Les Misérables (2012) - Drama, History, Musical

Hohum Score

11

Watchable

In 19th-century France, Jean Valjean, who for decades has been hunted by the ruthless policeman Javert after breaking parole, agrees to care for a factory worker's daughter. The decision changes their lives forever.

IMDB: 7.6
Director: Tom Hooper
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe
Length: 158 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 169 out of 976 found boring (17.31%)

One-line Reviews (632)

Great Story, Good movie, Ho-hum singing .

I'd even go as far as to say was this a movie at all or was it just one large set after another trying to be a moving piece of dull theatre?

Whoever you talk about this movie in terms of adaptation, or the division of roles, previously denied them an experience of enjoying in the film with exciting music, epic scenography and memorable costumes, made to make you see this movie once again, so you will be note all this details yourself

The changes here from the musical work against the movie's favor because they turn the fantastical into the mundane.

That being said, I'm not really a big fan of musicals, in fact I tend to not like them, Oklahoma-boring, South Pacific-who cares.

Stunning.

Movie is long, so see with empty bladder.

The only high point for me in this sleep-inducing endless monotony, was Anne Hathaway as Fantine.

The acting from all concerned was impeccable and the singing was emotional and very engaging.

There is only one single performance that matched and maybe even slightly outdid his own in this film and that was the equally stunning Anne Hathaway.

I sat on the edge of my seat, during the entire song, and I can honestly say, it made me cry.

She has stunning looks as well as an amazing voice.

I really tried but was left incredibly bored .

The story was waaaay too slow moving and for some reason everyone had a British accent?

Hooper's meaningless close ups to prove they are Love singing is silly and at times boring.

I will gladly accept the "love at first sight" thing, but the two of them are uninteresting.

This movie is simply breathtaking in its dramatic presentation of this literary masterpiece.

"Les Miserables" is one of those musical's that is long and drawn out and kind of in depth from director Tom Hooper.

Incredibly moving, Redmayne during "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," will make you believe in the power of Les Mis and even more, the power of the movies.

I really wanted to like this film and I tried pretty hard but considering a movie this boring goes on for an unforgiving 160 minutes I just couldn't stop pleading for the movie to end.

One more thing I dislikes was the length of the movie, it was too long that at the end it becomes somehow boring to some people.

It drones on and on and on and on and on....

Rousing stuff even for those with "musicalaphobia" .

But here, it felt flat and boring.

But if you see it as a movie experience as a whole, when you can see the Actors are singing with their expression and emotion, at that time, then you can feel that thiz is a very strong and breathtaking musical movie.

I saw Les Miserables on Broadway many years ago - it was a stunning musical.

The story of the movie is beautiful and very exciting.

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.

¨Academy Award winning director, Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), brings one of the most famous musicals based on Victor Hugo's 1862 novel, Les Miserables, to the big screen with quite a remarkable screenplay adaptation, a beautiful production design, and some stunning performances from the cast.

Even when there was no character struggle, the singing and visuals were simply entertaining.

That being said I found Les Mis to be quite engaging from a technical standpoint.

That being said--to the causal movie viewer unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's novel; a timeless testament to the survival of the human spirit--it is a tedious, bloated, and exhausting 238 minutes you'll never get back.

It just kept going, song after boring song.

Even so most of it was quite entertaining and I recommend it to those who enjoy musicals of this type.

It was worth the watch.

I gave it nine stars because of missing verses in songs and a confusing song addition.

For example in one scene Jackman follows a spoken part with a brief two lines of song which are confusing for both him and the viewer.

Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried, though the two weakest links for me in the movie, still are enjoyable to watch.

" that consist of a well-connected interwoven between a intriguing story and endeavored combination of dancing and singing by cast who sweat themselves to master painstaking moves with sore throats.

Amanda Seyfried who I KNOW can sing sounds like a chirping bird, and it's unbearable.

The fact that it is a musical will be a turn-off for many, but this is a musical like no other where the songs here are rich and deep, the plot well-crafted, the characters fully engaged, and the costumes and scenery simply breathtaking.

People seem to be confusing their subjective taste in movies to an objective appraisal of the movie - if a movie is not to your taste, it does not make it a bad movie, and you shouldn't base your rating on whether you liked it or not.

Maybe this was just the theater I was in (but I really don't think it was), but the sound felt very empty.

5 minutes in I was ready to leave.

"Les Miserables" is one of the greatest novels of modern history and the opera-play, now the stunning movie, are challenged to maintain the emotional integrity of Hugo's drama, as well as the strength of the iconic Valjean and Javert.

Lastly, the directors did a great job in turning a well-known play into an enjoyable film.

I mean, every line in a 159 minute movie has been "sung", down to the most banal mundane statement you can imagine.

Les Misérables is probably the most intense and dramatic musical I've ever seen.

Javert's final moment was unexpected and frighting, very powerful.

The film serves as a living testament to the art of the movie musical, a slowly dying genre that one hopes is finally resurrected by this exciting and riveting film experience.

The scenery was stunning, France was brilliantly and clearly painstakingly created.

This is just unbearable!

The use of green screen and CGI to recreate Hugo's picture of 19thC Paris is cleverly done- especially in those scenes where Russell Crowe's character is literally walking on the edge contemplating his battle of wills with Jackman's Valjean.

The revolution is the best part of the movie, that said, it loses the vast majority of it's potential dramatic effect to the incessant, pointless singing.

Jackman is fantastic as the criminal turned humanitarian, Hathaway is magnificent and with her famous song very emotional, and supporting cast members Crowe, Seyfried, Redmayne, Carter and Cohen get their great moments on screen as well, this musical goes a different direction by having the performers sing live rather than mime to pre-recorded, meaning songs like the astounding "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Bring Him Home" are brilliant, I admit it is lengthy and looks gloomy a lot of the time, but the sweeping camera shots, marvellous costumes and rousing feel add up to a sensational period musical.

Russell Crowe comes off as a boring stiff and looks constipated, as if he'd rather be doing something else rather than straining for his top notes.

His emotion in "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" was the best I have ever seen, and maybe it was the emotional attachment I have to that song, and although I thought the orchestration need some tuning, It was phenomenal, Eddie understood what his character was feeling and put it out in front of him perfectly.

He pulls out all the stops, takes no prisoners and creates a big, lavish, garish, but always entertaining adaptation of a musical that leaves subtlety smoldering in the dust.

In addition to being one of the most boring movies ever made, there is very little to like beside some sets and costumes, and the fact that Hugh Jackman can hold a note for almost a minute.

Save your money and avoid the film.

I loved his rendition of 'Empty Chairs At Empty Tables' and I did weep like a baby most of the way through it hehehe.

Here is where it gets hard to follow.

An intense drama of human nature .

Emotionally draining, stamina-crippling, and headache-inducing, I found this to be one of the worst movie experiences I have ever had.

A really stunning movie.

Breathtaking - A Musical with Heart .

That classic's adapted from Hugo's novel; it's not a musical, but watch it and you'll immediately realize how outrageous the hype for this comparably empty, prolonged music video of catchy tunes and missed notes truly is.

We're also deprived of the intense back-and-forth struggle between Valjean and Javert for Fantine's soul.

It is worth watching and I definitely recommend it to everyone.

Whilst undeniably the set piece songs provide a crescendo of emotion, when the scene finishes the movie feels flat until the next head of steam is built up for the next rousing song.

I enjoyed it FAR more than I thought I would.

The movie is worth watching few times in order to sink in with the emotions and should definitely be owned in a DVD version as a collector material.

Plus, that new song "Suddenly" is a bore and was certainly made and inserted solely for a chance at an Oscar.

So Sad and dull.

a waste of resources, time and, oh, just everything.

And even though I hated that book, I can at least appreciate it for its depth and (dull) brilliance.

Worth the watch .

I walked out of the theater on the day it came out in 10 minutes.

It was an emotionally engaging film.

Singing "Empty Chairs, Empty Tables" he is tortured and grief stricken.

Hugh Jackman is mind blowing as Jean Valjean.

Besides "The Love Guru" by Mike Myers, this is by far the worst movie I have ever seen...

His interpretation of the Inspector Javert character was completely bland.

Tween girls will fall in love with Marius and songs like "On My Own" all over again and Les Mis the musical is going to have an enjoyable second life.

Yet the cinematography of Stars is simple yet stunning, and Javert's Suicide suffers nothing in this interpretation.

Victor Hugo is unquestionably a masterful writer to have written such a compelling tale of love, sacrifice, redemption, and revolution.

But nobody seems to expect much in terms of plot because the weak story is drawn out into 157 minutes of singing about obvious emotional conflicts and plot points.

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.

Instead what I experienced was an admirable, enjoyable and stunning piece of film.

This movie is a truly engaging, cinematic achievement, which will remain in hearts and minds for some time.

I already know they are picking on him because of that, but I ignored them, because I salute Crowe for taking the courage to do something like this, and his performance is absolutely stunning, developing more than just a clichéd, single-minded bad guy.

The High Points Overall, the film was visually stunning, with a great cast, and pretty good voices.

Stunning photography is evident in the final scene where Crowe's conscience forces him to take drastic action.

Les Mis is a very enjoyable, worthy film.

I have given this film a 5/10 because overall it probably isn't dreadful as a full movie, I just fail to see anything exciting in it.

I realize they needed name stars to recoup their investment, but some better singers would have made the film a more enjoyable experience.

The only good characters were the innkeeper and his wife because at least they were well drawn out and their song made sense.

The movie start off with a rather epic beginning which i thought was rather exciting and the visual was powerful.

Imagine singing on the edge of or out of your comfortable range for hours day after day.

Hugh Jackman delivers a captivating performance as Jean Valjean and the young leads of Cosette, Eponine and Marius are beautifully interpreted by Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks and Eddie Redmayne, whose Empty chairs at empty tables will no doubt leave some of you reaching for your hankies again.

Second time, I was bored.

I think complaints of its slow pacing are dues to that fact that (despite a few genuinely compelling performances) you might not really care about the characters.

The story is boring, and lacking in detail.

I did say this is the best film of the year, because there is something about this movie makes it emotionally gripping and that is about hope.

Speaking of the actors, they made this film ten times more enjoyable to watch due to their impressive performances.

The highlight for me was Anne Hathaway performing 'I dreamed a dream' and her performance was just breathtaking.

While Crowe LOOKS the part, his singing is just incredibly bland throughout and he only seems to have one tone in his voice.

Everything is sung, and mostly in a repetitive "rise and fall" melody that was actually making me seasick while I endured the nearly 3 hour running time.

On the positive side, the choice to have the actors sing live was a rousing 95% success.

The post-French revolution setting was irrelevant after the individual stories, quite frankly, bored me.

It's also a rare case where the first half of the film is far more entertaining than the second half.

French TV is awash with programmes where earnest looking pseuds sit round a table for hour after endless hour, discussing the most arcane subject matter while an audience of bored people watch on, trying to look as if they are enjoying themselves.

Also there is a book of this film but I think film is more entertaining than book Les Miserables's.

Way too lengthy and occasionally pretentious, 'Les Mis' isn't always a blast, although it makes up for it with passionate performances and stunning visual design.

Stunning .

If you want a truly profound experience hear On My Own, I Dreamed a Dream, or Empty Chairs at Empty Tables sung live with a professional company.

In fact, i wished instead of the new song, the more enjoyable Little People number could have been used in full.

The music sounds like someone took dialogue and tried to make it into music - the tunes sound so contrived.

Eddie Redmayne was breathtaking!

At the end of the day ('you're another day older') it is a lot more entertaining - and better box-office - to have actors struggling to sing than singers struggling to act.

She masters everything and her range is stunning.

"A Little Fall of Rain" has always been a favourite song of this reviewer and I enjoyed it more so than "On My Own" which is the usual crowd pleaser.

I put this in the same barrel of rotten apples with the nauseating Sweeney Todd starring boring, over used Johnny Depp.

In "empty chairs", show us some scenes of Marius's friends, show us more of the aftermath, for God's sake do SOMETHING other than a 5-minute long close up of his face while he sings.

Apart from some of the camera angles, I thought Les Miserables was stunning to look at.

Spectacular Riveting Emotional Roller-coaster!!.

Then I got awfully bored.

Waste of my time and pain to my ears!

Absolutely thrilling in that respect.

The music is breathtaking and director Tom Hooper has added punch with his recording of the songs live.

The song is supposed to start off gently and quietly and build up to an epic climax, but Jackman belts the song the whole way through, ruining the pleading and ponderous tone of the song.

At first, I found it difficult to follow the plot,given that I was not used to musicals.

The only problem I ever had with the entire movie was that Crowe sounded a bit bland in some songs.

What an absolutely breathtaking film!

To conclude the film is worth to see it but be prepared for 3 hours of splendours

The audience we saw LES MIZ with on the Opening afternoon was rather fascinating as well - in part as reflection on things the film got very right.

I also felt the running time really dragged due to some poor pacing, which caused this film to seem twice as long as it really was.

I saw how emotionally manipulative it all was, and I was honestly bored by it all.

He seems to be singing through an eternal yawn and although Javert is certainly not a character of high or fluctuating emotions, there are moments when something as simple as a facial expression would have made a world of difference.

It's in all those conflicted moments when he remembers that he's making a big Hollywood musical that the temptation to embrace the genre's cliché's undoes the film.

Compelling dialog.

Excellent film in most respects; the singing is exceptional and performances intense and very believable.

Breathtaking .

However, in the end part of the movie, that is the happy situation, the song is too low and makes me little bit bored in the end part.

At last the movie is lovely to ears,it has a flow,it has emotions but it gets a little boring in some portions.

Boring .

The movie is plain boring, even with the background story and possible message, it's just plain boring.

And finally.. The movie itself that caused me to stay awake till 4 in the morning with this feeling like my heart is going to burst.

It is a tragic story and we cried but we felt great watching it because out of this intriguing chaos there is something noble about the human race which gives us hope and keeps us going.

In particular, watch for the lead actors when their emotion over-takes the song--there might be a voice crack, a whispered line, or an unexpected pause--all caught in close-up making the character seem real.

Even though I don't like musicals, I love this story and was able to tolerate all the singing - I just think it was dragged out a little too much.

Visually stunning, musically appalling .

After I saw it gets so many award on Golden Globe, bored out of my skull on a Tuesday afternoon, I decided to give Les Miserables a try.

It is literally the oldest most predictable "tear-jerker" in the book.

Overall then, there were some extremely strong performances (Eponine, young Cosette, Anne Hathaway) some good performances (Amanda Seyfreid) some mundane ones (the students, Helena B-C) and some inappropriate and undermining ones (Sacha Baron Cohen) which actually detracted from the movie.

The acting is superb, the takes breathtaking, the costumes and sets fantastic, and the emotions overwhelming.

Some of the sub-plots were intriguing such as the revolution and Fantine's turn to prostitution but the love story between Marius and Cosette is really kinda shallow and cliché and uninteresting and it's made even worse with the unnecessary third wheel that is Eponine.

On the other hand, this movie made me feel that they wanted to make a musical and they just composed some cliché sounds to rescue the day!

Anne Hathaway is also breathtaking, really superb and highly emotional version of 'I Dreamed A Dream'.

Even though the film is quite long, I just want it to last forever.

The result is amazingly personal, intense.

It provides us with a glimpse of the stunning sets, an introduction to the principal stars, sorry, characters, and excites with snippets of those famous rousing songs (you know the ones I mean) that do the prickly hair thing.

My favourite song remains the rousing "Do You Hear The People Sing" because it made me feel like a young whipper snapper again, gallivanting around somewhere.

Based on the rousing Victor Hugo novel set at the time of the French revolution, a story of redemption, vengeance, love and added singing, lots of singing.

What remains a mystery is Marius' passion for Cosette, who is about as flat and boring as a character can be, and the passion he instills in the unbelievably gorgeous, tiny- waisted and credible Eponine, who was the person in this movie that really sang the best.

I highly recommend it.

Plus, the latter's performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables"...

The story was captivating and compelling.

Big Budget Bore .

How sad that what might have been a Hollywood Classic for the Ages will die a quick and slow death.

It does get confusing, I know.

Love of their standards was not felt it had the caliber of an epic love story; however, dull as it may be I felt more love in the lucky one!

I've seen high school musicals with more impressive talent and with a far more engaging production.

The revolution was the most exciting and beautiful part of the whole movie.

In worst scenario - you simply become a little bored here and there.

Meanwhile, make do with this lavish production meant for the screen, and be immersed in a world and story as first envisioned by Victor Hugo, and adapted from the Cameron Mackintosh musical.

The cinematography is stunning.

Much of Le Mis is sung on a single tone, extended speech, as it were, that grows boring in very quick order.

I saw Les Mis on the stage, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

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.

You're in for an emotional and compelling experience.

Brilliant cinema mixed with some long and intensely boring sequences.

The scenes in Greenwich, Portsmouth and the Alps are visually stunning, and the Parisian set in Pinewood with the barricade is a feast for the eyes.

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.

matinée – the theater was packed – applauded at the end, and was very slow to leave the theater, even as the closing credits rolled.

Something that makes film so exciting.

It must have taken a great deal of care and effort to seemingly ruin one of the worlds greatest musicals by simply casting people with weak and utterly uninteresting singing voices that are totally unsuitable for the parts that we all love and cherish.

The places you're taking us are fascinating--how about pulling the shot back so we can see some of them?

Dark, dreary, depressing and BORING .

The younger actors gave fine performances as well, with Samantha Barks demonstrating the most potential and Eddie Redmayne surprisingly delivering the final gut-wrenching number, "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.

I left the theater much earlier.

Hugh Jackman showed how an actor can reach deeply into his soul and bring out feelings that are so intense that they are able to truly touch the souls of those on the other side of the screen.

" The shoddy camera work turns what should be enthralling musical numbers into very tedious affairs.

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).

It was also a little too slow for my personal taste.

Boring beyond belief, I can't believe that anyone who knows the show well, could possibly enjoy this overwrought film version.

Too Long, Overly Sentimental and Uninspiring .

An immensely powerful, riveting, remarkably shot masterpiece of modern film making.

The character voices were also really enjoyable.

It is simply stunning.

It's been far too long.

Better contrived singing clips to provide transitions than awkward dialogue gaps breaking continuity.

net stated that Hooper "draws inspiration as much from the source material as from the musical to result in an engaging production that is guaranteed to enthrall audiences"(Berardinelli).

really Asian cinemas are getting much better than Hollywood they spend less money less technology but their stories, movies are much better i have more fun to watch them nowadays..for me this is one of the worst movie ever...

And if you like this type of "music," great, because for far too long screen time, they just sing words, mostly overlapping with no rhythm.

Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen did manage to deliver subtly yet good performances even though they look bland and cartoonish.

Les Miserables- A Visually Stunning Masterpiece .

" Marius, who has paid a dear price in the crushing of the revolt and the death of many of his friends in the battle sings the soulful "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," one of the most moving anthems of the film.

Boring.

waves, breeze, my own heartbeat - which was very slow because it was broken).

So it was with that in mind that I was very excited to watch this movie and as a result, I enjoyed it very much!

The whole thing was predictable and really kind of stupid.

The result is an emotionally charged, breathtaking spectacle that while it is discussing the French Revolution and aftermath as a subject it remains a gently warm tale of love and commitment.

And there are many scenes, particularly in the second half, that are positively transporting: a poignant Hathaway nailing "I Dreamed a Dream," Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne singing "In My Life," Samantha Banks as Eponine performing "On My Own," Redmayne singing the heartbreaking "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," the whole cast joining in on "One Day More" (the show's homage to "The Quintet" from "West Side Story"), and the chorus performing the majestic "Do You Hear the People Sing?

So I know a lot of people will probably disagree with me, but in my mind 'Les Miserables' was a pretty dull affair.

Les Misèrables is ultimate storytelling in action and at its most compelling; it transcends the lasting impact of its stage history and signifies a renaissance in cinema that is exciting, invigorating and innovative.

Man, I fall asleep 2 times meanwhile watching it, when I rewinded it, I felt asleep again.

Thus, to my dismay, I found that the story felt disjointed, the characters were shallow and the plot as a whole was so damned predictable I wanted to, just once, be slightly surprised.

Stunning .

I want "Master of the House" to be the rousing show-stopper it is on stage rather than the dismissed restroom break it is in the movie.

What makes the singing of the cast unique and incomparable is that it is real; there is no dubious dubbing or filtering, but an intense dramatisation of the music.

Isabelle Allen is stunning and effective as the young Cosette.

The singing is appropriately unpolished, the cinematography is stunning, it was the best time I've had seeing a movie since I was a child.

So bland.

It is fun, sad, thrilling, and contemplative all in one.

But even that trick bores after a while.

Tom Hooper's sensational film version of the beloved musical "Les Miserables" comes close to cinematic greatness, offering a thrilling story with few frills.

Many shots and scenes were very well done though, and besides a few shots, the cinematography was intriguing.

As for the plot, it became more and more difficult to follow, as one had to listen to the horrible songs to figure our what was going on.

), Eddie Redmayne (Empty Chairs and Empty Tables) and Daniel Huttlestone (Look Down).

Red raw and racked with emotion it is almost uncomfortable to watch, a stunning performance.

I heard the Broadway show was good and I am sure it was, but this movie is pretentious, tedious and I could barely sit through it.

Hugh Jackman oozes the nobility required for Jean Valjean, displaying a stunning voice and holding together a performance that could quickly become camp in the wrong hands.

A stunning adaptation of one of the greatest works of modern theatre.

Hugh Jackman is unbearable to watch (his singing voice is unlistenable).

Makes it unwatchable.

The best concept of the movie was definitely the serious and intense cruelty and gruel images of it.

A dramatic moment like the death of little Gavroche and our chance to peek into his lifeless eyes calls for a slower motion.

By far the most enjoyable part of the film was the relationship between Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, the Thénardiers who lightened the mood on the mostly saddened tone the film expresses.

Some of the most intense, touching parts of the music were lost to less than adequate singing ability.

Victor Hugo's novel is a really exciting read, so I knocked off another mark for the film being so pedestrian.

e) In "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," when Marius is braying about seeing phantom faces at the windows and phantom shadows on the floor, would it have been too much effort to show the images he's seeing?

As I said in the header, Les Miserable is exactly how I felt when I walked out of the cinema after spending good money on utter rubbish.

The direction and choreography was stunning.

The story line is intense and very sad without even giving it much thought...

The costume designs are downright breathtaking as were the set designs.

The breathtaking, albeit fleeting, performance and voice that fly from Anne Hathaway's mouth.

Basically if you find repetitive recitation of dialogue appealing this movie is for you, otherwise you may skip it and watch the "i dreamed a dream" scene on youtube.

He is matched by a fantastic talented cast; Crowe, to be blunt, is not a natural singer but his performance in fact helps the film even more, for Hooper chooses to shoot his solos in intense close up and as a result he is brooding and menacing.

This is one of the most powerful breathtaking films I have ever seen.

I am a les mis' virgin and I did NOT want to see this film because I knew I'd be in for 2 hours of boredom.

Everyone gives great performances (even Russell Crowe with his subpar singning managages to be pretty engaging), especially Anne Hathaway.

Zzzzzz .

I really enjoyed Marius and Cosette meeting for the first time, it gave me goosebumps and Marius was great in the empty chairs song.

By the end of the film I felt exhausted, frustrated and had an intense headache from the constant warbling throughout.

Crowe never reverts to his rock background during his many fine musical moments, and delivers a very compelling performance of a more internally tormented and trapped character.

It gets tedious very quickly.

Despite the power of some of the performances, the overall effect for me was a story that was not well told because of script problems, making it a confusing mess for anyone not familiar with the basic outline of the tale and hard to follow unless paying strict attention.

Instead we are left with halted promises as the we get further from the films powerful opening numbers after a while it all feels drab, lethargic and a little rushed at the same time.

You only had to see him in Empty Chairs and Empty Tables to see that he understood and felt every word.

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 got dragged by my girlfriend to see this movie as she had already seen the play and decided this would be her favourite film.

Left alone with Cosette, the child she bore out of wedlock, she commits herself entirely to her daughters welfare, going as far as to sell her own body for the coin she needs to ensure her daughter's survival.

However, Russell Crowe singing is unbearable; Hugh Jackman singing is boring and the songs are terrible and I stop watching the DVD of this pretentious version with 45 minutes running time.

Each actor and actress immersed themselves into their roles.

Cinematography by Danny Cohen is stunning.

Indeed, Eponine herself gets a noticeably short shrift in this production, (even her ghost is notably absent in the final scene) perhaps because Samantha Barks who beautifully plays her is showing up the other headline players, notably Amanda Seyfried, who is as bland and anodyne here as elsewhere, and so has to be shoved aside!

Chords and themes excruciatingly repetitive (How possibly wouldn't they be?

Worst movie adaptation of a musical ever .

Les Misérables is, at once, one of the most engrossing, emotionally realized, and overwhelming theatrical experiences of the last decade.

The first of them is Tom Hooper, and how uninspired his directing was, how sloppy, how dull, and how plain bad it is.

At two and a half hours long there are moments of insufferable dullness, yet there are also patches of breathtaking beauty and show- stopping splendour; not least due to Hooper's use of computer trickery to create sweeping, one- take shots otherwise unachievable.

Javer's fabulous "aria," "Stars" fell flat in Crowe's safe but bland rendition.

Eddie Redmayne turns in the best performance in the movie and sings a truly heartbreaking Empty Chairs At Empty Tables.

There is still Hugh Jackman that does a great job in both acting and singing and, unlike some reviewers, me and my non-existent musical ear found Russel Crove to be quite entertaining.

(Mario has a chick hanging on him by the name of Epitome, but that whole thing is too confusing for this summary.

Epic widescreen shots combine with intense close-ups, making the story grander in conception than the stage version whilst allowing the actors to show far more via facial expression than is ever possible on stage.

the whole movie is just too long and intense.

The sets, locations and costumes are stunning, capturing vividly the squalor of revolutionary Paris (and that's before the scene in the sewers): full marks to the designer as well as the director and cinematographer.

With the live singing and close-up of intense emotions, the production easily moves you into tears and laughter.

Their characters go through some intense emotional hardship and this is performed remarkably.

While this makes for a unique film experience, muffled lines and the complete lack of spoken dialogue can oftentimes cause confusion regarding plot details.

Lastly, the cinematography in this film is also remarkably stunning.

Highly Enjoyable.

Otherwise, the first act of this film is compelling and had me allured by the story.

Soon after I walked out of the theater, I realized that thiz movie was very peculiar.

Give people rousing choruses that they can sing along to.

By far, the most stunning performances I saw in years.

The same can be said of Redmayne's singing of "Empty Chairs.

Flawed, But Enjoyable Adaptation Of Les Mis .

Her voice sounded like vibrato in fast forward, and her acting was very dull and "blah.

Don't waste your time - see the wonderful 1930s version (no music there, thank God) with Fredric March and Charles Laughton (as the evil inspector).

Hathaway is simply stunning in this role, shorn of her locks and subjected to her fate, she belts out "I Dreamed a dream" in a way no one could have envisaged.

Despite the minor issues I had with the film, I found it to be a hard-hitting and rousing work of art.

If you are a musical theater neophyte & this film doesn't turn you on to the genre, don't waste any more money trying to catch the bug.

This miserable piece of garbage drones on for over 2.5 hours and I resented every moment.

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.

And somebody should buy the director a tripod; the hand-held ultra closeups become dizzying and pretentious after awhile.

But it tries to be a musical, and in endless three hours of runtime there are one tiny song by young cosette, one song from SBC and three songs by Crowe.

The last time was about a year ago when the production was in the area and I really enjoyed it.

It is definitely worth watching.

First time was about 20 years ago and I sat near the back and fell asleep halfway through.

This would not have mattered except that Marius has no money of his own because he found legal work boring and deliberately chose to be poor, "curtailing labor to give (time) to thought.

In all honesty I was a bit exhausted by the time the credits began rolling, but it still was an entertaining film worth checking out for the performances alone.

The cast hit the right notes too: Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are seemingly at ease as Jean Valjean and Fantine, Russell Crowe is a gruff and compelling Javert, Eddie Redmayne is powerful as Marius and Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen are a hoot as swindling thieves Madame and Master Thenardier.

Hugh Jackman sings a touching "Bring Him Home," Russel Crowe sings a rousing "Stars," and Anne Hathaway will break your heart with "I Dreamed a Dream.

And having the performers sing live adds little to the proceedings except in two numbers (I Dreamed A Dream and Empty Chairs At Empty Tables).

But it worked, incredibly engrossing film and a true movie experience.

I can't say that I was completely blown away, but I enjoyed it.

After the character died, everything was just boring and some scenes with Russell Crowe were huge turn offs.

waste of time .

The entire cast deserve Academy Awards in my book-every character was believable, and created a simply breathtaking performance.

To finish with a slight cliché, this is a real "movie going experience" so go see it on the big screen if you can – you won't be disappointed.

Dull, gray, and disappointing .

For the first time ever we get both the famous songs and the riveting emotions of the characters singing them.

Hugh mostly sang in key though, but it was all sung in melodies within his very own tonal reach which results in sometimes boring and predictable melodies.

It makes the singing boring and both the acting and the movie would be better if it had been spoken.

My friend, B, said the second half is too long and boring.

The cinematography is absolutely stunning, ESPECIALLY considering that this is a musical.

But these songs are dull, repetitive, and downright frustrating when the same refrain is repeated about thirty times in an even duller, supposedly "emotional" manner of slowness that seemingly can't be avoided.

Anne Hathaway's performance and singing were breathtaking and I still get teary just thinking about it.

The action scenes between them are breathtaking.

But as the movie advanced and i got used to this technique, i found it to be very effective and heart-gripping, keeping you constantly captivated and helps you focus on the smallest of details of the actor's facial expressions.

Russel Crowe, who I am admittedly indifferent to in most movies, really managed to make the character of Javert unimaginably dull.

I found myself so immersed into the story, because it was one that gradually consumed me in heart and mind.

So yes: the musical is much more difficult to follow, especially if it is not subbed or seen for the first time without knowing what it is about.

Same goes for Eddie Redmayne's rendition of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.

It was so unbearable...

In all this is a stunning success, visually, vocally, acting, directing, costuming, and large ensemble wise.

This film is stunning!

My ears had been tortured and finally I left the theater before the end of the movie.

Death by Boredom .

Anne Hathaway's rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream' is breathtaking and heartbreaking in its emotion as is Eddie Redmayne's of 'Empty Chairs'.

But aside from that, it's a stirring, rousing, clap-at-the-end-of nearly-every scene Film musical.

It was breathtaking when the actors are singing, it was a big thumb up for all the actors and actresses completing the song in just 1 take.

Anne was amazingly good and breathtaking at some scenes.

But this was unexpected.

The intense emotions their characters experience throughout the story are perfectly performed.

A Grand Musical Made Dull .

Maybe I think like this because my local cinema didn't pause the movie, but this was just so tedious.

However, Redmayne, Barks and Tveit shone throughout the piece and pulled the slightly disjointed plot into an amalgamation of emotion, drama and song.

With Anne Hathaway's Oscar win for Best Supporting Actress and the riveting performance of the songs "Suddenly" and "Do You Hear the People Sing?

Songs were great, story kinda dragged on too much though .

Her performance is breathtaking.

The additional characters are underdeveloped and uninteresting.

The film's primary (and most engaging) narrative is the story of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), prisoner 24601, recently paroled after nineteen years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread.

it made all the songs quite boring.

Having said that most of this stuff is just banal conversation set to music and rising to a crescendo every eighth or ninth word.

However, despite the film being very powerful and surprisingly entertaining for me, I did find some flaws within the film that did sort of bugged me.

I was entirely mistaken, this is an enthralling, engrossing, captivating film, that draws viewers in from the first minute and keeps them engaged throughout.

5) The film editor: for chopping up "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" for no apparent reason, and for chopping off the end of several scenes that needed to linger a bit.

Hooper directs this picture with a very intimate, yet uncomfortable look, which has long, ponderous close-ups of actors, singing their hearts out to this material.

It is well worth a watch and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Beyond the aspects exclusive to cinema, what really got me was the incredible story, rich with moral dilemmas and a fascinating network of characters.

But if you expect it to outdo the stage show, you'd best save your money.

I enjoyed it immensely and now have a whole new playlist :)The movie was more directed towards those who would connect and recognise the famous faces.

The soundtrack is impressive (I had a blocked ear and was still nearly deafened) with thrilling chorals and concussive gun and canon fire.

Let us talk about Anne Hathaway, we all saw the trailers with her shaved head making us think "Wow, that looks intense", I was left wondering, why was she even in the musical, she had such a MINUTE part, why bother shaving all of her hair off if she only has around 15 minutes screen time and dies anyways?

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is completely immersed in this multifaceted and very difficult role: it is the zenith of his career both as a film and as a stage actor/singer.

Unfortunately, I encountered 2 hours 38 minutes of boredom.

Boring .

I felt there were some others in the theater who were bored to death by some boring cinema in the initial 45 minutes.

This is a rousing song with very clever words which were lost in the film by poor delivery and not helped by the fussy camera work during it.

The film does regain some levity in its rousing finale, which ties the film together in plot, theme, and song.

Last night I watched Les Miserables and it was a dire experience from opening ridiculously over the top scene to the drawn out (for god's sake just die!!

An immensely powerful and riveting masterpiece of modern cinema.

Known to theatre going enthusiasts, Les Mis has run for a successful 27 years and is still thrilling many people due, to the famous musical numbers.

His voice, very enjoyable when he sings his own rock-folk songs, here turns slightly nasal in some parts, as this singing style is surely light-years away from Crowe's usual gigs.

The low achievers: a miscast Russell Crowe as Javert and Amanda Seyfried as a bland Cosette.

The entire movie was nothing more then just singing and singing and singing and singing, with a rare part of people talking, that it's just unbearable to watch.

The idea of a story being told by people singing to each other is rather silly on the surface, but it can work amazingly well with beautiful/soulful or catchy music and an engaging story.

It reduces one of France's many revolutions into a few power ballads and a trite romantic triangle.

From a story standpoint, the heavily downsized movie version seems disjointed to me, with the main culprits being the two times the screen just flashed the words "Nine years later...

It's like being in a rally, rousing for a while but tiresome because you're not getting anything done, you're not getting to know anyone, and the slogans seems more and more mindless and simplistic, a waste of energy.

Basically I highly recommend it to everyone.

Yes, the visual re-creation of the 19th-century Paris is stunning and while Hooper's decision to film all the actors' singing performances as much closeups as he can to proof that they are indeed singing live has that certain intimate quality, too much of everything can be seriously devastating.

It is food for thought, a social commentary, and at the same time entertaining.

However, I do think that Redmayne delivered a decent rendition of 'Empty Chairs At Empty Tables'.

this christian propaganda really works!

I had the opportunity of watching it at the premiere in Leicester Square in London, with all the huge actors, the director, musical creator's, etc. It was really exciting, the actors sing better than I expected, and all the photography added to the musical perfectly complete it for an unforgettable experience.

Save your money and torrent this one!

So does this beautiful and breathtaking blockbuster, a musical feast for the eyes and ears,possibly then remain unsung?

Overall an emotive and powerful film, and thoroughly enjoyable despite it being pretty sombre in parts.

some shortcomings yet still an engaging experience .

Overall, enjoyable, in a thoroughly miserable way.

I really wanted to love this film, some of the songs and characters are some of the best in any musical and the story is engrossing and very sad.

"Les Miserables" is the most thrilling piece of cinema i have seen all year.

A waste of time.

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 would suggest that any fans of good musicals should watch this movie as I enjoyed it very much.

The camera is truly inspiring, capturing passion with indispensable shots, shaping out the backdrop and solely absorbing the endowment of the cast, dwelling into the narrative through the lyrical manifest.

The music was repetitive and anti-melodic .

Riveting and emotional is the best I can summon up.

Utterly engrossing.

The story has a lot of drama potential, but the directing choices and the distracting CG, kill most of that potential, so it ends up being a boring and extremely long piece that makes you come out of the cinema thinking "What could have been".

In the end, the film is a fascinating experiment.

Maybe he lost himself in the musical aspect but he bored the hell out of me.

Breathtaking it's just a BEAUTIFUL FILM .

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.

Basically, after ALL the rebels and uninteresting characters have died, we are given a final farewell shot of them holding their own little revolution.

Despite the long running time of the picture, I found it engaging and engrossing.

Enjoyable for all Moviegoers .

I think this story would work quite well if it just stayed as a Broadway musical, but on the big screen with no intermissions it is dull, repetitive, predictable, depressing, and ridiculously drawn out.

A stupid idea, written just to fill an empty space in a weak review.

I would rather gouge out my own eyes with a wooden spoon, and cut off my ears with a dull swiss-army-knife, than to ever witness such horrors as this bloody movies was/is.

Heart gripping story of people's faith,love and desire for freedom.

But if you allow yourself to move past those limitations and be immersed in the movie, do expect to enjoy yourself, and probably to be moved to tears more than once.

The songs and music are MIND BOGGLING-LY beautiful--- even haunting.

"A movie well worth watching and cherishing for years to come.." .

not my kind of movie, i enjoy a lot of kinds of movies but this one was truly boring, the story was predictable (and do not bring me the classic arguments like "we all know what will happen", or "it is based on X or Y story") i do not know anything about the origins of the story, and i do not care about it.

Young up-and-comer Eddie Redmayne as student rebellion leader Marius and West End starlet Samantha Barks as the street urchin Eponine also succeed when the camera fixes squarely upon them in their respective songs "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" and "On My Own.

Hard to follow, singing dialogue is really dumb.

One more thing I disliked was the length of the movie, it was too long that at the end it becomes somehow boring to some people.

The scenes are familiar yet the visuals are stunning because they feel authentic.

The remaining hours are filled by a cacophony with no rhythm, no rhyme, missed notes, lack of flow, unexpected lyrical turns and bad accenting.

Partially predictable and I'm not sure it belongs on movie screens, it seemed like one big play really.

Although the novel is long, the film is too long.

But both thoroughly enjoyed it and thought the music was fantastic.

The BAD: As with the stage play, it runs way too long (about 20 mins), each time you think it's over someone starts to sing again to the point where you are cringing.

Because this film is shot so boringly and has no reason to connect with the characters, the whole film just becomes boring.

I have seen a few reviews complaining about the slow pace of the film.

It does take awhile to get used to the words being sung, but despite that, this film is worth watching.

Eddie Redmayne played Marius and he added so much to this character who I have found so boring on stage but with his performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" he made me finally care about Marius through his performance.

Hugh Jackman who blows you away in the beginning starts to come off too intense and forced, Russell Crowe although not terrible seems ill suited for the role and speaking of terrible Amanda Seyfred is just that she's so shrill sounding and has the emotional range of a stunted deer in headlights.

It's ugly and brutal and hard to watch (in keeping with the character and her story) and it is riveting.

Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried are adequate, while Helena and Sacha pair engenders a Burton-esque high spirit to offset the dreary misery and wide-eyed revolutionist mirage.

The movie LOOKS good--great sets and costumes but I was bored silly.

"I Dreamed a Dream," "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," and "On My Own" are incredibly done, as are the anthemic "Red and Black" and "Do You Hear the People Sing?

If not, you can try later, when you are suffering from insomnia.

Well Worth the Watch.

I did not, thankfully, waste the money or time to see it in a theater.

Stunning!

old) and we all enjoyed it tremendously.

It was cruel and violent and just so intense.

This Musical is Stunning!

I didn't enjoyed the movieFor the first one hour, it was stunning, just because of Anne Hathaway.

While the remainder of the film was certainly entertaining, it felt both less emotionally involving and less taut than the beginning.

The only time this movie reached anything above boring and uninteresting is when Anne Hathaway is on screen.

I have been a big fan of LM ever since watching the broadcast of the 10th Anniversary Production back in 1995, which I thought was stunning.

Taking things to a more down to earth approach,Hooper contrasts the wide tracking shots by working closely with the great make up artist to give the movie an unexpected Gothic Horror element,with almost all of the cast being shown to have rotting skin which matches the grubby,decaying landscape that Hooper shows from above.

I didn't care for this movie in fact I had to walk out of the room a few times because I got bored with the constant singing.

It intensified both the singing and the acting, particularly in the most emotionally intense moments.

I soon got used to the singing and really enjoyed it.

" The score is a trite, repetitious, uninspired and unmemorable collection of chords that go nowhere and say nothing.

I saw the stage production of Les Mis in Toronto in 1991 and enjoyed it hugely.

All things considered, this an excellent production, and I highly recommend it.

Also, Seyfried was a bit of a boring choice for the role I would like to have seen a fresh face for it.

We all know Victor Hugo's story is a mind blowing one as he is still recognized as the most powerful writer of the "romantic" movement.

This film also looks stunning, all the French streets, dirty alleys and poverty ridden areas truly gave out an impression that truly hooked me.

The film is confusing in many ways throughout.

This is truly one of the worst movies of all time.

/Barks and Redmayne remain thrilling / Dubbing others could have hid some flaws / Like Seyfried's sharp high-pitched trilling / And Crowe's low and raspy caws.

") the storyline is contrived to fit a collection of pre-existing songs which were not originally written with a musical in mind.

Dark and dreary.

His final act is hopelessly unconvincing and confusing - there's no descent, no change, nothing happening behind those eyes.

Most noticeably, Cosette is out of the picture for far too long - bizarrely, the filmmakers opted to add a dull and redundant song to the first act: time that would have been better spent developing the adult relationship between Valjean and Cosette.

Absolutely stunning!

Although the story was very interesting, and I must admit, slow in parts, I couldn't get beyond the singing.

The problem with this movie is that it has excellent moments in a general sea of mediocricity and boredom.

Les Miserables is Beyond Me; Mind Blowing.

And yet it's aesthetically neat and enjoyable.

It starts high, then goes amazing to dull and boring to comic relief to romance to gut wrenching action!

Many parts of it are so grandiose and spectacular that few words exist to describe how memorable they are; others are baffling and confusing.

Whilst some of the songs are entertaining, the films overall presentation as an opera thoroughly let it down, and after a short viewing time it becomes annoying.

And that's the only way this'll be an enjoyable movie for me.

The Thenardiers provided a fresh take that was thoroughly enjoyable whilst staying true to the story.

The songs and musical themes are very repetitive and boring and there is just way too much singing during this excruciating three hours.

The cinematography provides for some breathtaking shots of Montreuil, especially during both renditions of "Look Down" and the revolution.

Quite boring and unbelievably bad sang .

Filling the shoes of Frances Ruffelle was a big task (I am very biased in this area as Ms. Ruffelle is my favorite and Eponine is my favorite character)but Ms. Barks was stunning!!

So I think it's a movie worth watching.

While Valjean's quest for redemption is a compelling one, he feels pushed to the side a bit in the second half with a bajillion characters coming in and coming out of the story.

They could have had something great, but it is just an empty shell, a long one not well managed in duration, film making, and shooting.

If other action-packed and thrilling movies keep you at the edge of your seat, this one will keep you crying until you have no more tears left.

For a story that is quite so well known and has been told time and time again in every imaginable format and media, this one is still surprisingly engaging.

As a cinephile, my least favorite genres are easily romance and musicals; mainly because both genres have become way to cliché over the past years.

Just the efforts though, the result was rather dull and exaggerated.

It is rousing, beautifully mounted and wonderfully well-acted production that entertains and does the job quite well.

His "Empty Chairs At Empty Tables" was a masterpiece.

I tell you all of this because I just believe Les Miserables is just directed in a way where it ether just doesn't look good, confusing, or just boring.

Having read about the story on Wikipedia after seeing it, it does sound absolutely fascinating.

It seems like being catchy requires a hook, and most hooks are repetitive, and repetitive things don't really progress.

Thanks for a wonderful and enjoyable Christmas treat.

For some totally mind boggling logic, the producers chose fame over singing ability.

Not only that, he also looks too stiff and dare I say, boring.

In fact I was quite bored with some of the transition scenes - the director should have known that less is more.

The problem with this is, that within the first ten minutes there arises a disjointed feeling when pertaining to the audio, making Jackman, Crowe and Hathaway all sound like they are singing either out of key or simply singing along with a track in the same way you might sing along to your favorite song in the car.

The characterization was excellent and all the set and the special effects was fascinating.

Russell Crowe gets a fascinating turn on his performance by singing.

) and that stunning opening, where the camera glides in over the sea, climbing over the ship to reveal Hugh Jackman and his fellow convicts pulling it forward with as much force as they can muster.

The music was wonderful and some of the sets they had were breathtaking.

The pacing is off, this 'might' be the speed the music is written at for a stage show, although I seriously doubt it, the same mistake is often made in Shakespeare productions where everything is embued with Far!

Les Miserables: 8.5/10Entertaining, Artistic, Melodious, Brillianted Acted by the ensemble cast and Perfectly presented by the talented Tom Hooper, Les Miserables is almost like a breath of fresh air to movies of the past and is a real entertaining and artistic ride from the start to the end, and is aided by the amazing acting from the front trio(Jackman, Crowe and Hatthaway) and the rest of the cast and the brilliant presentation by Tom Hooper who has made one of the finest Musicals of the past years.

One of the film's songs, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, and the rousing finale, gives a dramatic sense that we must keep our heads up and move on with our lives and the world all around us.

I found the make-up to age the characters through the years to be especially intriguing.

Overall, a good entertaining for the price of a movie ticket.

Anne Hathaway's riveting performance as Fantine completely captivated me, every second she was on camera with such raw emotion and brilliance - I was blown away.

She is a pleasure to see on screen but her performance is dragged down by the fact that many of her scenes are opposite Redmayne.

Then the intense and at times hart warming conflict between Jean Valjean and Javert.. this movie is going to Absolutely hit some type of emotion in your heart.

There are enough positive elements to overwhelm the negatives, including the Oscar nominated performances of Hugh Jackman (who is no stranger to the musical world and as a result is absolutely wonderful portraying Jean Valjean) and Anne Hathaway, who despite having much less screen time, delivers a stunning performance as Fantine.

I saw it on Broadway when I was much younger and fell asleep and did enjoy the non musical version unlike so many others.

Hugh Jackman gives a stunning interpretation of J.

As it turned out, I really enjoyed it.

This was the movie of Anne Hathaway's life, her acting was brilliant and exciting.

This movie is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time.

Redmayne in particular gives an astounding performance as Marius, especially with his brilliant rendition of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.

Anne Hathaway's big solo runs as one long take this way, it's completely distracting and for a movie that runs this long to have the same approach to every scene is dull.

Repetitive 'singing'.

It was visually stunning to look at and really helped captured the incredible scope of the project.

Worst movie i've ever seen in my life .

Stunning performance by Anne Hathaway (caused me to tear up while I was watching it).

Tom Hooper was quite bold in making this type of a movie, as this is his 4th movie ever but he is such a talented director that he has made a superb musical movie and one of the best of the past years, he had chosen and handled his multi-talented cast perfectly and he has synchronised all the lyrics of the movie brilliantly with the visuals as well as the music, and all the aspects of the scenes were terrificly well made and he continues to keep on making great films and entertaining one's too and considering the amount of work he had to put in with such a huge staff, he really did a great work to make this movie.

Essentially, the main theme running throughout the film is oppression and this is conveyed in stunning fashion by Hugh Jackman who steals the show and leaves you breathless for the 2 1/2 hour running time.

Even more jarringly, the close-up always seems to have the subject pushed way over to one side of the screen, leaving an empty space you could park a dump truck in.

In particular, this came to a head during 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' when I had had enough and found myself thinking "You have a beautiful set full of empty chairs and empty tables - the visual imagery is too good to miss!

It felt bland and everything was overplayed so there was no interpretation.

Film as a medium to present musicals have always been a fascinating journey, because of the characteristics that come with the medium.

The young actress Samantha Barks is also very good and her version of the famous "on my own" is stunning.

I'm reminded of Redlettermedia's discussion of Star Wars Episode III's dialogue scenes: It's boring.

It's still pretty enjoyable if you are in for the songs that you've already heard in the theater show.

A complete and utter bore.

This movie definitely needs to be this long because if anything were taken out I think it would've made the movie more confusing.

Although Seyfried is a proved singer with a beautiful voice, and Redmayne isn't bad himself, their characterisations are rather bland, aside from his truly touching rendition of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.

The story is compelling and it does get told here.

The woman behind me was on the edge of her seat, not just because I smell good.

I admire the photography and set pieces to this film and hats off to whoever had the courage to make it a full blown musical, the live singing gives the soundtrack reality, especially Anne Hathaways set piece (oscar on it's way) though the acoustics especially in the opening scene were a little weak and the film, like the stage version, is way too long.

There's a lot of tears, a lot of loud music comprising a rather dull and, literally, monotonous soundtrack.

Its a hammy, unconvincing performance, and 3 hours of his nasal warble is just too much.

I found it all melodramatic, a little tedious.

But, with the film version of it finally out (first spoken about by Cameron MacIntosh on the documentary "Les Miserables: Stage By Stage" back in the early 1990's) finally out, I am thrilled to say that this movie version of the epic stage musical is even more thrilling on screen than it was for me on stage, at least the second or third time around.

Totalling gripping from start to end this is the essence of LIFE, the essence of True film making, not rubbish super heroes like Hulk Ironman and nonsense.

Despite what other critics say, Russell Crowe's character is also portrayed in stunning fashion by the immensely talented actor who we all know.

Boring for a Les Mis' virgin.

After Fantine's part in the story ends and we get past the Innkeeper's spectacular opening scene - it is probably time to leave the theater.

I had forgotten that much of the music is simply terrible -- boring, unmemorable, and ponderous -- and overshadowed by the 70% of the music that is simply outstanding.

Waste of time .

Easily coins words like stunning and breathtaking, this is why movies are made!.

The star power and the acting are very compelling even if some of the singing seems forced and difficult for certain numbers.

My opinion, don't waste your money or time.

If you have not seen the stage version then go anyway because this is a great, deeply audience engaging and highly emotionally charged movie.

He is offered an unexpected reprieve when the preacher lies on his behalf, claiming to the police that he gave the silverware to Valjean and that it wasn't stolen at all.

I found Liam Neeson's ValJean and Geoffrey Rush's Javert compelling and very well acted.

I found it very slow at some points, and at others, too fast when it had to be slow.

interesting, but the politics of France in the early part of the 19th Century are particularly, appallingly uninteresting.

I have seen the musical years ago but this movie made that production bland and unimpressive.

Entertaining as it may seem, it is probably the only problem of the movie.

Visually, it is utterly stunning, be it set design, costume or cinematography.

However the best to me was Eddie Redmayne - his version of Empty Chairs and Empty Tables was the best I have ever seen.

I was basically dragged to this movie.

I'll say Les Miserables is one of the grandest and most beautiful looking films of the year, but looking inside it, it seems artificial and contrived.

It's incredibly intimate, yet at others it's just plain annoying (and repetitive).

Hooper's vision was as memorable and stunning as any adaptation of this timeless classic.

Hathaway won Oscar because the Academy likes to see lot of drab, ugly movies about human suffering, that makes True Art.

The main disadvantage is that the songs are set in a dull atmosphere, and sometimes seem a bit too gloomy (for two and a half hours).

The visuals and special effects are truly breathtaking.

There are so many fascinating areas worth listening which are immortal,I do not understand why should I be a masochist and listen how Hackman and Crowe bubble.

Worst movie of the decade .

BORING- BORING.

However, she extends this too much to her singing, and the result is a boring rendition of 'I Dreamed A Dream' that is so spluttery it's difficult to listen to.

All that said it is entertaining and there are some very good performances, the lighting is generally good as is the digital grading (not too severe for the most part).

Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are the most stunning performances, Russell Crowe did a really good job.

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, the released convict who stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister's child & Eddie Redmayne as Marius, the wealthy young rebel who falls in love with Valjean's ward, Cosette, walk away with everything; both are beyond marvelous, but even Russell Crowe (the intense Inspector Javert, determined to track down Valjean) is far better than you've heard.

'On My Own' and 'A Little Fall of Rain' seemed pointless to include at all because Eponine's love for Marius felt so rushed throughout each scene.

The singing became tiresome, the ending prolonged and the character's became less and less interesting.

The "empty chairs empty tables" song was done literally, with Marius sitting alone in a room with empty chairs and tables!

)So with apologies to the talented team of Schönberg and Boubil , I would like to end my film review of Les Miz with some revised lyrics, inspired by their song, I Dreamed a Dream:There was a time in Hollywood / When stars' voices would soar / And musicals were exciting / There was a time we understood / That films had dance and song / And the songs were inviting / There was a time / Then it all went wrong.

In ways, the plot here is similar to Shawshank Redemption, but this redemption is more intense, involves more people, and more interrelationships.

While slightly contrived, this is an accepted convention of stage craft that works in that medium.

Definitely worth watching even if you're not a fan of the musical genre.

I went looking for that rush and came out scratching my head and wondering where the last three hours of my life had gone.

People who are doubting whether they should see the film because their not huge fans of musicals, well neither was I but I thoroughly enjoyed it an would recommend it to anyone of any tastes.

Worth watching over and over again4 - Outstanding… will watch several times 3 - Really good movie… will watch more than once 2 - Good movie… may watch more than once 1 - OK movie...

There are few places where it drags and the depth of the acting , the story, and the richness of the sets and characters make it a very engrossing movie.

An engaging musical filled with emotion .

No matter how much you might enjoy the drama, eventually the musical will bore you.

Hooper, in his attempt to make this a more realistic film, takes away the one thing that makes "Les Miz" worth watching -- the music.

Very confusing from a musical point of view.

Completely fascinating and engrossing performance from Crowe, and probably the MVP of the film.

Th story moved along well but it lacked that extra kick and every time I thought it was about to ignite into something spectacular it would just slow right down again.

And so along comes this movie which drops this horrible, uninteresting score into the hands of a bevy of actors who couldn't sing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" were a gun put to their heads.

It is just too repetitive to embrace the emotions and the messages in a positive way.

Based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo, the entire story is told with music - and spectacularly boring music it is, at that.

Hugh Jackman's passionate performance is the highlight and is utterly engrossing from beginning to end.

Stunning Masterpiece .

They do have a power cast, of course, but they also introduce some new faces that are worth watching, specially Samantha Barks in the role of Eponine.

Besides the near- redundant and overlong introduction to the revolution with the barricades and Russell Crowe confusingly switching sides, Les Miserables is a compelling and moving film which really surprised me, with a great cinematic flavour.

If this was shot in a way that was slow or tense or at the very least normal, this could've worked.

The cinematography was stunning as well as the set work.

Eddie Redmayne is engaging as the young Marius and has a sweet tenor voice.

It is probably the worst movie I have ever seen.

Especially since I enjoyed it as much as I did, while not being an avid musical fan.

Sorry Anne, but this is a 2 and half hours waste of your time.

And as a pretty much a first timer of the material I can say most of it is pretty mean and dreary.

Also, some of the songs become extremely tedious; after all it's only musical theatre, no Bizet.

Instead what we saw was a bland BBC production in which 85% of the movie is done in tight close ups of people literally just pacing around or sitting down!

I guess there are some who will say that I am crazy and that this is the greatest musical ever, well I'd say to this that I wished I had enjoyed it.

I hardly recognized the speech because it is so empty: this movie in a huge void filed with some acting and songs.

corset tea singing was dodgy and Javerts monotone was um, monotone?

Visiually this movie looks stunning as well.

There's no chemistry between actors, except for the Thenardiers, who are on screen a lot together and whose scenes stand out as enjoyable for this reason.

It's the WORST movie I have seen in a long long time and I have seen some shockers lately (WRONG as an example).

Eddie Redmayne's portray of Marius is great, he really gave emotion to "Empty Chairs At Empty Tables.

But after Anne's character dies in the film, i found no reason to continue watching, just piles over piles of boring music and singing, just not worth the time.

The striking cinematography gravitates towards awe-inspiring panoramic views and searingly honest close-ups; Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are masterful as Fantine and Jean Valjean, respectively; the ensemble cast brings out compelling character traits that one won't see in other visual adaptations of Victor Hugo's novel.

Beautiful Musical Turned into a Boring TV Special .

The movie truly sucked and i was yawning all the way.

This was one of the worst movies I have seen in years.

It also made the overall movie experience feel a bit boring and uninspired.

Hugh Jackman is just perfect, his acting is stunning and his voice is quite good, His version of 'Bring Him Home' is simply very emotional.

If you can look passed this issue, however, this movie is quite enjoyable.

The tale is epic, grand, and stunning.

I loved this movie, I was totally absorbed from the beginning - the opening scene was stunning.

Let me say that this film is visually stunning and for those who love the musical, I think they will be quite happy with the performances here.

Considering virtually the whole film was in song, how could they have penned something so dull?

The fact that he chose a cast able to do both simultaneously, is an amazing feat and fascinating to watch.

The storytelling is weak and disjointed.

Director Tom Hooper has provided us a stunning movie portrayal of the stage version.

There is barely a memorable tune or song - just a lot of droning repetition that bores from about ten minutes in!

You didn't have enough time to care for the characters, and some scenes took place in the same location for way too long and the sets sometimes actually look like film sets than real life, which made it feel more like a filmed version of the stage play than a movie.

When even the most mundane of sentences has to be delivered in such a way, it becomes grating.

Sometimes it is effective, but over the whole time period of the movie, it becomes boring and monotonous and you just wish that people would just speak instead.

As the story progressed I continued to be unnerved by the choices in camera angles, framing and slow focus pulls.

I think it is a very well first-row entertaining experience.

moving but way way too long.

As a previous review said, some of the songs sounded quite like the others and it was sort of confusing.

This much is established by Tom Hooper's most recent addition to his growing body of ambitious work, an entertaining film adaptation that faithfully emphasized the themes that countless viewers, myself among them, fell in love with.

But I don't think this film base some issues for one, after the first 20 minutes the film failed to really grip or interest me, it slowed the film down completely and seemed to spend to much time devoted to setting up the final act rather than give a compelling narrative of its own.

And I love the CD I made of the most enjoyable 70 minutes of the music.

That was unexpected to me - if I had known that I probably wouldn't have watched it.

The finale with the entire cast singing is the most exciting ending you will see in a film this year.

It is entertaining and the insertion of several pauses over several days allow the viewer a wonderful experience.

This movie is compacted with amazing music a solid cast of characters and is worth watching over and over again.