Les Miserables Review

Set in 1815 France, Les Miserables is the story of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who is released on parole after serving a nineteen year prison sentence.  As time passes, Valjean is determined to do good with his life and eventually becomes a factory owner and serves as mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer. One of his factory workers, Fatine (Anne Hathaway) is discovered to be sending money to her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) and is dismissed by the foreman. Left with no option, Fantine turns to prostitution. During an argument with an abusive customer, Javert (Russell Crowe), the police inspector who has vowed to find and arrest Valjean, arrests Fatine, but Valjean intercedes and takes her to a hospital. Later, Valjean learns that an innocent man mistaken for Valjean is arrested. Valjean nobly reveals their mistake and his true identity to the court. After escaping Javert, Valjean finds Cosette and promises to be like a father to her, fulfilling his promise to Fatine.

It took me a while and a lot of thought before deciding on my final review of this film presentation of the Broadway Musical.  I've decided to give this movie 3.5 stars and I'm sure this will not be popular with everyone, but most everyone I've talked to agrees that the debate over the movie is regarding the performances of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe.  Ultimately, I was a bit disappointed in both their performances.  But before I get into that, I'd like to point out the many things I thought were absolutely brilliant about this movie.

There are several advantages to a major motion picture with a $61 million budget that a stage production just doesn't have.  The sets, the props, the scenes were absolutely breathtaking.  I was so pleased that there appeared to be very little digital interference.  This was one of the biggest downfalls of the most recently released Star Wars trilogy: everything was digital.  And, as good as the digital creations were, they were still obviously digital and took you out of fully investing yourself into the movie.  There was only one scene that took me out of the movie just a bit and it was how the movie chose to handle the final scene with Javert.  It was almost too graphic for me and I somewhat missed how much of it was left to your imagination with the stage version.  But, it was effective nonetheless.

The costumes and makeup were superb and with several camera close-ups, you really got to see the scars, the tears, the dirt, the desolation they endured.  The camera got right up in the actor's faces allowing you to feel their pain, their angst, their suffering that you just can't get in a large Broadway Theatre.  The camera also allowed us to witness the slight-of-hand pick-pocketing during the "Master of the House" routine which again you miss on stage.

The acting was phenomenal by every member of the cast.  I thought Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were brilliant.  Newcomer Samantha Barks who played the role of Eponine was magnificent and definitely look for more from her in the near future.  I thought Amanda Seyfried was good as Cosette, but the vibrato in her singing was a little much at times.  Hugh Jackman's acting was Oscar worthy for sure.  But Anne Hathaway stole the show.  Though her role only calls for her to be in the movie in more of a supporting role, she gave the performance of a lifetime both theatrically and vocally with her singing.

 The only criticisms I really have with the movie was with the singing performances of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe. Definitely more so with Crowe who sounded very David Bowie-esque in his singing.  It was distracting enough that I half expected Muppet-like creatures to join him for a song and dance.  I've wrestled with wondering if one walks away thinking this was so perfect because one wouldn't expect Wolverine and Gladiator to pull off those performances, or if it was so perfect because their singing really was that good.  Some have tried to tell me that the singing may not have been pitch perfect at times because it was recorded live during filming.  That may be true, however, one of the luxuries you have in film over live theatre is that you can call "cut" and run another take if it isn't absolutely perfect.  If you miss a note or a line or a move on stage, you can't take it back.  I understand that to make their $61 million back, they had to get people to see the movie and a good way to do that is with marquee actors like Jackman and Crowe.  Though the singing may have been better with some lesser known actors, it might not be the phenomenon it has become.  But I also wonder this: if I was in New York and just paid $150 a ticket to see this on Broadway and these two actors (not Jackman and Crowe) gave this exact performance, would I feel I got my money's worth.  And honestly, the answer is no.  So even though that is my only criticism of a movie I felt was otherwise amazing, I have to weigh that criticism heavier because this is, after all, a MUSICAL. I highly recommend it and thought it was well worth the price of admission in the movie theatres and I'd very much like to see it again, but Les Miserables will most likely not be finding a place in my home collection.