Les Misérables

Yes, it's all sung. Les Miserables is two hours and forty minutes of song. There's no real spoken dialogue the entire way through. Every minute is sung live as well. And if this bothers you, please skip "Les Mis" and enjoy watching something like "Twilight" or "Jack Reacher". Tom Hooper made this film a game-changer for the way a movie-musical is supposed to work. Lip-synching a pre-recorded studio version seems economical, but today, can allow for auto-tuning and editing a singer's voice. It doesn't feel personal. The voices in "Les Mis" sound raw and real. The actors sang live onset with earpieces playing piano accompaniment, with a 70-piece orchestra being added in in post production. The music sounds extraordinary. There sure as hell isn't any auto-tuning going on. For example, take Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream". At this point in the story, we don't know Fantine very well, but we see the struggle that she's put through. She's at her lowest point. Hathaway half-belts and half-sobs the iconic song, the entire thing being filmed in one take. It's an extremely emotional performance that will bring any person with a heart, to tears. Criticism that I've been hearing of the film mostly revolves around the performances of Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman, as Javert and Valjean. I think both of these guys did fantastic jobs, quite frankly. Crowe isn't the best singer in the world, but his voice fits the part of Javert very well. As for Jackman, well, it could be argued that he carried the entire film. I think he did a splendid job; the role of Jean Valjean is a giant undertaking, and I think he nailed it. However, the real excellence of this film lies in the supporting cast. Everybody is perfectly cast, but particularly Samantha Barks in the role of Eponine. She played the same character in the 25th Anniversary performance of Les Miserables, only two years ago. One small criticism; my favorite part of Eponine's solo (and theme song to self-loathing masochists everywhere) "On My Own", the beginning part, is cut entirely. However, once you see what Barks does with this song it's easily forgiven. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen, who look like they're in "Sweeney Todd 2", are great comic relief as the Thenardiers. Cohen is the only cast member in this Paris-set film who sings in a French accent, however... I find that strange. Eddie Redmayne and Aaron Tveit are perfect as Marius and his colleague Enjolras. Redmayne's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables", near the end of the film, will make you cry. His voice goes to extraordinary places, and in such an emotional number, where he's telling the story of his friends who are no longer with him, this is a place where the live singing truly shines. The live singing, itself, is a huge undertaking, cinematically. Director Tom Hooper certainly had alot at stake with this project, however, there are still things that he could have done better. There are so many close-ups in the film. While they work for solos like "I Dreamed A Dream" and "Empty Chairs", they don't work for others. I also kind of feel like Hooper used the fish-eye camera lens a little too often, but these are inconsequential criticisms that don't make the film any less powerful. I saw this movie a week before it came out because I won advance screening tickets and I have known the song I Dreamed A Dream my whole life but I have never seen the musical on stage or any of the adaptations before. I went into this with no expectations at all. At first I thought the movie started off kind of fragmented and I figured because it had to introduce everybody and I was right. The film ended up as it went on drawing me in more and more and making me fall in love with it and by the end i was mesmerized with how wonderful and amazing the movie is. I believe they picked perfect roles because after i saw the movie i listened to the Broadway soundtrack and i believe they did very well on picking out the cast for their vocal ranges and capabilities. I think anyone who loves the musical or is a musical person should defiantly see this movie because they will not be disappointed one bit by how amazing it is .

Why should I write another review, when to me the best reviews for this film are so spot-on terrific they can choke me up to the point of tears all by themselves. Instead, I would like to focus on some things that I haven't seen mentioned yet. But first, a bit of background. To begin, I do not cry at sad movies. I will sometimes tear up at happy ones. But I have never cried throughout an entire movie, or at least 90% of it. Yes, the emotion of this film is unmatched. It is astonishingly intense throughout: electrifying, appalling, tragic, remarkably eye-opening, and finally, a most exquisite, triumphant victory of goodness and love over all that is not. The plot and story line have been so well covered by the other reviewers, that I need add nothing. However, the characters, and the cast who play those roles are, with very few exceptions, breathtaking. What I would like to add in this review is a bit of a comparison with the 25th Anniversary Concert of Les Miserables. Much has been said about the "live" singing, and in addition, its (opinionated) below par quality as well. Conversely, I was amazed at how magnificent it was! I don't believe that someone who has never been in a recording studio can remotely appreciate how difficult it is to sing "live" like this cast did and make it sound good. And as one reviewer pointed out, the combination of camera closeness and live singing allowed for magnificent articulation, where every word was clearly heard, and even felt, something so often absent in today's movies. Now the characters, bearing in mind that virtually the entire film is sung: Ann Hathaway was magnificent as Fantine, and Eddie Redmayne as Marius may have been the best of all. His "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" was a performance for the ages. Samantha Barks was breathtaking as Eponine, and played that role in both the Concert and the film. So here may be a good place for the comparison I mentioned earlier, and perhaps the best place to begin is with Javert. In the Concert, Javert was played by Norm Lewis, a brilliant baritone who also sings with great expression. And although he can sing dramatically better in a professional sense than Russell Crowe, I have to give the nod to Crowe. In fact I thought he was fantastic. Maybe his voice doesn't compare with Lewis, and although Lewis's expression was superb, it was Crowe's acting-singing combination that caused a synergistic outpouring, and made his performance awesome. Now to Hugh Jackman. As one reviewer said, he was "splendid...and it could be argued carried the entire film." Except...I had seen the Concert before the movie. A British tenor, Alfie Boe, played Jean Valjean. I am very far indeed from being an expert, but I now honestly believe he has the greatest male voice I have ever heard. And I will tell you exactly why. I think many would agree that "Bring Him Home" is one of the quintessential musical numbers in the film. Alfie Boe is one of the very, very few tenors who can sing with both rich, full volume, and a magnificent falsetto as well, with which he can liltingly vocalize an extremely high note, very softly, and with perfect vibrato. To me, the last line of "Bring Him Home" is perfect for this soft, emotional finish, and his standing ovation after this at the Concert seemed unending. This should not detract, but actually add to Jackman's terrific performance. To sing "Bring Him Home" the way Jackman did was more difficult, not less! And it should be a given that Jackman had one of the most difficult roles to play, ever. At the beginning, it truly looked as if Jackman was "standing in his grave." There is not much I can add to the performances of Colm Wilkinson as the loving, life-changing Bishop, while Amanda Seyfried as Cosette is a lovely soprano with spectactular range. I will always have a warm spot in my heart for little Gavroche, played by Daniel Huttlestone. Perhaps the one negative thought I had was that in the Concert, Matt Lucas as Thenardier and Jenny Galloway as his Madame were a bit stronger than Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham in the identical roles in the film. The movie, however, was able to capture the hilarious antics of the duo's pickpocketing methods that the Concert could not do. This was a movie that director Tom Hooper took considerable risks to bring us delightfully new things as well. In addition to being entirely sung, I thought it was a bit of creative magic to use the same 4 or 5 melodic lines to create all of the songs, just with different lyrics. I hate to use an old cliché, "paradigm shift," that in the nineties went so viral as to become virtually meaningless, but to me, this represents a true paradigm shift in filmmaking. It is years ahead of its time and should become the standard that many later films strive for. It was The Best Picture of the Year. Period.

I'm twenty-seven years late to Les Miserables, the musical. I'll admit it. I wasn't interested until the movie was getting press. It looked really cool, and the likelihood of me ever seeing it on stage seemed slim and not something I really, hugely wanted. So I went with my friend, who'd already seen the stage show and the movie (she went before I did). I can honestly say that there are three narratives that have altered the course of my life, and they're the Lord of the Rings, Supernatural, and now, most recently, Les Mis. As a rule, I don't do tragedy. I don't do stories where everybody dies. I refuse to do Titanic for that very reason. But dear god, am I glad that I made the exception for this one. The Movie is an enormous, beautiful mix of the fantastic musical with snippets of canon from the book thrown in. Bahorel's back, though he never made the musical, Enjolras and Grantaire die side-by-side as in the brick, and nobody's quite as romanticized by the movie as they are by the musical, and I love it. I couldn't have asked for a better introduction. Russell Crowe will always be my Javert, for example. He brings a depth to the man that can't be done on stage. I love stage!Javert, I do -- Norm Lewis is fantastic and rigid as iron in the 25th anniversary special, for example -- but Crowe, Crowe gives me a sadder Javert, a Javert who is falling even before he seems to realize it himself. And he is /gentler/, too; when he tells Fantine, "I have heard such protestations/Every day for twenty years/Let's have no more explanations/Save your breath, save your tears," he almost seems to pity her. Stage!Javert, on the other hand, is often openly disdainful with these lines, often emphasizing that last word as though the idea of the "whore" crying sickens him because she is a criminal and in his eyes deserves it and should take it without weeping, I don't mourn stage-Javert, I pity him. But Crowe's Javert made me hurt for him, and he remains one of my favorite parts of the movie. Anne Hathaway may not be the most vocally powerful Fantine we've ever had, but the starkness of Fantine's plight makes for brilliant cinema in ways that, again, the stage show can't. Reordering "I Dreamed a Dream" to come after "Lovely Ladies" is an inspired choice, because it renders the song to be part of the very lowest, darkest point in Fantine's tragedy. Moving forward, the "barricade boys" are absolutely brilliant. With Killian Donnelly (a former Enjolras on stage) as Combeferre and Broadway star Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, we're in very good hands for Les Amis de l'ABC. Tveit brings a brilliant physicality to the part of Enjolras, and his facing his mortality in "Drink With Me" (which, unfortunately enough, cuts out Grantaire's fairly pivotal verse to that effect) with nothing more than a few sorrowful looks is absolutely brilliant. I love Enjolras more than practically any other fictional character, and Tveit is one of my favorite people who've played him. Many of the barricade boys are even better upon rewatching -- I didn't fall in love with Combeferre until my third viewing, when I realized how much he loves the rest of the Amis, how willing he is to take care of all of them in his way. He's their arsenal (alluded to when he is double-wielding pistols on the barricade) and their guide and dies with a comforting hand on Joly's arm. Feuilly is also wonderful, and the friendship between Courfeyrac and Gavroche is absolutely heartbreaking, with Courf sobbing openly when Gavroche is murdered. But most understated and most beautiful, I think, is George Blagden as Grantaire, the group's cynic and drunk. As I mentioned before, Grantaire's verse in "Drink With Me" was cut, which is a pretty major piece of characterization for both him and for, in many stage productions, his dynamic with Enjolras. In the brick, it's stated flat out that Grantaire worships Enjolras, and Blagden's Grantaire makes it clear with every movement, every glance, from beginning to end. He captures the essence of the cynic with only one thing to believe in, and I could write reams of analysis on the subject. Cinematically, the film is almost perfect. The only issue I had is the overuse of background blurring in "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." But that's literally, along with the missing DWM verse, the only flaw in the movie. I'm a film major, and I can only dream of ever making a movie this perfect, and this apropos to the time it's been released. You see, we're, globally, in a time of intense political, economic, and social upheaval. We, in the US specifically, are a culture in flux. A culture due, I think, for a few revolutions. Without Les Mis, I wouldn't have become nearly as passionate for change as I am, and I certainly wouldn't have sat down and decided to read a book with 2600 pages in it for fun and then proceed to start a project where I give my summer to Enlightenment-through-post-1848 political discourse. Les Mis opened me up to a whole new universe of possibility for my future, and I think it has for a lot of its new fans, even though it's so solidly set in the past. I have to call forth the final lines of "Finale," here -- "Will you join in our crusade?/Who will be strong and stand with me?/Somewhere beyond the barricade/is there a world you long to see?/Do you hear the people sing?/Say do you hear the distant drums?/It is the future that we bring when tomorrow comes!" The story asks us to look at the world around us. And, when we find it wanting, stand up and do something about it. And that's a message I can throw myself behind wholeheartedly. The future doesn't just come; we make it, we shape it into what it is -- that's the whole point, in the end, of the story. With love, and because of love, we are strong enough to fight for the future we want and deserve. Maybe we'll fail. Maybe we'll only have reward in Heaven. And maybe we'll succeed. But we'll never know which if we never try.

I loved everything about this movie except for Russell Crowe, who had no business at all being in it. His acting was mediocre and his singing abysmal. The rest of the cast, though, was amazing. Hugh Jackman - He did a fabulous job as Jean Valjean! Some people have criticized his singing, but I disagree. It had an edge to it that really played well into Valjean's character and he made the role come alive. I think Hugh Jackman as Valjean *might* surpass Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (well, maybe not THAT far...) Anne Hathaway - She deserved that Oscar. All I can say is AMAZING!!! Amanda Seyfried - Her acting was great and I completely respect her for getting a voice double to handle her songs. A great decision that was best for the movie. She was a high soprano with a voice like a bell--perfect for the role. Sasha Baren Cohen & Helena Bonham Carter - They did a good job at being despicable in a comic relief sort of way. Which is too bad, really. While they were scummy, they failed to be truly evil. Even when Bonham Carter was threatening abuse against the child Cosette, she didn't come across as intimidating or even very dark. Same when Baren Cohen brought a bunch of thugs to rob and possibly murder Valjean. He just didn't pull off the darkness. Still, they did their roles well overall. That-guy-who-played-Marius: Great job! He really gave Marius a personality that I had trouble getting from the play and gave him a true place in the story. His voice was great, and I was blown away by his performance in "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables". The direction wasn't the best, but he was at his best. That-gal-who-played-Eponine: AMAZING! She really understood Eponine and all the details that made her who she was. The way she emotionally rose and fell at each interaction with Marius was subtle, but perfect. And when she sang On My Own, she had a moment there that just about moved me to tears. Colm Wilkinson (the Bishop of Digny): I was so pleased to see him in the movie. Colm was the original Broadway Valjean and the decision to include him as Father Bienvenue, the Bishop of Digny, was beautiful. It seemed like a little thing, but as a longtime fan of the play, it means a LOT. Russell Crowe: What can I say. He should NOT have been in this movie. He was like the aftertaste of a pill you had in your mouth for too long before swallowing. His singing sounded like someone trying to talk while yawning and his voice and acting lacked the passion, conviction, and wholehearted devotion to the play that everyone around him seemed to have. I wish his suicide in the movie would have been 2 hours earlier so we could be done with him. Regardless of his lack of singing and acting ability in the movie (don't get me wrong, I LOVE Gladiator, liked Master and Commander, and liked A Beautiful Mind) this is an absolute MUST SEE.

I never expected to fall head over heels with this film but I did. Having seen the original and subsequent stage versions many times over the years, I was both terrified and energized by the prospect of the film. But I was simply unprepared for the film's eloquence or depth, which for me at least, made the material feel fresh and contemporary even though the words are hundreds of years old. I practically steeled myself when The DVD arrived thinking I would need to set aside plenty of time for it, though not really knowing why. Over the course of several days, I watched in spurts and starts, at first unable to get thru Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking death sequence. Nothing I'd heard or read prepared me fully for Hathaway's brilliant turn. No wonder she won an Oscar. Well. Duh. For me, the movie transformed itself into a great film at the 33 minute mark. By the time Fantine had sung her last note (in this act, anyway) I was a wreck, had tears streaming down my grown men's beard-stubbly face and was practically gasping for air. Anne Hathaway gives unquestionably one of THE towering film performances ever and earns her place in the cinema hall of fame, no doubt. Her performance is THAT good and worth the price of admission in and of itself. She knocked the wind out of me, so I paused, and took a day off before trying a second and third time, but each and every time, Fantine's scenes devastated me to the point where I couldn't fathom getting thru the rest of it! About a week later, I finally succumbed to its magical pull and watched Les Miz from start to finish. And I came away seeing the film as an incredibly well-realized adaptation of a beloved stage musical. As a film, it is one for the ages. Hugh Jackman is the ultimate Jean Valjean in terms of combining sheer brute presence and a powerful made for Broadway voice. I saw Jackman as Peter Allen on Broadway in his Tony winning turn as The Boy From Oz, so I expected great things from this ace of actors, someone who can do anything! And Hugh did not disappoint! With the one exception of "Bring Him Home" which is simply too high for Jackman - or almost any man other than maybe Adam Levine - to sing perfectly, I felt he nailed the richness and sublime instincts of his character. Jackmans Valjean is desperate in his rebellion and earnest in his redemption, but always willing to take the risks that make him - and all of us - human, No actor has come close to capturing Valjean in as 3-dimensional a way as Hugh Jackman, and in any other year without Daniel Day Lewis, Jackman would have easily won an Oscar for this portrayal. The supporting cast is equally solid, even Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen as the dingbat Masters of the House. Amanda Syfrid and Samantha Barks were stunningly lovely, while Aaron Tvitt (a remarkable young singer I saw in the heartbreaking and real "Next to Normal") makes an indelible impression again as he does on stage. Watch this kid...he will be huge! Lastly, Eddie Redmayne is a superstar in the making and will be a serious Oscar contender in the future! Much has been said about this movie, good and bad. I get it. It's a film that's wrapped in heated debate because so many millions of people have been touched by its sorrowful tale of redemption and honor and love. At the end of the day, its a movie. And it happens to be a GREAT one once you get all those critical voices - both pro and con - out of your head. Watch it and see if it doesn't move you and touch your heart. That's what a great movie is about, and that's my experience with Lez Miz..A wonderful surprise!

I would venture to say most American movie-goers have never had the opportunity to see a Broadway musical. Why? Opportunity, desire, you choose. And because musicals are a relative scarcity in the multiplex these days, people aren't used to live action musicals of any kind. Many are probably unaware there are different kinds of musicals. "Chicago", "The Producers", "Mamma Mia" and "Moulin Rouge" are the most common form of musicals. Actors speak dialogue and the story moves forward as most films do, but they frequently stop and break out into a song and dance, delivering a musical number that should help move the story forward. But there are also `operatic musicals', productions in which virtually every word is sung and the musical numbers are still there, but less defined. "Phantom of the Opera" and "Les Miserables" are examples of this type of musical. I know a lot of people who would rather have their toenails pulled out with pliers than to sit through a movie musical. These same people detest `operatic musicals' because they never get a break from the music and singing. If you are one of these people, you will not like "Les Mis". But if a musical is made well, it can really transport you, enveloping all of your senses. And "Les Mis" is made very well; a highly emotional, very satisfying adaptation of one of the most successful, longest running musicals in history. The story is very familiar. Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, calling on his Broadway skills) is imprisoned for stealing bread to feed a sick family member. Many years later, he is released on probation by Javert (Russell Crowe) who promises to keep an eye on the criminal, watching for any mistake, ready to jail him in an instant. Flash forward a few years and Valjean is now living under another identity as the owner of a factory making rosary beads. A successful man, he is surprised when Javert shows up in the small town. Javert seems to recognize Valjean, but can't place him. Nervous, Valjean ignores the pleas of Fantine (Anne Hathaway), one of the factory workers trying to evade the lecherous foreman. Fantine is fired and falls of hard times, very hard times. Eventually Valjean realizes what has happened and pledges to her that he will find her daughter and care for her. Javert also realizes who Valjean is and is hot on his heels. Valjean finds Fantine's daughter, Cosette in the care of the Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), dubious inn-keepers constantly looking for more money. Flash forward a few years and Valjean and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) are back in Paris when Marius (Eddie Redmayne) spots the young lady and instantly falls in love. Marius is a very involved in the student movement and will soon help start the French Revolution. Valjean, Javert and Cosette will all become involved in the event that will change the history of France. Directed by Tom Hooper ("The King's Speech"), "Les Mis" is a passionate, rousing, extremely emotional and ultimately uneven experience. It is highly satisfying, but because so much of the film is so good, the parts that aren't are even more egregious and annoying. Hugh Jackman has been spending a lot of time performing on Broadway, shifting back and forth between stage and screen. He clearly has the chops to handle a musical and does a great job as Prisoner 24601. He goes through a lot, experiences a lot and changes a lot throughout the course of the story. This may be one of the biggest understatements ever, but to go into too much detail would spoil some of the surprise for people unfamiliar with the story. Let's just say he faces many obstacles and challenges. But as Valjean climbs each mountain and faces each challenge, you always get a feeling for his inner conscience. Jackman subtly shows us that even when Valjean is doing something wrong, he is at great pains when doing it. And he always tries to do something to compensate for the past error. Russell Crowe is another matter entirely. He doesn't have the skill or chops to carry the musical part of his role as Javert, the extremely tenacious gendarme. Everything he sings sounds the same which is problematic because he has to show us the emotions his character is living through. He pretty much glares at people throughout the film, rarely giving us insight into his character. Crowe deserves a lot of credit for going out of his comfort zone, but the filmmakers should have stayed away from the star's pull and sought out a performer who could do the role justice. Remember when Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted the Oscars? There seemed to be two general thoughts about their work; 1. James Franco looked uncomfortable and uneasy throughout most of the show and 2. Surprise that Anne Hathaway could sing. Her performance as Fantine, the single mother working in a factory to earn money for her child, erases the question mark and any doubt. Anne Hathaway CAN sing. I have only seen the musical performed live once and didn't remember that her big moment came so early in the story, but the moment she appears on screen, get your hankies out. Her role is tragic and moving and as she is singing "I Dream a Dream", you can see the pain and emotion in her face and hear it in every word she utters. Her character's life ultimately steers Jean Valjean towards his destiny, so it makes sense and needs to happen pretty early to drive the rest of the story. Amanda Seyfried (who was also in "Mamma Mia"), Eddie Redmayne, who plays her true love, Samantha Banks who plays Eponine and Aaron Tveit who plays Enjorlas are all good, but when you consider the power of Hathaway's performance and the bravado of Jackman's, these younger actors pale in comparison. They all play a part in sparking the French Revolution, which closes the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thernadiers, shady inn-keepers who seem included to provide a bit of comic relief. Normally, this type of thing wouldn't work very well, but their big song "Master of the House" is one of the most memorable and helps to compensate for the obvious nature of their characters. Watching a film musical is a very different thing from watching the same musical performed on stage. It should be a different thing. When you are watching a play, you are looking at the entire stage and as characters move around, your attention is directed to them. As they move back and forth, your eye follows them. Sometimes, you may be watching a scene between two characters at opposite sides of the stage. But the stage is always there and your eye is always moving. When you watch a filmed version of the same play, the filmmakers direct your attention to the focused performer with camera movement, editing, transitions and more. Your eye will process less because the filmmakers have already done this for you. Naturally, watching a live play is to a movie what reading a book is to watching a film adaptation of that book. When you read a book, your mind processes a lot of information and paints pictures for you, guiding you through the story. Sometimes, reading a scary story is a lot more effective than watching a horror story because the images your mind conjures are a lot scarier (and real to you) than what the filmmakers can come up with. Watching a live play is a very different thing because you have to decide where to look, what to concentrate on. You can also look at the whole picture. In "Les Miserables", Tom Hooper gives us an intimate view of the story. "Les Mis" isn't known for great choreography anyway, so Hooper smartly concentrates on the actors as they perform. He has also gone one step further; the actors sing live throughout the film. In most musicals, the singers record the songs in a studio and then perform the roles to a playback of the song. Watching "Les Mis" is a very different experience. You can see the words coming out of the actor's mouths, feel their power, and it also makes the performances more intimate and meaningful. "Les Miserables" is an emotional, moving experience. And a fitting adaptation of one of the longest running musicals in history. It has some problems, but all-in-all, this is one of the most satisfying films of the year.

Awesome movie. The acting, directing, music.... And the quality of the bluray is amazing

Let me start by saying that this has to be one of the most incredible and powerful pieces of musical theatre ever written. I personally feel like this film adaptation was nearly perfect in its portrayal of the musical. Even my boyfriend (NOT a theatre fan by any means) enjoyed the movie and he had every right to complain as I begged to go see it on his birthday. I wasn't the biggest fan of Russell Crowe's interpretation of Javert, but he did well enough. I also felt that the film poked a little TOO much fun at the Thenardiers...but I can overlook that as well. Everyone else I thought was simply phenomenal. If you didn't know this about the movie, the actors were recorded singing live during filming. If you have time, look up the special features and listen to the actors talk about how much it added to their performances. I think pre-recording the soundtrack is a major pitfall with musical movies, because it doesn't allow much freedom for acting in the moment. The actors had earpieces in place which played a piano accompaniment for them to sing with, and the full orchestration was added in afterward. It worked so very well and it was pleasing to know that I was paying to see actors actually singing and not being completely auto-tuned. My only complaint is that the movie seems to move much more quickly than the stage version, most likely because most movie-goers would have lost interest if it ran any longer. It's understandable, but I wish a few of the scenes had been given another minute or so to keep them from feeling rushed. The film was very true to the stage version, only turning a few soliloquies into spoken monologues, and also has a few nods to the novel that the stage version simply doesn't have the power to add. I'm almost halfway through reading the book and I am noticing plenty of details that were left out of the stage version that were included in the movie. LOVE it. As for the combo pack, I couldn't be happier that this version includes Blu-ray, DVD, digital and UltraViolet!! Basically, I paid a few dollars extra and I can now play Les Misérables wherever and whenever I want, without worrying about format. Buy this copy now! You won't regret it.

Top

This review has been in the making for about 5 months. I have been putting it off because I wanted to do it justice and give a fair, balanced review. Of course, I was tempted to write one immediately after I saw it, but there were other factors that might have given it a bias; I was lucky enough, completely by chance and luck (I had no idea until the day), to attend the premiere of this film, and meet the cast, so I would have given it 5 stars even if it had been rubbish. So I watched it again over a month later, and then I had absolutely no doubt at all that my first impression was right. This film is something else. One daily mail critic called it "not only the most ambitious British film of all time, it's the best" or words to that effect. And certainly this film is ambitious. Hooper's directing can be a bit too ambitious in that it doesn't always work; this film is so 'big' and he attempts to convey that but at times the editing is shoddy and the camera work sub par. And yet this does not detract at all from the viewing experience. In fact, it lends it a raw quality which is completely perfect for this gritty story, and this is further helped by the fact that the cast sing live. Some reviewers have complained that the singing is below-par, but this is exactly what I think makes this film so brilliant. I am not a huge fan of musicals in general, as I find it a tad annoying when actors suddenly burst into beautiful song. However, here, most of the film is sung and it makes sense for the voices not to be beautifully polished. I remain extremely impressed with the super-talented cast; not one cast member disappointed me. I loved both Crowe and Jackman's performances (in particular Jackman's- to me he held the film together). Similarly the supporting cast were exceptional; Hathaway deserves her oscar, and Barks and Seyfried were wonderful as Eponine and Cosette. I must add that I had never seen the musical before (having not really been a fan of musicals, although I have seen it now) and yet this completely blew me away. The wonderful thing is that through the film you can get the stunning visuals and emotional intensity that is completely missing from the stage version. Of course, if you want to hear a wonderfully able cast sing these songs, the stage version is for you, but for me I preferred the raw, real, unpolished voices of the actors in the film. Victor Hugo's story is so powerful and I believe the film does it better justice than the stage, which is more about the quality of the singing. In short, even 5 months later, this film still resonates with me, and not because I had a wonderful conversation with Eddie Redmayne, but because it's ambitious. It's unpolished. It's different.

Wie ich schon bei der Highlight-CD verkündet habe: "Les Miz" ist und bleibt mein Lieblingsstück unter den Musicals. Gerade dass es mehr Oper als Musical ist und nahezu gänzlich auf Dialoge verzichtet, macht es so mitreißend - eine wunderschöne Melodie löst die nächste ab, jedes Lied bringt die Stimmung perfekt rüber. Generell muss man schon zwischen Bühne und Film unterscheiden - die Medien sind zu unterschiedlich, aber wenn man das Bühnenstück im Hinterkopf hat, sind natürlich gewisse Erwartungen da. So fällt es bei der Bühnenfassung gar nicht auf, wie sehr durch manche Szenen gehetzt wird, weil im Theater so viele visuelle und akustische Reize mitspielen, im Film hingegen fällt es doch mitunter auf (z. B. die Szene im Gericht). Das war für mich zwar nicht so irritierend, ich könnte mir aber vorstellen, dass dem einen oder anderen, der das Musical nicht kennt, das negativ auffällt. Und während ich Kostümierung und Maske phantastisch fand, sind mir die Bluescreen-Effekte teilweise sauer aufgestoßen; das alte Paris wirkte zum Teil dermaßen CGI, dass es die ganze Authentizität kaputt gemacht hat (z. B. bei "Stars"). Der Film lebt aber vor allem von den Darstellern - das merkt man schon allein an den vielen Close-ups (man bedenke, dass "I dreamed a dream" nur aus einer Nahaufnahme von Anne Hathaways Gesicht besteht). Hugh Jackman und Anne Hathaway spielen sich wirklich die Seele aus dem Leib und wirken auf mich auch keineswegs überzogen und hyperdramatisch, wenngleich mir nach wie vor nicht gefällt, dass Hugh Jackmans Stimme des Öfteren etwas gepresst klingt und gerade "Bring him home" viel zu sehr rausbrüllt. Aber seine Verwandlung vom Gefangenen zum Bürgermeister zum alten, gebrechlichen Mann ist schon sehr beeindruckend. Neben den hervorragenden Darstellern mit Musicalerfahrung (Aaron Tveit und Samantha Barks) sticht für mich aber Eddie Redmayne am meisten heraus. Nicht nur eine klasse Stimme (vor allem in den Höhen), sondern auch grandios gespielt. "Empty chairs at empty tables" ist mir jedenfalls nähergegangen als "I dreamed a dream" (das ich schon phantastisch fand). Russell Crowe hat (zurecht) die meiste Kritik abbekommen. Beim Durchhören der CD fand ich seine Stimme schon schwach, hab aber darauf gesetzt, dass mich sein Schauspiel überzeugt - dem ist leider nicht so. Wenn man Mimik mit Jackman und Hathaway vergleicht, so hat Crowe eigentlich die ganze Zeit den gleichen Gesichtsausdruck und ist zu sehr darauf fokussiert, die Töne einigermaßen richtig zu singen, worunter das Schauspiel insgesamt leidet. Javert, eine starke Persönlichkeit, die nur Schwarz und Weiß kennt, kommt insgesamt zu schwach rüber. Immerhin sind die Töne an sich richtig - und wenn man sich auf YouTube mal ein paar Videos mit Crowe ansieht, merkt man auch, dass er eigentlich gar keine schlechte Stimme hat - aber für diese Art von Musik einfach total unpassend. Da hat beispielsweise Amanda Seyfried den Vorteil, dass sie schauspielerisch sehr in die Rolle der Cosette passt, wenngleich auch ihr Gesang eher dünn ist. Immerhin war ich vom letzten Ton bei "A heart full of love", der ja ziemlich hoch ist, sehr angenehm überrascht. Auch kleinere Rollen wie der Vorarbeiter in der Fabrik, Gavroche und einige der Studenten, sind wirklich toll besetzt. Mit meinen Kritikpunkten würde ich am liebsten 4.5 Sterne vergeben, aber weil mich der Film nicht nur trotz Länge gut unterhalten, sondern auch tief berührt hat, bekommt er die volle Anzahl an Sternen. Jedem, der das Musical kennt und/oder Englisch gut versteht, empfehle ich die Originalversion. Die "deutsche" Fassung ist größtenteils untertitelt, nur die wenigen Dialoge haben sie dann doch synchronisiert anstatt einfach den Film komplett zu untertiteln, was vermutlich etwas irritierend ist (sagte man mir). Die Texte sind sprachlich nicht unanspruchsvoll, aber meiner Meinung nach gut zu verstehen, sogar die Passagen, in denen recht dreckiges Britisch gesprochen wird (z. B. Gavroche). Dass die Reihenfolge der Lieder verändert wurde, die Lieder zum Teil gekürzt und die Texte abgeändert oder sogar erweitert wurden, hat mich überhaupt nicht gestört oder irritiert. Es hat gut gepasst und war nicht weniger schlüssig als bei der Bühnenfassung. Insgesamt eine gelungene Adaption, die die Hoffnung weckt, dass vielleicht ein paar mehr Musicals der Sprung auf die Leinwand gelingt - vor allem denen, die es hierzulange nicht (mehr) gibt (einmal abgesehen von den horrenden Ticketpreisen).

This is a great movie. No wonder it was so successful. Even for those anti-musical-movies persons this proves to be so good that my wife loved it. My wife can not stand any musical movie, not even the old ones from the golden age, and she does not like Broadway stuff. She is a big fan of cinema, on her birthday she'd rather watch 2 movies than go to a fancy restaurant. Said so, you can imagine my surprise when she loved this film, and I think it is for 2 major reasons: One is the top level cast and performances. The second is the powerful story from the classic of Victor Hugo. So even if these actors are not "singers" the do a great job because we are in "cinema", not "broadway". The biggest difference is that you get all these close-ups of their faces, different angles, the illumination, make-up, etc., so a great singer may not be the best choice to be seen that close and intimate, so in "cinema" they decided to cast real actors instead of singers and it was a good choice. Anne Hathaway is able to transmit all the suffering only with her eyes, no matter how good or bad she is singing. So if you don't like actors trying to sing, just give it a try and remember that great singers are not good actors and you may not believe them if you have them in a close-up. That is the good about Broadway, they are far away, with all this theatrical make up, and you don't really see their eyes, so their voices are the only thing you get.

Was soll man zu diesem Film sagen außer eine der schönsten, spannendsten, traurigsten und gleichzeitig lustigsten Geschichten gebannt in einem hervorragenden Film mit unglaublich wunderschöner Musik.