Les Misérables

It should be said that while I do enjoy the occasional musical, I'm not really one to seek them out as they tend not to be naturally my thing; indeed my favorite musical is the South Park film, mainly because it manages to have its genre cake and mock it at the same time. So it took me a few minutes to get into the big chorus, singing dialogue thing here but early on I did. To speak of the first hour I had characters I engaged with, songs that mostly are memorable (although the singing is variable) and generally plenty of spectacle and flair in the delivery. The first hour of the film is by far the strongest and it contains a lot of the most emotionally moving aspects.

Much has been said about Hathaway and, sort of as a result I wasn't sure how much of it was hype for awards and how much of it was real, but she really is very good throughout her section. The highlight is of course I Dream a Dream, but her whole performance is emotionally charged but yet fragile at the same time. Problem is that with this and other strengths in the first hour, the rest of the film has a lot to live up to and, mostly, it doesn't really manage it. It runs to almost 3 hours and it really does feel long but weirdly at the same time it also feels rushed. It is hard to describe but the amount of story to be told seems too much to really fit in and do it well. As a result it never grabbed me quite as much as it had in that first hour; I still enjoyed it for its flair and spectacle but it felt like that is what I was watching, rather than characters or a story.

Beyond Hathaway the cast are not quite as strong. Jackman does well but not amazing; Seyfried is okay while Redmanye, Barks, Tveit and others are solid. Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter both overplay it but are amusing. The only real weak link is Crowe and it is a shame because he actually fits his character very well, it is just the fact that his singing voice is strained that poses a problem – but it is a big problem when you're making a musical. The production values are tremendously high, with great sets, great costumes and around these Hooper gives us some great set-pieces – with the downside of this being that it all seems so surface that it highlights the increasingly lack of much else going on elsewhere.

The film still is worth a look for this, but it is a shame that it peaks so early and only seems to slip away from there. It manages to feel overlong while also feeling rushed and needing more time; perhaps me not naturally being drawn to musicals was part of the issue, but it is a flawed but expensive film.

Les Miserables is very old fashioned entertainment. It's a series of crescendo moments with no build-up, no backstory, no pause. It's like eating just the topping of the pecan pie, and not bothering with the crust or filling. We were just ten minutes into the movie when I had to look at my watch and ask, okay, how long can they keep this up? Climax after climax, plot twist after plot twist, tearjerking scene after tearjerking scene. Oceans! Mountains! Punishment! Suffering! Religion! Redemption! Will there be a break for lunch? Will we be able to catch our breath?

If you can watch this film without crying, I don't want to know you. The woman behind me was on the edge of her seat, not just because I smell good. The audience at the 10:40 a.m. matinée – the theater was packed – applauded at the end, and was very slow to leave the theater, even as the closing credits rolled.

Typical of big, fat, nineteenth-century novels, there are numerous implausible coincidences that drive the plot. These coincidences took me out of the movie, but that was a good thing. The human suffering on screen was overwhelming: suicide, enslavement, exploitation of living humans' body parts, prostitution, disease, spite, malice, child abuse, starvation, sadism, a dying man escaping through very graphic sewerage. I did have to repeat to myself, "This is only a movie" even as tears streamed down my cheeks.

Jean Valjean is imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children. He slaves for twenty years. He hauls a massive, capsized sailing ship. The scene does look like obviously fake CGI, but that doesn't make it any less gut wrenching. The workers sing, "You'll always be a slave. You are standing in your grave." They are the men we see in Sebastiao Salgado photographs of Third World laborers. They are Ilya Repin's "Barge Haulers on the Volga." Valjean's nemesis is the crazily obsessive policeman, Javert. They spar throughout the film, as Valjean's fate rises and falls and rises and falls and rises … you get the idea.

A story this big, this broad, and this implausible requires one hundred percent commitment from the performers. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is superb. He believes. He emotes. He is as big as the story itself. Jackman is the heart and soul of "Les Miserables." I loved him. Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen – they all had me convinced. Russell Crowe was a surprising disappointment. He's a brilliant actor and I kept waiting for him to bring some fire, some ice, some power, some insight to Javert, the obsessive and punitive policeman who mercilessly hounds Jean Valjean. I wanted a memorable moment that would make me feel that Crowe's performance brought Javert to intimate life for me. That moment did not arrive.

I wondered while watching this movie whether it will be embraced by the political left or the political right. It is a deeply and unashamedly Christian film. A Catholic priest, emulating Jesus, is the catalyst. Valjean spends the rest of the film working to live up to the priest's Biblical example. "Les Miserable" is leftist in that it depicts the poor rising up, but then the poor fail their own putative saviors, and allow them to be massacred, alone. Javert, representing law and order, is a monster. The film's brief glimpse of heaven is like some limousine liberal's fantasy.

I think "Les Miserables" is as popular as it is for the same reason that Cinderella is so popular. When "Les Miserable" was a stage play, tickets were a very expensive and difficult to acquire luxury. It is ironic that a play about the wretched of the earth would be such a luxury entertainment. Why do we enjoy watching people much poorer and more desperate than we will ever be? Why do we pay for the privilege? Because we all see ourselves in Cinderella, in Jean Valjean, no matter how lucky we are. I'll certainly never stand in cold sea water with iron shackles around my wrists and neck, overseen by a cold sadist like Javert. But, along with millions of others, I saw my own struggles in Valjean, and thanked God that I didn't have it as bad as he. If Jean Valjean can go on, I can, too!

I wish the songs had been a tad better. There are a couple of good ones, "I dreamed a dream" and "Do you hear the people sing?" All the actors sing very well. Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman sing especially well.

As a massive film fan, my tastes are very wide-ranging, but I do have a problem with musicals. Nevertheless I was happy to take the opportunity of a private viewing of "Les Misérables" at the London office of distributors Universal - the day after the London première and a month before the UK release - because of the outstanding success of the original stage show (a run of 27 years with a total audience of over 60 million) and the surprising and impressive cast list (Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne).

The showing was introduced by producer Eric Fellner of Working Title who underlined the commercial challenge of making a film in which all the dialogue is sung and the themes are so political and praised director Tom Hooper ("The King's Speech") for his insistence that every take was sung live.

The two main characters are presented in the opening seconds of a sweeping introductory sequence: the police inspector Javert (Crowe) and the prisoner 24601 Jean Valjean (Jackman) in post-revolutionary France. There follows over two and half hours with barely a spoken word which will not appeal to all cinema-goers, but the production is a triumph with Cameron Mackintosh's musical opened up by dramatic shooting on Pinewood's brand new Richard Attenborough stage and some historic English locations.

If Crowe and especially Jackman are excellent, Hathaway - who lost 25 pounds and most of her hair for the role - is outstanding as the destitute Fantine and Cohen and Carter almost steal the show as the comical Thénardier innkeepers.

I'm not sure how long it will take for "Les Misérables" to recoup its investment cash- wise, but it's going to win award after award and rightly so.

A well-executed and powerful musical from Tom Hooper, 'Les Misérables' stood alongside 'Skyfall' as Britain's two main entries at the 2013 Academy Awards and left with 3 Oscars. Featuring some bravura performances from an all-star cast including Anne Hathaway (Oscar winner), Hugh Jackman (Oscar nominated), Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Set against the sweeping backdrop of 19th-century France, 'Les Mis' tells an enthralling and emotional story of passion, love and redemption, accompanied by some stunning cinematography, uplifting musical numbers and flawless direction. While it does drag on at parts, 'Les Mis' is generally an impeccably crafted musical to be enjoyed by all.

This is a really tricky one to talk about. Its place in the Les Mis repertoire is confusing to newcomers and the reviews are polarised which is also confusing, but I understand why.

This is a film version of a the musical adaptation of a novel. Therefore, I think that attempting to watch this without any prior knowledge of Les Mis is going to leave you confused or feeling incomplete. Les Mis is such a huge epic vast story that features many characters and covers many years and has many important grand themes. All of these cannot be crammed into a 2.5 hour movie, never mind a 2.5 movie version of a musical version of the story. Les Mis is absolutely fantastic, but I recommend to people that they understand the story in its entirety before seeing the musical. The 2018 BBC series a a great 6-hour in-depth version if you don't want to read the 1500 page novel. Then, I think you can appreciate the musical in its totality because it brings the themes and emotions of the story alive through music and musical theatre. Then, once you are familiar with the musical (there are 3 famous recordings of it available) , then you can understand the movie remake of the musical and what it was trying to achieve.

So I totally understand why fans of the musical would be disappointed in this because it features actors rather than singers, so the singing is nowhere near as good as in the musical. I also understand why newcomers to Les Mis might be disappointed in this, because on its own it is an incomplete rendering of Les Mis, there is so much depth and context that I feel you need in order to piece it all together and truly appreciate the tragedy and the themes within it. But for those who have an understanding of what came before, I think this is a really bold and commendable attempt at converting the musical to a movie format. However, ultimately, it is not as emotionally affecting as the musical because (despite some great acting) you can't get a way from the fact that it is largely through the music that the emotional heart is portrayed. And the music here is nowhere near as good as the stage versions.

I think its very important to know what the intentions for this movie were. The actors all sang live, with the intention of being able to sing as if they acting, i.e. They could slow down and speed up where they need for a more realistic portrayal of the words than a song which runs to a consistent tempo. And also not be held back by needing to hit all of the notes perfectly, a lot of lines Hugh Jackman almost speaks rather than truly sings, because he is trying to do the songs in a more realistic acting fashion. This should have been made really clear in all the promo for the film because when you know this you can appreciate more what they were attempting to do, and not just simply compare them to Colm Wilkinson or Ruthie Henshall or any of the vocal greats from Les Mis on stage. Where this works the best as it was intended is in Anne Hathaway's I Dreamed a Dream. Her raw emotional ropey speak-singing works absolutely perfectly for one of the most devastatingly human portrayals of Fantine we have. She won an Oscar for this alone, and though I'm not a huge fan of the Academy's choices I have to agree with this.

The production is beautiful and great to look at. And the casting outside of Hathaway is mostly good. Jackman I think is an excellent Valjean, as vulnerable as he is strong. And in a non-musical version of Les Mis i think he would be one of the greats. But despite his acting abilities, next to Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe, he is just not going to compete in fans memories.

It is a must-see, but not as your introduction to Les Mis.