I can't quite place it. The individual performances were very strong, but "On my own" and "A little fall of rain" didn't quite have the same emotional impact that I thought it would. I think it was due to the lack of insight into the dynamic between Marius and Eponine. There was a lot of Eponine watching Marius fall in love with Cosette from a distance, but only one instance that I can remember of Marius unknowingly hurting Eponine during their interaction. I can think of 3 or 4 such occurrences in the stage production and really sympathizing with Eponine each time it happened. Again, subtle differences, but it really detracted from the overall story for me.
Also, I didn't care for Hugh Jackman's rendition of, and Tom Hooper's direction of "Bring him home". In the stage production, this song is very subdued with Jean Valjean singing in beautiful high falsetto while watching over a sleeping Marius. There is a beauty to its simpleness, and it is almost like a glimpse into Valjean's mind as he silently sends a prayer up to God. This movie's interpretations is much more... dynamic. Hugh Jackman delivers with a stronger force as Valjean nervously walks around the 2nd story of a building looking down on a sleeping Marius at the barricade. Certainly a very different interpretation, and it didn't work for me.
One last bit of negative was the casting of Russell Crowe as Javert. I am a fan of Russell Crowe, and while he is a great fit for the look and persona of Javert, I just did not feel he fit the vocal demands of the character. It prevented me from empathizing with Javert, my favorite character from the stage production.
With as much anticipation as I had going in, I'm afraid it was a bit of a disappointment. I really wanted to like this, but came away thinking of what could have been. Certainly a must see for all fans of the musical, but it is a shame that this movie will be the sole judgement of Les Mis for millions of viewers who may never have a chance to see the stage production.
Even if you don't like musicals, you really should see this one
rogerdarlington8 December 2012
As a massive film fan, my tastes are very wide-ranging, but I do have a problem with musicals. Nevertheless I was happy to take the opportunity of a private viewing of "Les Misérables" at the London office of distributors Universal - the day after the London première and a month before the UK release - because of the outstanding success of the original stage show (a run of 27 years with a total audience of over 60 million) and the surprising and impressive cast list (Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne).
The showing was introduced by producer Eric Fellner of Working Title who underlined the commercial challenge of making a film in which all the dialogue is sung and the themes are so political and praised director Tom Hooper ("The King's Speech") for his insistence that every take was sung live.
The two main characters are presented in the opening seconds of a sweeping introductory sequence: the police inspector Javert (Crowe) and the prisoner 24601 Jean Valjean (Jackman) in post-revolutionary France. There follows over two and half hours with barely a spoken word which will not appeal to all cinema-goers, but the production is a triumph with Cameron Mackintosh's musical opened up by dramatic shooting on Pinewood's brand new Richard Attenborough stage and some historic English locations.
If Crowe and especially Jackman are excellent, Hathaway - who lost 25 pounds and most of her hair for the role - is outstanding as the destitute Fantine and Cohen and Carter almost steal the show as the comical Thénardier innkeepers.
I'm not sure how long it will take for "Les Misérables" to recoup its investment cash- wise, but it's going to win award after award and rightly so.
The showing was introduced by producer Eric Fellner of Working Title who underlined the commercial challenge of making a film in which all the dialogue is sung and the themes are so political and praised director Tom Hooper ("The King's Speech") for his insistence that every take was sung live.
The two main characters are presented in the opening seconds of a sweeping introductory sequence: the police inspector Javert (Crowe) and the prisoner 24601 Jean Valjean (Jackman) in post-revolutionary France. There follows over two and half hours with barely a spoken word which will not appeal to all cinema-goers, but the production is a triumph with Cameron Mackintosh's musical opened up by dramatic shooting on Pinewood's brand new Richard Attenborough stage and some historic English locations.
If Crowe and especially Jackman are excellent, Hathaway - who lost 25 pounds and most of her hair for the role - is outstanding as the destitute Fantine and Cohen and Carter almost steal the show as the comical Thénardier innkeepers.
I'm not sure how long it will take for "Les Misérables" to recoup its investment cash- wise, but it's going to win award after award and rightly so.
Magnificent Live-Production Captured On Film!
Eric-Low17 December 2012
What an innovative film!
Contrary to one of the reviews which canned everything about the movie from the plot to the actors' singing voices to camera angles (by someone who, to me, is obviously not familiar with the live theater productions of this musical nor it appears the he has ever been to any), I find this movie version is a a state-of-the-art capture of one the world's great musicals for the cinema screens!
The live singing is superb, showing the fragility (and flaws) of every performer ... and that's what a live-performance is all about! This movie captured a live theater production on screen for all cinema goers who never had the chance to enjoy a live theater production!
Kudos to everyone involved! A must-see for all! And a must-buy for those who wish to have a copy of this masterpiece for a keepsake!
Contrary to one of the reviews which canned everything about the movie from the plot to the actors' singing voices to camera angles (by someone who, to me, is obviously not familiar with the live theater productions of this musical nor it appears the he has ever been to any), I find this movie version is a a state-of-the-art capture of one the world's great musicals for the cinema screens!
The live singing is superb, showing the fragility (and flaws) of every performer ... and that's what a live-performance is all about! This movie captured a live theater production on screen for all cinema goers who never had the chance to enjoy a live theater production!
Kudos to everyone involved! A must-see for all! And a must-buy for those who wish to have a copy of this masterpiece for a keepsake!
You need to know the history and context - Les Mis the novel and Les Mis the musical before attempting this. Then you can appreciate what they were trying to do.
mickman91-18 December 2021
This is a really tricky one to talk about. Its place in the Les Mis repertoire is confusing to newcomers and the reviews are polarised which is also confusing, but I understand why.
This is a film version of a the musical adaptation of a novel. Therefore, I think that attempting to watch this without any prior knowledge of Les Mis is going to leave you confused or feeling incomplete. Les Mis is such a huge epic vast story that features many characters and covers many years and has many important grand themes. All of these cannot be crammed into a 2.5 hour movie, never mind a 2.5 movie version of a musical version of the story. Les Mis is absolutely fantastic, but I recommend to people that they understand the story in its entirety before seeing the musical. The 2018 BBC series a a great 6-hour in-depth version if you don't want to read the 1500 page novel. Then, I think you can appreciate the musical in its totality because it brings the themes and emotions of the story alive through music and musical theatre. Then, once you are familiar with the musical (there are 3 famous recordings of it available) , then you can understand the movie remake of the musical and what it was trying to achieve.
So I totally understand why fans of the musical would be disappointed in this because it features actors rather than singers, so the singing is nowhere near as good as in the musical. I also understand why newcomers to Les Mis might be disappointed in this, because on its own it is an incomplete rendering of Les Mis, there is so much depth and context that I feel you need in order to piece it all together and truly appreciate the tragedy and the themes within it. But for those who have an understanding of what came before, I think this is a really bold and commendable attempt at converting the musical to a movie format. However, ultimately, it is not as emotionally affecting as the musical because (despite some great acting) you can't get a way from the fact that it is largely through the music that the emotional heart is portrayed. And the music here is nowhere near as good as the stage versions.
I think its very important to know what the intentions for this movie were. The actors all sang live, with the intention of being able to sing as if they acting, i.e. They could slow down and speed up where they need for a more realistic portrayal of the words than a song which runs to a consistent tempo. And also not be held back by needing to hit all of the notes perfectly, a lot of lines Hugh Jackman almost speaks rather than truly sings, because he is trying to do the songs in a more realistic acting fashion. This should have been made really clear in all the promo for the film because when you know this you can appreciate more what they were attempting to do, and not just simply compare them to Colm Wilkinson or Ruthie Henshall or any of the vocal greats from Les Mis on stage. Where this works the best as it was intended is in Anne Hathaway's I Dreamed a Dream. Her raw emotional ropey speak-singing works absolutely perfectly for one of the most devastatingly human portrayals of Fantine we have. She won an Oscar for this alone, and though I'm not a huge fan of the Academy's choices I have to agree with this.
The production is beautiful and great to look at. And the casting outside of Hathaway is mostly good. Jackman I think is an excellent Valjean, as vulnerable as he is strong. And in a non-musical version of Les Mis i think he would be one of the greats. But despite his acting abilities, next to Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe, he is just not going to compete in fans memories.
It is a must-see, but not as your introduction to Les Mis.
This is a film version of a the musical adaptation of a novel. Therefore, I think that attempting to watch this without any prior knowledge of Les Mis is going to leave you confused or feeling incomplete. Les Mis is such a huge epic vast story that features many characters and covers many years and has many important grand themes. All of these cannot be crammed into a 2.5 hour movie, never mind a 2.5 movie version of a musical version of the story. Les Mis is absolutely fantastic, but I recommend to people that they understand the story in its entirety before seeing the musical. The 2018 BBC series a a great 6-hour in-depth version if you don't want to read the 1500 page novel. Then, I think you can appreciate the musical in its totality because it brings the themes and emotions of the story alive through music and musical theatre. Then, once you are familiar with the musical (there are 3 famous recordings of it available) , then you can understand the movie remake of the musical and what it was trying to achieve.
So I totally understand why fans of the musical would be disappointed in this because it features actors rather than singers, so the singing is nowhere near as good as in the musical. I also understand why newcomers to Les Mis might be disappointed in this, because on its own it is an incomplete rendering of Les Mis, there is so much depth and context that I feel you need in order to piece it all together and truly appreciate the tragedy and the themes within it. But for those who have an understanding of what came before, I think this is a really bold and commendable attempt at converting the musical to a movie format. However, ultimately, it is not as emotionally affecting as the musical because (despite some great acting) you can't get a way from the fact that it is largely through the music that the emotional heart is portrayed. And the music here is nowhere near as good as the stage versions.
I think its very important to know what the intentions for this movie were. The actors all sang live, with the intention of being able to sing as if they acting, i.e. They could slow down and speed up where they need for a more realistic portrayal of the words than a song which runs to a consistent tempo. And also not be held back by needing to hit all of the notes perfectly, a lot of lines Hugh Jackman almost speaks rather than truly sings, because he is trying to do the songs in a more realistic acting fashion. This should have been made really clear in all the promo for the film because when you know this you can appreciate more what they were attempting to do, and not just simply compare them to Colm Wilkinson or Ruthie Henshall or any of the vocal greats from Les Mis on stage. Where this works the best as it was intended is in Anne Hathaway's I Dreamed a Dream. Her raw emotional ropey speak-singing works absolutely perfectly for one of the most devastatingly human portrayals of Fantine we have. She won an Oscar for this alone, and though I'm not a huge fan of the Academy's choices I have to agree with this.
The production is beautiful and great to look at. And the casting outside of Hathaway is mostly good. Jackman I think is an excellent Valjean, as vulnerable as he is strong. And in a non-musical version of Les Mis i think he would be one of the greats. But despite his acting abilities, next to Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe, he is just not going to compete in fans memories.
It is a must-see, but not as your introduction to Les Mis.
One of the best movie musicals
taropor17 February 2022
A great bridge between Hollywood and Broadway.
danwildv4 August 2013
This is less of a review and more of a reply to the negativity surrounding this film.
May I just start by saying that I saw this production on Broadway when I was about ten years old and maybe because of my age, it was never something that appealed to me but now at the tender age of 31, I find myself a lot more open minded. Not remembering the story, I was completely in the dark with what to expect from this movie. Quite honestly I was blown away and found it to be mesmerising.
Some reviewers have complained that it's nowhere near as good as the live stage production but I think that these very same people are missing the point. This is an on screen adaptation of the very well known musical and there has to be some sort of bridge here. I'm sure those who live for the theatre would rather have the full Broadway crew cast for the film but for this to work on a more commercial level, you must have some well known actors. Okay, so they can't carry out the songs with the power and intensity of stage performers but you've got to say they did reasonably well considering.
The way I see it, for someone like myself who doesn't read books and just thoroughly enjoys film, it's really opened my mind and has given me more motivation now to go to the theatre, more than I ever would before. Like I say it's a bridge between Hollywood and Broadway that I feel works very well. Hats off to the cast who really made this film what it is. Although it may look a bit of an outcast compared to the rest of my collection, this will be one Blu ray I'll be buying very soon.
PS. To the reviewer who said that it's ridiculous to get 19 years for stealing bread, had you have been paying attention, you'd know that he was given 5 years for stealing and the rest of his time given was for trying to escape. Please get your facts right before submitting your nonsense. You just end up looking daft.
May I just start by saying that I saw this production on Broadway when I was about ten years old and maybe because of my age, it was never something that appealed to me but now at the tender age of 31, I find myself a lot more open minded. Not remembering the story, I was completely in the dark with what to expect from this movie. Quite honestly I was blown away and found it to be mesmerising.
Some reviewers have complained that it's nowhere near as good as the live stage production but I think that these very same people are missing the point. This is an on screen adaptation of the very well known musical and there has to be some sort of bridge here. I'm sure those who live for the theatre would rather have the full Broadway crew cast for the film but for this to work on a more commercial level, you must have some well known actors. Okay, so they can't carry out the songs with the power and intensity of stage performers but you've got to say they did reasonably well considering.
The way I see it, for someone like myself who doesn't read books and just thoroughly enjoys film, it's really opened my mind and has given me more motivation now to go to the theatre, more than I ever would before. Like I say it's a bridge between Hollywood and Broadway that I feel works very well. Hats off to the cast who really made this film what it is. Although it may look a bit of an outcast compared to the rest of my collection, this will be one Blu ray I'll be buying very soon.
PS. To the reviewer who said that it's ridiculous to get 19 years for stealing bread, had you have been paying attention, you'd know that he was given 5 years for stealing and the rest of his time given was for trying to escape. Please get your facts right before submitting your nonsense. You just end up looking daft.
Great effort but never fully connect to the beauty of the musical
carson-chow27 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There's plenty to enjoy in the latest movie version of the musical Les Misérables about a group of beautifully sad and tragic people. But ultimately it leaves me feeling disappointed and not as gaga over the performance of Anne Hathaway or the songs as some of my fellow musical lovers. I feel that the movie could have been so much better.
I have heard people complaining about the movie being too long. But I thought the movie was a bit rushed. The musical production is 3 hour-long and it was perfect. The movie introduces and cramps many characters and story lines together and drags on the scenes of the revolution and the battles. My friend, B, said the second half is too long and boring. A lot of the scenes transitions are very abrupt and sudden. The change of tone really hurts the flow of the story and makes me really hard to get into the drama.
The relationships between the characters are underdeveloped. I did not feel the strong emotional bond between Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried). This may be why I was not moved when Jean Valjean died in the end. Some characters are also significantly marginalized. There is very little interaction between the characters to make me feel their feelings for each other. Each musical number seems to appear too close to the one before, and there's no room for the song to sink in. The songs are sung very over-the-top at times too when a more subdue simple approach would suffice.
There are, of course, plenty of things to appreciate about Les Misérables. The fantastic cast. The breathtaking, albeit fleeting, performance and voice that fly from Anne Hathaway's mouth. The way Jean Valjean sings to a sleeping Cosette in the carriage. The strong performance of Eponine (Samantha Barks) singing "On my own", the way all the characters try to maintain a sense of honor and principle in a world, except for the Thenardier couple (even the Thenardiers are very likable). The amazing set, scenery and costumes are really more appealing on a big screen than onstage. For most of us, I can see that the movie would be a fine and powerful entertaining adaptation.
But as a fan of the musical? I can't make myself care about what drives the characters in this movie version. When I read reviews by people who really, really love the movie, I feel like an ultimate outsider. It's so gorgeous! I cried! I wanted to clap after every song! The costume! And if you do, good for you! You are probably capable of a more sophisticated attitude toward this Les Misérables than I can manage. I, on the other hand, miss the impact of each songs sung by the live actors and the sense of the French revolutionary period captured by the stage production.
I do think it is a must-see for the musical lovers. The movie itself is a great effort that has its moments but never fully connect to the beauty of the musical.
I have heard people complaining about the movie being too long. But I thought the movie was a bit rushed. The musical production is 3 hour-long and it was perfect. The movie introduces and cramps many characters and story lines together and drags on the scenes of the revolution and the battles. My friend, B, said the second half is too long and boring. A lot of the scenes transitions are very abrupt and sudden. The change of tone really hurts the flow of the story and makes me really hard to get into the drama.
The relationships between the characters are underdeveloped. I did not feel the strong emotional bond between Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried). This may be why I was not moved when Jean Valjean died in the end. Some characters are also significantly marginalized. There is very little interaction between the characters to make me feel their feelings for each other. Each musical number seems to appear too close to the one before, and there's no room for the song to sink in. The songs are sung very over-the-top at times too when a more subdue simple approach would suffice.
There are, of course, plenty of things to appreciate about Les Misérables. The fantastic cast. The breathtaking, albeit fleeting, performance and voice that fly from Anne Hathaway's mouth. The way Jean Valjean sings to a sleeping Cosette in the carriage. The strong performance of Eponine (Samantha Barks) singing "On my own", the way all the characters try to maintain a sense of honor and principle in a world, except for the Thenardier couple (even the Thenardiers are very likable). The amazing set, scenery and costumes are really more appealing on a big screen than onstage. For most of us, I can see that the movie would be a fine and powerful entertaining adaptation.
But as a fan of the musical? I can't make myself care about what drives the characters in this movie version. When I read reviews by people who really, really love the movie, I feel like an ultimate outsider. It's so gorgeous! I cried! I wanted to clap after every song! The costume! And if you do, good for you! You are probably capable of a more sophisticated attitude toward this Les Misérables than I can manage. I, on the other hand, miss the impact of each songs sung by the live actors and the sense of the French revolutionary period captured by the stage production.
I do think it is a must-see for the musical lovers. The movie itself is a great effort that has its moments but never fully connect to the beauty of the musical.
Why We Pay to Watch Others Suffer
Danusha_Goska25 December 2012
Les Miserables is very old fashioned entertainment. It's a series of crescendo moments with no build-up, no backstory, no pause. It's like eating just the topping of the pecan pie, and not bothering with the crust or filling. We were just ten minutes into the movie when I had to look at my watch and ask, okay, how long can they keep this up? Climax after climax, plot twist after plot twist, tearjerking scene after tearjerking scene. Oceans! Mountains! Punishment! Suffering! Religion! Redemption! Will there be a break for lunch? Will we be able to catch our breath?
If you can watch this film without crying, I don't want to know you. The woman behind me was on the edge of her seat, not just because I smell good. The audience at the 10:40 a.m. matinée – the theater was packed – applauded at the end, and was very slow to leave the theater, even as the closing credits rolled.
Typical of big, fat, nineteenth-century novels, there are numerous implausible coincidences that drive the plot. These coincidences took me out of the movie, but that was a good thing. The human suffering on screen was overwhelming: suicide, enslavement, exploitation of living humans' body parts, prostitution, disease, spite, malice, child abuse, starvation, sadism, a dying man escaping through very graphic sewerage. I did have to repeat to myself, "This is only a movie" even as tears streamed down my cheeks.
Jean Valjean is imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children. He slaves for twenty years. He hauls a massive, capsized sailing ship. The scene does look like obviously fake CGI, but that doesn't make it any less gut wrenching. The workers sing, "You'll always be a slave. You are standing in your grave." They are the men we see in Sebastiao Salgado photographs of Third World laborers. They are Ilya Repin's "Barge Haulers on the Volga." Valjean's nemesis is the crazily obsessive policeman, Javert. They spar throughout the film, as Valjean's fate rises and falls and rises and falls and rises you get the idea.
A story this big, this broad, and this implausible requires one hundred percent commitment from the performers. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is superb. He believes. He emotes. He is as big as the story itself. Jackman is the heart and soul of "Les Miserables." I loved him. Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen – they all had me convinced. Russell Crowe was a surprising disappointment. He's a brilliant actor and I kept waiting for him to bring some fire, some ice, some power, some insight to Javert, the obsessive and punitive policeman who mercilessly hounds Jean Valjean. I wanted a memorable moment that would make me feel that Crowe's performance brought Javert to intimate life for me. That moment did not arrive.
I wondered while watching this movie whether it will be embraced by the political left or the political right. It is a deeply and unashamedly Christian film. A Catholic priest, emulating Jesus, is the catalyst. Valjean spends the rest of the film working to live up to the priest's Biblical example. "Les Miserable" is leftist in that it depicts the poor rising up, but then the poor fail their own putative saviors, and allow them to be massacred, alone. Javert, representing law and order, is a monster. The film's brief glimpse of heaven is like some limousine liberal's fantasy.
I think "Les Miserables" is as popular as it is for the same reason that Cinderella is so popular. When "Les Miserable" was a stage play, tickets were a very expensive and difficult to acquire luxury. It is ironic that a play about the wretched of the earth would be such a luxury entertainment. Why do we enjoy watching people much poorer and more desperate than we will ever be? Why do we pay for the privilege? Because we all see ourselves in Cinderella, in Jean Valjean, no matter how lucky we are. I'll certainly never stand in cold sea water with iron shackles around my wrists and neck, overseen by a cold sadist like Javert. But, along with millions of others, I saw my own struggles in Valjean, and thanked God that I didn't have it as bad as he. If Jean Valjean can go on, I can, too!
I wish the songs had been a tad better. There are a couple of good ones, "I dreamed a dream" and "Do you hear the people sing?" All the actors sing very well. Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman sing especially well.
If you can watch this film without crying, I don't want to know you. The woman behind me was on the edge of her seat, not just because I smell good. The audience at the 10:40 a.m. matinée – the theater was packed – applauded at the end, and was very slow to leave the theater, even as the closing credits rolled.
Typical of big, fat, nineteenth-century novels, there are numerous implausible coincidences that drive the plot. These coincidences took me out of the movie, but that was a good thing. The human suffering on screen was overwhelming: suicide, enslavement, exploitation of living humans' body parts, prostitution, disease, spite, malice, child abuse, starvation, sadism, a dying man escaping through very graphic sewerage. I did have to repeat to myself, "This is only a movie" even as tears streamed down my cheeks.
Jean Valjean is imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children. He slaves for twenty years. He hauls a massive, capsized sailing ship. The scene does look like obviously fake CGI, but that doesn't make it any less gut wrenching. The workers sing, "You'll always be a slave. You are standing in your grave." They are the men we see in Sebastiao Salgado photographs of Third World laborers. They are Ilya Repin's "Barge Haulers on the Volga." Valjean's nemesis is the crazily obsessive policeman, Javert. They spar throughout the film, as Valjean's fate rises and falls and rises and falls and rises you get the idea.
A story this big, this broad, and this implausible requires one hundred percent commitment from the performers. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is superb. He believes. He emotes. He is as big as the story itself. Jackman is the heart and soul of "Les Miserables." I loved him. Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen – they all had me convinced. Russell Crowe was a surprising disappointment. He's a brilliant actor and I kept waiting for him to bring some fire, some ice, some power, some insight to Javert, the obsessive and punitive policeman who mercilessly hounds Jean Valjean. I wanted a memorable moment that would make me feel that Crowe's performance brought Javert to intimate life for me. That moment did not arrive.
I wondered while watching this movie whether it will be embraced by the political left or the political right. It is a deeply and unashamedly Christian film. A Catholic priest, emulating Jesus, is the catalyst. Valjean spends the rest of the film working to live up to the priest's Biblical example. "Les Miserable" is leftist in that it depicts the poor rising up, but then the poor fail their own putative saviors, and allow them to be massacred, alone. Javert, representing law and order, is a monster. The film's brief glimpse of heaven is like some limousine liberal's fantasy.
I think "Les Miserables" is as popular as it is for the same reason that Cinderella is so popular. When "Les Miserable" was a stage play, tickets were a very expensive and difficult to acquire luxury. It is ironic that a play about the wretched of the earth would be such a luxury entertainment. Why do we enjoy watching people much poorer and more desperate than we will ever be? Why do we pay for the privilege? Because we all see ourselves in Cinderella, in Jean Valjean, no matter how lucky we are. I'll certainly never stand in cold sea water with iron shackles around my wrists and neck, overseen by a cold sadist like Javert. But, along with millions of others, I saw my own struggles in Valjean, and thanked God that I didn't have it as bad as he. If Jean Valjean can go on, I can, too!
I wish the songs had been a tad better. There are a couple of good ones, "I dreamed a dream" and "Do you hear the people sing?" All the actors sing very well. Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman sing especially well.
Very Well Done Stage-to-Screen Adaptation
cougarfan-bridger19 December 2012
An all star cast, a classic musical, and new innovations make for an astounding rendition of Les Miserables. Unlike most musical films, all the singing was filmed and recorded live, and it made a difference. There was a passion and emotion present that I have felt so deeply and personally only a few times before. Crowe and Jackman were both fantastic throughout the film, and Anne Hathaway performed the most moving version of "I Dreamed A Dream" that I have heard. Overall, the acting was well done and I only had a few issues with characters. Sacha Baron Cohen brings a sense of raunchy humor and disrespect to a serious and emotional film. I am disappointed in him being cast, as he ruined some potentially moving scenes. The cinematography was not traditional, and there were moments where it distracted from the story. Many shots and scenes were very well done though, and besides a few shots, the cinematography was intriguing. I don't know how to sum it up, so I'll just say this: if you are a fan of Broadway, or past Les Mis films and soundtracks, this film is for you.
The definitive Les Miserables movie experience!
DoctorNordo25 December 2012
As someone who has been burned by every single Hollywood adaptation of Les Miserables, let me categorically state that this time it was done right! Everything from the acting to the music to the sets was borderline perfect. The only thing that could possibly be considered a negative was something that was absolutely unavoidable. That is, when you are taking a novel as voluminous as Les Miserables and condensing it into a feature length movie, some things will be cut or rushed. This is no exception. The movie moves at breakneck speed. Anyone who is fond of the Broadway musical will no doubt not be bothered by it, but people new to the story or those who have only read the novel might be put off by it.
As far as the acting and music is concerned, I can find very little to fault. Russel Crowe was the weakest of the lot as I just didn't find his voice to be up to the task of singing some of Javert's songs (Stars immediately springs to mind). Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Samantha Barks were all especially good. The intense emotions their characters experience throughout the story are perfectly performed.
This naturally leads to a critique of the music. Anyone familiar with the Broadway show will undoubtedly find themselves joyously mouthing along to the familiar lyrics and might be surprised at a couple of brand new songs written specifically for the movie. Just as in the show, the music is brilliant and meshes wonderfully with the story.
One of the biggest treats, however, were the sets and special effects. The beauty and squalor of 19th century Paris was showcased magnificently and it really allowed you to become engrossed in story.
This is a movie that both fans of the novel as well as fans of the musical can both fall in love with, since even though there are some deviations from the novel this is still the closest a film version has ever come to being completely faithful to the book. Additionally, this movie is a perfect chance for those who have never read the book or haven't heard of or had a chance to see the Broadway show. I wholeheartedly recommend this film to everyone. My only warning is to limit your fluid intake, since at 2.5+ hours your chance of encountering an overflowing bladder is a very real danger.
As far as the acting and music is concerned, I can find very little to fault. Russel Crowe was the weakest of the lot as I just didn't find his voice to be up to the task of singing some of Javert's songs (Stars immediately springs to mind). Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Samantha Barks were all especially good. The intense emotions their characters experience throughout the story are perfectly performed.
This naturally leads to a critique of the music. Anyone familiar with the Broadway show will undoubtedly find themselves joyously mouthing along to the familiar lyrics and might be surprised at a couple of brand new songs written specifically for the movie. Just as in the show, the music is brilliant and meshes wonderfully with the story.
One of the biggest treats, however, were the sets and special effects. The beauty and squalor of 19th century Paris was showcased magnificently and it really allowed you to become engrossed in story.
This is a movie that both fans of the novel as well as fans of the musical can both fall in love with, since even though there are some deviations from the novel this is still the closest a film version has ever come to being completely faithful to the book. Additionally, this movie is a perfect chance for those who have never read the book or haven't heard of or had a chance to see the Broadway show. I wholeheartedly recommend this film to everyone. My only warning is to limit your fluid intake, since at 2.5+ hours your chance of encountering an overflowing bladder is a very real danger.
Inconsistent but OK
nvanvalleygirl20 April 2015
Thought parts of this film outstanding. I wasn't enamoured by all the casting. Some offered great marquee value, but mediocre vocal value. Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and actress playing Epinome were brilliant. For a musical to be turned into a film, this was one of the better one's I've seen, but still prefer this one live. Nothing beats seeing the volume of live singers on stage singing One More Day and Do You Hear the People Sing. The film can't capture close to this. Aside from that stylistically, I disliked the number of close ups and found the fact that they went in and out of focus as the performer moved singing irritating. Really pulled me out of the film.
The staging was spectacular, but... the singing?
mistabobdobolina21 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I rented this and, as a lifelong fan of the musical who has grown up with productions and recordings, I tried to keep my expectations in check and my mind open. But, wow... I really found myself struggling to make it all the way through.
The sets and costumes and staging were, of course, spectacular as only film can deliver. And there were some fine performers and interesting acting choices. So, maybe the director decided that the singing should be third priority behind these things? Les Miserables can be done well as a straight-ahead non-musical movie. But the *musical theatre version* cannot be staged well without the music taking centre stage; without it, what's left is really just a thin melodrama. And the fact is that the singing in this production -- at least from some of the key leads -- is on balance quite shockingly bad.
You may have gone in already knowing this about Russell Crowe; I had wondered if the Onion piece lampooning him as "completely disappearing into the role of a man who cannot sing or act" was being over-harsh, but it isn't. I was disagreeably surprised, though, to find it also true of Hugh Jackman, who is supposed to come from a musical background and yet whose awful, almost comically nasal rendition of Valjean set my teeth on edge constantly. Other great, juicy arias of the musical are criminally underserved and under-sung by such otherwise fine talents as Helena Bonham Carter (and whoever that guy is who's failing to play Thenardier) and Amanda Seyfried (who actually has a good voice but seems to have been directed to swallow half the notes).
Granted, it's not all awful. Anne Hathaway swallows half the notes of Fantine's great arias too, for instance, but at least she does it in service of selling the character's death by consumption. Eponine is excellent, and of course, the best-known Valjean of all time appears in a cameo as the Bishop... and serves up a shining moment of the aural richness that the musical is usually known for.
But those few bright spots don't quite rescue what look to me to be fundamentally misguided direction and production decisions. Impressive spectacle though it is, it's not as impressive as it should be as a musical, and I'm glad I didn't pay to see this in the theatre, as I was tempted to do.
The sets and costumes and staging were, of course, spectacular as only film can deliver. And there were some fine performers and interesting acting choices. So, maybe the director decided that the singing should be third priority behind these things? Les Miserables can be done well as a straight-ahead non-musical movie. But the *musical theatre version* cannot be staged well without the music taking centre stage; without it, what's left is really just a thin melodrama. And the fact is that the singing in this production -- at least from some of the key leads -- is on balance quite shockingly bad.
You may have gone in already knowing this about Russell Crowe; I had wondered if the Onion piece lampooning him as "completely disappearing into the role of a man who cannot sing or act" was being over-harsh, but it isn't. I was disagreeably surprised, though, to find it also true of Hugh Jackman, who is supposed to come from a musical background and yet whose awful, almost comically nasal rendition of Valjean set my teeth on edge constantly. Other great, juicy arias of the musical are criminally underserved and under-sung by such otherwise fine talents as Helena Bonham Carter (and whoever that guy is who's failing to play Thenardier) and Amanda Seyfried (who actually has a good voice but seems to have been directed to swallow half the notes).
Granted, it's not all awful. Anne Hathaway swallows half the notes of Fantine's great arias too, for instance, but at least she does it in service of selling the character's death by consumption. Eponine is excellent, and of course, the best-known Valjean of all time appears in a cameo as the Bishop... and serves up a shining moment of the aural richness that the musical is usually known for.
But those few bright spots don't quite rescue what look to me to be fundamentally misguided direction and production decisions. Impressive spectacle though it is, it's not as impressive as it should be as a musical, and I'm glad I didn't pay to see this in the theatre, as I was tempted to do.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
