See it in

Great supplement to the musical

By MrNobody
Written July 27, 2016
First of all, I have to agree with the previous reviewer that this is more of a film version of the famous 1980s musical instead of the original novel by Victor Hugo. With that in mind, I'd say this film is a great supplement to the musical. My wife is a huge fan of musicals, so she actually brought me to see the musical at Kennedy Center last year when it was the last stop of its 2012 US tour. I loved it, but it was a pitty that we could not afford to sit at better seats. Sound was great, the singing was great, but I could not see the acting and the settings in details because it was too darn far away (we paid ~100 for one ticket still). This movie actually filled that unfortunate pity of my musical experience. With less than 10% of the musical ticket price, the movie gave me full details of the 1830s France, when and where all the characters were and the story took place. It offered me the additional visionary effects to complete my own imagination and vision.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Did you?


By lucky_dog
Written August 24, 2016
I knew Russell Crowe wasn't going to be a strong singer from the trailers, but I was surprised at how disappointing Hugh Jackman's singing voice sounded. It was very nasally. And he could not pull off the best number of the show "Bring Him Home". And I'm not sure why the director felt the need to have strange camera angles and have the camera up everyone's noses the whole time. Too much cutting back and forth between close-ups. Very distracting. Overall, still love the music (and part of my problem is that I have the amazing original Broadway cast recording in my brain), but the next time I see Les Miz will be on the stage.
20 out of 36 found this helpful. Did you?

Not disappointed

By windx15
Written July 01, 2016
Went to see Les Mis without great expectations. I was not disappointed. Way, way too long. I could not believe that was Hugh Jackman singing. Where did his voice go??? I did believe that was Russell Crowe singing, because he is not a singer!!!! He is an actor. Was it not possible to find a singer and an actor in one body?????? Ann Hathaway was fantastic. Too bad she was gone in the first 30 minutes. Yes, cinematography was beautiful. Yes it was an epic. Yes, if you loved the play, you will love the movie, all 2hours and 37 minutes of it. Sorry not to be on the Les Mis bandwagon. It's back to my old favorite Phantom of the Opera movie today to help me try to forget yesterday's disaster. SK
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Did you?

Don't MIS Out!!!

By littletevye
Written June 30, 2016
In a word Beautiful. They took this classic musical and reinvented while keeping all the same elements we have grown to love. Filmed to perfection but make sure you have a stock in Kleenex.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Did you?

Some of the Drama is lost...

By mcsarge
Written August 31, 2016
A great movie, but I have found that some of the incredible drama of the original stage production was lost because the performers, though pretty good, are not good enough singers for the material. I wish they had enlisted real singers, not famous actors for the roles. With the exception of Fontine, Marius and Cozette (both young and old) the rest of the cast was good, but not great. If they had real singing talent on the screen this would have been one of the greatest movies of all time. Using established talent, though safe, made it fall far short of what I was expecting.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Did you?