Les Miserables (2012)

Review

Les Miserables (2012)

Review and Trailer Comments

  • View Profile for Louise McClearyLouise McCleary

    Have just seen Les Miserable. Absolutely incredible casting and they all deserve an Oscar. Not a dry eye in the house.

    Posted 11:40 | Sun 23rd Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Scott MillerScott Miller

    Tremendous movie. Standout performances by Jackman and Hathaway. Frequently left me with chills- the audience applauded at the end.

    Posted 01:13 | Wed 26th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Scott MillerScott Miller

    Tremendous movie. Standout performances by Jackman and Hathaway. Frequently left me with chills- the audience applauded at the end.

    Posted 01:13 | Wed 26th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Michele Flossie ClarkeMichele Flossie Clarke

    Being a massive Les Mis fan I was not sure what to expect but I was blown away! Totally breathtaking and Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman WOW! I want to see it again :)

    Posted 11:18 | Wed 26th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Michael BusbyMichael Busby

    The singing is atrocious, even laughable sometimes (Russell Crowe as a crooner? No, not this time around.) Hugh Jackman gives a credible performance but for Anne Hathaway fans, she only has about five minutes screen time.I think Cohen steals the show with his inn-keeper role but I kept trying to hit fast forward, anyway.

    Posted 02:57 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Henry KellerHenry Keller

    I really can't understand the universal acclimation for this film or for the disconnected story behind it. I saw the film and it is hideously LONG and the singing is awful. I liken it to a BAD opera. The story is foolish to begin with when a long time prisoner ( for almost nothing) is paroled and can't get a job anywhere but somehow ( without any explaination) becomes mayor of a town and a business owner, finds a prison guard trailing him ( also without explaination of how he gets there or why he's sooo determined to destroy his quary)) and the rest of the movie is just as incongruous. Character development lacks credulity, continuity is horribly strained and the thing is abominably long and poorly cast since no one can sing worth a damn and the accents are cockny British instead of FRENCH! ( It's set in France you do know!!!) I found it a miseable ( pun intended) time at the theater!! Go if you must, but you must have zero taste for music or stories and a desire to spend hours doing little of value!!

    Posted 14:46 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for LesJoLesJo

    The review of the man above confounds me! He, Henry, obviously doesn't know much about musical theatre or opera. As a choral conductor and music teacher, the only voice I did not like was that of Russell Crowe....good acting but poor singing (reminded me of Pearce Brosnan in "Mama Mia", but not quite as bad). I was pleasantly surprised by both Anne Hathaways voice and Hugh Jackmons) they had some very difficult vocals to sing.....high and soft. They did a marvelous job. I knew the voice of the gal who played Cossette. Her voice is also beautiful. The movie was wonderful and it was long, but the story is complicated, and it was taken from the book and pretty true to the story. Some details of the plot are left out as is usually the case with screen adaptations but I think some oscars will come out of this...especially Hugh Jackmon and Anne Hathaway.

    Posted 15:11 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for LesJoLesJo

    The review of the man above confounds me! He, Henry, obviously doesn't know much about musical theatre or opera. As a choral conductor and music teacher, the only voice I did not like was that of Russell Crowe....good acting but poor singing (reminded me of Pearce Brosnan in "Mama Mia", but not quite as bad). I was pleasantly surprised by both Anne Hathaways voice and Hugh Jackmons) they had some very difficult vocals to sing.....high and soft. They did a marvelous job. I knew the voice of the gal who played Cossette. Her voice is also beautiful. The movie was wonderful and it was long, but the story is complicated, and it was taken from the book and pretty true to the story. Some details of the plot are left out as is usually the case with screen adaptations but I think some oscars will come out of this...especially Hugh Jackmon and Anne Hathaway.

    Posted 15:11 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Roxane Dawn CaryRoxane Dawn Cary

    Got to see the advanced screening and the crowd also clapped. My daughter are both fans of the musical. Broadway it was not, but incredible is an understatement.

    Posted 18:23 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Roxane Dawn CaryRoxane Dawn Cary

    Got to see the advanced screening and the crowd also clapped. My daughter are both fans of the musical. Broadway it was not, but incredible is an understatement.

    Posted 18:23 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for sara laketsara laket

    Henry Keller- if you did not like the movie for the singing or acting, fine. But your comments about the story line are ridiculous and ignorant. "The story is foolish to begin with when a long time prisoner ( for almost nothing) is paroled and can't get a job anywhere but somehow ( without any explaination) becomes mayor of a town and a business owner, finds a prison guard trailing him ( also without explaination of how he gets there or why he's sooo determined to destroy his quary))...." Do you KNOW the story of Les Miserables?? It was written in 1862 and is considered to be one of the greatest classic novels of all time. The setting is 1815 France and yes, I am sure a man could be imprisoned for a long time for the simple act of stealing a loaf of bread back then. Before you criticize the story-line, maybe you should acquaint yourself with the proclaimed novel upon which the movie was based.

    Posted 18:16 | Fri 28th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for KatrinaMPJKatrinaMPJ

    Ok....as a DIE HARD Les Miserables fan, I have to give my review of the movie now that I have seen it. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised! However, I have mixed feelings on individual performances. ATTN: SPOILER ALERT!! Hugh Jackman was actually quite a good Jean Valjean. The acting was AMAZING, however his singing wasn't the best. His voice was incredibly "nasally" and his rendition of "Bring Him Home" left something to be desired. As the MAIN song of Jean Valjean that usually leaves no dry eyes in the room....it just didn't bring me to the emotional edge that it should have. I was INCREDIBLY EXCITED to see the ORIGINAL Jean Valjean (Colm Wilkinson) was in the movie playing the part of the priest!! However, after hearing HIM sing, I was REALLY wanting to hear him continue in the part of Jean Valjean and Hugh Jackman became a bit of a letdown! I am just glad they gave him A part...but Colm SHOULD have played Jean Valjean! It's HIS role!! Even though Jackman did a great job...it wasn't the performance Colm would've given! I was really disappointed in Russel Crowe's version of "Javert." Javert is supposed to be the biggest A$$hole cop on a power trip EVER...and Crowe played him like he was just a cop w/ a "heart of gold" who just wanted to do the right thing. Not at ALL how Javert was MEANT to be played! His singing was also very "blah." His songs are supposed to be very emotionally charged and STRONG...and Crowe was weak and quite boring. Every song Javert sings, he COMMANDS...but when Crowe sang "Stars" it had absolutely NO feeling and was so "anti-climatic!" The end of the song when he sings, "There is no way to go OOOOOOOONNNNNNNN!" The reason that note is so long is b/c its supposed to turn into a "scream" as he jumps to his death. However, the director had Crowe hold out the note and THEN he just stepped off the bridge!? Really!? It could have been SO MUCH more emotional then it was! I was GREATLY DISAPPOINTED with his performance. Young Cosette was great as was the older Cosette. Everytime Amanda Seyfried (older Cosette) sang, all I could think about was "Snow White" and the sweet and perfect, "Disney Princess" voice. LOL I actually preferred her voice to ANY of the Cosette's I have seen on stage. I am NOT an opera fan so it was nice to hear that part sung less operatic. I was also surprisingly happy with Anne Hathaway's "Fantine." VERY emotional!! I am NOT a fan of Hathaway so I was really happy that she did such a wonderful job! Her performance was so emotionally charged that she brought me to tears a few times! The pulling of the teeth was a brand new thing though!! I had heard such rave reviews of Eponine that I was expecting a LOT more than what I saw. She was good, don't get me wrong, but after all the hoopla around her performance I guess I was just expecting a little more. I MUCH prefer the actresses who played her on Broadway! Marius was an AWESOME actor and vocalist...but couldn't they have found a better looking guy?! He did "grow" on me...but I KNOW there are better looking men out there who could've given just as good a performance! I know that's a bit cruel, but as the MAIN love interest in Les Mis...he SHOULD have been more handsome...I think. Madame Thenardier was great, but Monsier Thenardier just came across as a sad old drunk (played by "Borat") instead of the party animal, fun and funny innkeeper he SHOULD have been. The two actors are WONDERFUL comedic performers and I really believe it was the DIRECTING that was given that toned down the LIVELY characters the Thenardiers SHOULD have been! And finally, the boy who played "Gavroche" was really awesome....but he looked WAY too much like my son!! Same haircut, eye color, age, body style, etc. So when he got shot my heart went into my throat b/c all I could see was MY son on the screen (especially in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings)!! There were a few songs that they changed the words on and it confused me since the changes didn't HAVE to be made but were "dummed down" for the audience I guess?! For example, the original words to "At The End Of The Day" were "Keep on GRAFTING as long as your able," and they changed it to "Keep on WORKING as long as you're able"....just silly things like that which made it seem like the director thought the audience was too dumb to figure out what the word "Grafting" meant! There were also some new songs that I enjoyed and they kept in sync with the feeling and sound of all the original songs. I know they will come out with a soundtrack and even though it would be nice to have those few NEW songs, I will NOT be buying it b/c the singing quality was just NOT there. I think that MOST of the problems with the movie were caused by the DIRECTOR. It seemed like many of the actors TONED DOWN their performances for some reason and weren't "larger than life" like those on the Broadway stage! There were MANY times that were supposed to be incredibly emotional and they just fell FLAT. I dont think that was b/c of the ACTORS...but instead b/c of the way they were TOLD to play their parts. I believe it would have been MUCH better if they had asked the BROADWAY stars to play parts....and if they had used NO NAME actors instead of trying to bring viewers to the box office by BIG NAME actors! The directing and casting (especially for JAVERT) was disappointing. Ok...I have given my review. I would recommend the movie/musical to EVERYONE because it WAS quite good...but the BROADWAY stage musical is SOOOOOOO much better! If you ever have the chance to see the stage act you shouldn't hesitate to get tickets as you WONT be disappointed!!! At least we can all rest assured in the fact that they will REDO this movie in a few years....like they have many of the other "classics"....since Hollywood doesn't have a single ORIGINAL idea anymore! Hopefully next time around they will do a better job casting and directing. Now, it's time to start reading the novel (which I got for Cmas!)

    Posted 19:22 | Fri 28th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Cynthia Wyatt-SteinCynthia Wyatt-Stein

    it was loosely based on the European revolution of the 19th century in the year 1848 and the barricades were common. The movie was about how the people wanted to rebel against injustice. I have the original soundtrack recording and i tell you i can feel the emotions through each song. As in our own country a government of the people by the people for the people. So Henry really the movie, musical and book had a political statement to make.

    Posted 12:45 | Sat 29th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for KatrinaMPJKatrinaMPJ

    I have been a HUGE Les Mis fan since I was about 10 and am TOTALLY in love with the music! Last year when the BROADWAY show came to our town I took our ENTIRE family (4 kids, 4 grandparents, my hubby and me) to see it so that I could share my most favorite Broadway Musical with them! My youngest are 7 & 9 and now know every song by heart. My son's biggest "dream" is to play Gavroche in the Broadway show! He actually looks almost EXACTLY like the kid who played him in the movie! It was quite HORRIFYING tho when Gavroche got shot b/c all I saw was MY son up there! I am just hoping that one of these days they will release the "rights" to the show and allow community theatres to have an "off" Broadway stage show! Who knows...maybe one of these days HE will be Jean Valjean! :)

    Posted 18:19 | Sat 29th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Tim LarsonTim Larson

    KTrinaMPJ, the rights were released to the general public several weeks ago through MTI and none professional theaters can acquire the rights to be performed after June 2013. So break a leg. I loved the movie. I am a Huge fan of the stage musical and was so glad not to see a replica. I agree that Russell Crowe was the weak musical link but still I think a fine performance of that period. Whoever said above that Hugh Jackman cannot sing. Are you nuts? Did you know he won a Tony for a musical and an award for the revival of Oklahoma in London. He is the epitome of the triple threat. Please see the show with an open mind (know your history...Henry) and sit back and let the emotions of one your greatest stories and musicals of all time fill your soul.

    Posted 20:41 | Sat 29th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Fred SouzaFred Souza

    Hugh Jackman was amazing in this performance, and his singing superb. To the critic above who thought he was weak in that one song about the death of all that is young--his tone and tempo were perfect for his subject. I think Anne Hathaway did a great job, but her role was so short-lived that I am not seeing the Oscar buzz working there. Crowe was pretty awful in both the acting and the singing--he is usually a very good villain, so I think that should have been brought out more, so his change of heart would be more meaningful. The novel is about the indomitable human spirit and the evil that lead to the uprising that was the French Revolution, and the musical version does a great job with that while still emulating a Broadway musical. It wasn't intended to be reality (that version was made about ten years ago and was absolutely terrible) but it did a wonderful job of underscoring the treatment of the poor. Fact is, if there is any weakness, it comes from the novel itself which doesn't do enough to point out what led to the Revolution and is somewhat like saying the American Revolution developed as a result of the Boston Tea Party...there was much corruption and mistreatment by the governments (particularly of the poor) which led to the rise of the revolution.

    Posted 23:44 | Sat 29th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for JMarshJMarsh

    Yes, I just created an account because someone's statement above bothered me this greatly. "I had heard such rave reviews of Eponine that I was expecting a LOT more than what I saw. She was good, don't get me wrong, but after all the hoopla around her performance I guess I was just expecting a little more. I MUCH prefer the actresses who played her on Broadway!" KatrinaMPJ, I really hope you realize that Samantha Barks, the woman who plays Eponine in this movie, is indeed the Eponine that has been in the stage production of Les Miserables. So technically you're saying you prefer her voice over her voice...a paradox. And yes, Tom Hooper could have asked Broadway stars to perform in this movie but I do not believe that he was going for a perfect Les Mis performance. He wanted to do something completely different with it and he succeeded. Some like it, some don't like it. If you really want to hear the musical with Broadway singers, then I suggest you go to a Broadway showing of it. All right, my rant is over. Sorry everyone.

    Posted 08:58 | Sun 30th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Vicki RiceVicki Rice

    Loved this movie Hugh Jackson was brilliant as was Anne hathaway Very moving dramatic acting musical should be at least 2 oscars for this movie,

    Posted 23:03 | Sun 30th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for vikingviking

    Les Miserables is the greatest movie I have ever seen. It captured the intent of the original stage version (which I saw 3x in London) and expanded its impact through the artistic brilliance of those who understood its depth. I plan to see it again and take others. Its treatment of redemption, the transformation of the heart from bitterness to love, caught the majesty of the God it portrayed.

    Posted 23:35 | Sun 30th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Heidi ThompsonHeidi Thompson

    I LOVED this move! HUGH JACKMAN was AMAZING!! Anne Hathaway was AMAZING BRAVO to the whole cast such talented people. I felt they were LIVING the story not acting in front of the camera.I was CRYING like a BABY!! Hugh Jackman WAS SO INTO HIS CHARACTER HE BLEW ME AWAY!! omg awesome BRAVO TO THE CAST :)

    Posted 06:32 | Mon 31st Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Sarah DawnSarah Dawn

    LesJo, et others, i agree. i thought crowe did not do service to the part. i thought jackman and hathaway rocked it, and it became the 3rd film i have ever shed a tear at.

    Posted 13:20 | Tue 1st Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Sarah DawnSarah Dawn

    @ Fred Souza : from my guts to your comment. you are more articulate than i.

    Posted 13:25 | Tue 1st Jan 2013
  • View Profile for KathieKathie

    I just returned from seeing this movie. I have to say, bar none, this was the best "movie" musical production I have ever seen. It was moving and intense...it was beautiful and harsh too...I wasn't sure what to expect since I had seen the stage production a few years back. The movie was probably better than the stage production. Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Ann Hathaway...all of them...they were all awesome. I don't know how the cast was selected, but it was a class act! To say I LOVED this movie is an understatement... I could recognize the connections between "scenes". I also get the Academy Award to Ann Hathaway...her part was above remarkable! Hope to see more movies of this caliber!

    Posted 01:36 | Sun 6th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Cheryl HansenCheryl Hansen

    Posted my review yesterday and it has not shown up. It took a lot of time to write such a disappointment.

    Posted 02:14 | Mon 7th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Norma J PetersNorma J Peters

    Just saw this this am. It is incredibly well done. Saw it 3x on stage at different times an at different theaters. This far surpasses any before. The scope and magnitude of this movie are unbelievable. Every scene is well scripted and very very well done! The singing may not be the best of the best but trust me, it is far superior to others of this type. The sound did not assault the senses like so may do, it was constant and even and enjoyable. Please run do not walk to see this treasure!

    Posted 01:14 | Wed 9th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Eimear LaveryEimear Lavery

    @KatrinaMPJ I have grown up with the musical and know the words and have seen it performed twice; both times by Colm Wilkinson however I am open to an alternative interpretation. The stage and the screen are two different mediums, you simply cannot compare like with like. I also think that it's difficult to take your review seriously given your overuse of capital letter. It rubs people up the wrong way.

    Posted 14:40 | Thu 10th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for FilmBuff76FilmBuff76

    I thought Les Miserables was just allright. I've never seen the stage version, but I've seen many of the other film and TV versions. My favourite is the 1978 TV version with Anthony Perkins and Richard Jordan. The story is strong enough without the songs. Hugh Jackman gave a good performance though and Anne Hathaway was heart-breaking. What's with the Cockney accents though? I wouldn't be surprised if it swept the Oscars, as The Academy love this type of film. I think there will be more worthy films for that Best Picture Oscar though.

    Posted 13:17 | Sat 12th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for JulieDayMcCJulieDayMcC

    My husband and I have just come back from the 13.30pm performance at the cinema here in Slough. The film still held the inspiration and enjoyment of the theatre production plus more. We were not disappointed by any aspect of the film: sets, set piece scenes, photography, costumes, acting, historical narrative etc. We both became emotional during the course of the film with a tear at Val-jeans death. We would recommend it, but not necessarily for younger members of the family. There should be a warning about flash photography, especially at the battle of the barricadejust a thought. Great entertainment value on all levels, we enjoyed Bonham-Carter and Baron Cohens comedic input.

    Posted 19:02 | Sat 12th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for FilmBuff76FilmBuff76

    @ JulieDayMcC - make sure to put * SPOILER ALERTS * in your post, for the benefit of those who haven't seen the film yet.

    Posted 10:45 | Sun 13th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Allan Ó SúilleabháinAllan Ó Súilleabháin

    Can I please point out that contrary to what Rory says in his review, Les Misrables is not set during the French Revolution, which took place in the 18th Century. The story itself begins in 1815 and culminates in the 1832 Paris Uprising led by Student Societies.

    Posted 12:47 | Sun 13th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Tim CaisleyTim Caisley

    How does one 'spoil' Les Miserables....Its about as effective as spoiling Titanic by saying the ship sinks.... LM being one of the most successful, well documented, most produced musicals that ever graced the stage in the last 35yrs.

    Posted 13:22 | Sun 13th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Emma59Emma59

    It was a very moving film with great preformanances from Hugh Jackman and especially Anne Hathaway. I would of liked to see more of Anne in the movie though.

    Posted 14:35 | Sun 13th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for FilmBuff76FilmBuff76

    @ Tim - I must have been living on a different planet (!) as I know nothing about the stage musical. I just think spoilers should be flagged.

    Posted 20:46 | Sun 13th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for DoubleLetterDoubleLetter

    @Henry Keller - I agree with you 100%. I thought the movie was atrocious. (1) There are far too many solos. This may work on stage, but doesn't work on film. Not only that, there are too many close-up shots and not enough visuals of the outstanding set. (2) The story is repetitive. It is basically Crowe and Jackman meeting several times in different locations with the same narrative (your a prisoner on the run, I'm a guard seeking your arrest). Crowe even has two scenes balancing on a ledge singing a solo about Jean ValJean - very repetitive. Not only that, a man would not have been imprisoned for "19 Winters" for stealing a loaf of bread, no matter what the pretentious commenter Sara Laket may say (Sorry Sara, but your comment is so pretentious). (3) Everything Henry Keller mentioned, bad singing, weak story, Pantomime characters (Cohen, Carter and the prostitutes looked like something from a Gaeity Xmas Panto). The last 5 seconds of the massive barricade (which should have been used for the main barricade scene!) is outstanding, but that only lasts for 5 seconds. Avoid at all costs. It's like being locked in a Disney Jail with the cast of Fame.

    Posted 00:26 | Mon 14th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for josephjoseph

    There are a lot of divergent reviews here but I thoroughly enjoyed the film. If you are a Les Miserables fan this production will not let you down although there might be one or two weak points. Hugh Jackmans Bring Him Home is pitched too high and sounds a bit strained as a result, Russell Crowe cant really sing well, but the combination of acting and singing wins every time over any personal disappointments you might find with the soundtrack. Its a surprise to me that so many people are still not familiar with the storyline, it is true to say that you have to ignore certain unexplained leaps in the lives of some of the characters but its already a long film with no need to pack a perfectly edited movie for anyone considered a fan of the Les Mis story.

    Posted 17:10 | Mon 14th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for annepatriciaannepatricia

    Have just returned from " Les Mis " in Mahon, Cork. As someone who has seen the stage show three times, with the great Colm C. T. Wilkinson, and the 25th. anniversary show from the O2 in London, I went with some trepidation to see the movie. Thank God I did , and will be going again and recommending it to all I know. Hugh Jackman is superb, as is Anne Hathaway, " Marius" and his friends, Cosette, young and grown up, Epinine, Gavroche et al. Only Russell Crowe disappointed, though strong in his duet and duel with the incomparable Hugh. I partly blame the director, who maybe should have elicited more passion and menace from him. I would not rate Sacha Baron Cohen against the innkeepers I saw on stage in Dublin, too " subdued" a performance. An emotional high nonetheless. Roll on my next viewing!

    Posted 00:30 | Tue 15th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for LynzieLynzie

    After reading the comments I feel Sara Laket was way too hard on Henry Keller. This site is here for people to voice their opinions. I saw 20 min. of the movie and I could not take it anymore, so I got up and left. I am also a performer and musician. I was invited to see the movie and I did not know the entire movie was a musical. I probably would have enjoyed it more with less singing; some of the voices were very off and bad. But the acting was great, there was NO way that I could have endure a movie that long with "all" singing. But I am not a big opera fan either. The movie was not my type, that's why God made us all so very different. I am glad for those that paid for the movie and enjoyed it that means you had a great time. On a scale of 1-100, I would still give it 50, 50% goes for the acting. Now the week before I saw Jango and that was "my" kind of movie, yes totally different. Everyone has their own types of movies, enjoy! LOL

    Posted 05:22 | Tue 15th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for DoubleLetterDoubleLetter

    ^ Agree with you totally. Nothing worse than a bigot. Also Django looks like my sort of movie too, can't wait to see it. Lunacies you seem cool.

    Posted 22:07 | Wed 16th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Shivey1Shivey1

    It must have been bread from avoca if they wanted it that much!!! :)

    Posted 08:52 | Thu 17th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Bullet1001Bullet1001

    This is my tuppence worth! Although I like musicals, I have never been a huge fan of Les Mis. Having endured it on Broadway (where my aunt fell asleep!), I was dragged along to see it in the cinema against my will by my better half! This time, it was my turn to doze, the first time I have ever done so in the cinema. Perhaps it is a family gene, but that snooze was almost the best part of the film for me! I found the film over-long, very disjointed and nonsensical (as others have pointed out). Russell Crowe growls to music and lead Jackman was good, but not great in my opinion. Also, the dialogue is sung which is stupid and I found parts where multiple characters sang multiple songs at the same time very annoying. Anne Hathaway is only on screen for a few minutes, but her "SuBo" solo was the highlight of the film for me. Also on the plus side, Cohen is amusing and I really liked Barks, who played Eponine (although that could be because I thought she was beautiful!). Overall though, it was an ordeal for me, but die hard fans love it apparently!

    Posted 10:19 | Thu 17th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for BertautBertaut

    I'm pretty sure that review from Henry Keller is a joke/troll poat - I mean he's saying the plot of one of the finest novels ever written and the most successfull musical of all time is 'silly'. There's no way anyone could actually come out with comments like that and be serious. Unless he's a complete moron who is unaware this is based on a stage musical which is itself based on a novel. Not to mention he makes several mistakes in his review. I'm a big fan of both the novel and the stage musical. Have seen it three times lives and have both the 10th anniversary and 25th anniversary performance DVDs. What I loved about the film was how cinematic it was. Compare it to, say, Joel Schumacher's Phantom, which was fine, but was basically a filmed version of the stage production - nothing inherenetly in it that couldn't be done on stage. Hoopper took the stage play and made a great movie of it in its own right - as exemplified in the opening scene, or the transition scenes from 1815 to 1823 and then from 1823 to 1831. This is a superb FILM in and of itself.

    Posted 00:55 | Fri 18th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for DaisyDebDaisyDeb

    I am embarrassed for the journalist writing that the back drop for this film was the French Revolution, which happened a century before. Someone hasn't done their homework? And in response to Henry Keller thinking the story of a criminal becoming a successful business man and mayor sounds unlikely, it is actually based on a true character,namely Eugne Franois Vidocq, an ex-convict who became a successful businessman widely noted for his social engagement and philanthropy. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, it has been pretty much fully booked in London for 25 years!

    Posted 23:45 | Sat 19th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Victoria ShephardVictoria Shephard

    Good enough to see twice. I cried.

    Posted 01:55 | Sun 20th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for AvisAvis

    Saw the musical 75 times as I worked in the Point, loved every show and cried most nights, couldn't help but compare the film, Hugh Jackman was brilliant, Russell Crowe should stick to acting and it was so so hard to actually see Colm Wilkinson in the movie but not sing the main song. Enjoyed it as I love the songs, but could have got better singers. Disappointed with Fantine, Marius. This film is not for those that have not seen the musical or are not into musicals.

    Posted 03:08 | Sun 20th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for MidoriMidori

    Just got back from seeing it and still crying. I have seen many, many movies, yet I have never been so deeply affected by a film in my life. This was high art. I loved every performance, the singing, and thought each voice matched the character and story perfectly, each line of song delivered in just the right way to grab my heart. Though there are other film renditions of this story, this version had something the others didn't, something extra that just blew me away. The emotions the actors were bringing to their performances were so strong, I felt as if I were seeing a real-life drama as it was happening. I have never seen a musical as a film type used so effectively. The camera work seemed extra special in the way it revealed the humanity of the characters. While it was easy to feel deeply for the suffering and sacrifice of Valjean and Fantine, in spite of the heartlessness of Jaubert, Crowe got me to feel worried about his falling off the wall. Part of that was due to his acting, and part due to the camera taking me to his feet. The sets, the costumes, the songs, the music, the make-up, the story, each actor's work were in my eyes and ears perfect. The entire production filled me with a feeling of gratitude, that I could see this work of art, hear it. I was moved beyond what I could ever have expected. The music was superb, the acting superb, and the behind-the-scenes work must have been as well. I think Victor Hugo's work was finally done in the way it needed to be done. To the cast, you were, each and every one of you, amazing. For opening my heart in such a profound way, I thank you.

    Posted 08:18 | Sun 20th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for laineylainey

    I just can't believe that someone (katrinampj i'm talking to you!) thinks that Eddie Redmayne isn't handsome enough to play Marius- somebody needs to go to Specsavers! that is all!

    Posted 16:46 | Tue 22nd Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Ben QuinlanBen Quinlan

    As a starting musician,singer and actor I have to admit there was a few lovely bits in this movie that were lovely, however in complete honesty I was very disappointed with the singing of some of the actors and I also just felt there could have been a lot more brought in this film with more passion etc.So saying all that it didn't reach the standard I was expecting, I saw Le Miserable in the west end and was blown away however in the movie I was very disappointed and felt bored through many parts of it.

    Posted 16:39 | Mon 28th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for LindaLinda

    This is a type of film if your not into musicals you wont like it. I found it good but not exceptionally rushing out to buy this either when its out. I think if you seen it once thats enough. But the singing in it was brill especially from Amanda Seyfred Anna Hathaway , Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe also the two young children where very good.

    Posted 17:14 | Mon 4th Feb 2013

Log in to leave a comment

Entertainment.ie login Facebook login

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in the comments section are those of the viewer and do not reflect those of Entertainment.ie. Entertainment.ie accepts no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy of viewer comments. Please contact us to report abusive comments

More Trailer