User reviews

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

I have been a big fan of Les Miserables since I was very young. I remember watching the 10th Anniversary concert on PBS as a kid and just being blown away by the singing, the music, and the story. I became so transfixed by it that I had my mom buy me the unabridged version of Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and read the whole thing .... twice.

With all that being said, I was really excited to see this movie. The previews made it look great. I had seen the last version of Les Miserables with Liam Neeson and had been thoroughly disappointed afterwards, especially with the ending. I was really hoping that this one would take the ending further, like the concert does. On that aspect - I was not disappointed at all. The production, the visuals, the costumes, it was all very good. I loved the ending, and I loved the cameo by Colm Wilkenson at the beginning (who played Valjean in the musical). What I did not like was the singing. Yes, they inserted some great big actors to get interest ... but they can't sing worth anything. They can sing better than I can, but when you watch the concert and then you watch this, the songs feel somewhat ... emptier. I was highly disappointed that the casting decision had been aimed more at big names than actual musical talent. Songs that are supposed to be overwhelmingly powerful have been reduced so much that almost none of the emotion you want to feel can possibly be expressed, due to the lack of both the vocal range and the vocal power of the actors.

It was a good try .... I suppose for those that never watched the concert it would be very enjoyable. For us life-long fans ... not so much. I am going to stick with the 10th anniversary concert.

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!

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.

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!

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 film lets the audience get into the feelings of the history and the power of people. With the songs that characters are conveying, it produces arrogance and the democratic.entitlement.

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.

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.

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.

As I typically enjoy musicals, this one was no exception. Regardless of who you may be this movie hits hard especially at the very end. While I am not prone to getting teary eyed during movies, this was one of the few exceptions that was able to make me feel emotional as the credits rolled. I recommend this to anyone that wishes to watch, and to view it from a point of view where you can understand all of the messages that it presents.

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.

This film adaptation excels in creating an emotionally immersive experience, bringing the audience up close and personal with its characters through innovative cinematography. The decision to use live singing is a bold move that both enhances emotional authenticity and occasionally compromises vocal quality. While visually engaging, the movie struggles with pacing, especially in the latter half, where momentum seems to falter. The attention to detail in set design and costumes successfully evokes the era, adding layers of authenticity. Despite these strong points, the film may not fully engage those unfamiliar with the original work, as it can feel weighed down by its own gravitas and lengthy runtime. Overall, it is an ambitious but uneven adaptation that will likely be a hit with fans of the source material but may leave newcomers less captivated.