Well... this movie isn't really sci-fi... or fantasy... or historical fiction because it wasn't history when it was created... so... I guess I don't have to worry about which forum I'm posting it on. Unless y'all correct me.

Anywho. Anyone see it yet? There's just so much I could say about it... so much... it's just... wow. Just. Wow. Let me know what y'all think! Include details in spoilers! And discuss! (though don't get too touchy with details... try avoiding making your posts tricky subjects material, as there are tricky subjects dealt with in the movie)

Just... wow. Such a powerful story. Wow.

The one thing I will say right now is Russel Crowe's *probably spelled that wrong* rendition of Stars was the best version I have seen/heard. Ever.

I'm passing on it, mainly due to the sex scenes.

I must say they did do a good job handling that, IMO. I think they could have gone a lot worse than they did, though I did choose to turn my head. But I respect your decision there.

Gavroche was soooo cute! The actor who played him was fantastic. O.O Such an adorable little boy with a good voice.

We are going to see it, but it doesn't come out here until January the 11th. But it's on our to see list. I'm really looking forward to it, as I have heard great reviews from my FB friends.

It doesn't come out here till the 16th of January. And so I am waiting impatiently to see it.

Yeah, I think I'm going to pass on this one...

Just saw it today. So gorgeous, so amazing...

I do understand people choosing to forgo it; my dad didn't go with us, and yeah, there were a couple moments when I was turning my head away or closing my eyes. But I don't regret watching it myself.

That last song is the perfect ending. My only previous experience with Les Miserables was a recording of a high school performance, which while brilliantly done was hard to understand at times, and so I think I completely missed the different lyrics.

I love the book, and I can put up with the inappropriate parts of the musical, but I'll be passing on the movie. As a wise pastor (who is well-known, though his name escapes me) once said, "violence in movies is real, sex in movies is not" (I paraphrase), but that's as much digression as you'll get from me in this thread.

THIS IS MY FAVORITE MUSICAL OF ALL TIME. The movie was incredible, Hugh Jackman was quite good, Eddie Redmayne blew me away, Aaron Tveit was beautiful. Empty Chairs at Empty Tables was by far the best done song in the movie. I was shocked at how good Anne Hathaway was. I cried for the whole second half.



REALLY?!?! Russel Crowe was the worst part of the movie by FAR. And I LOVED the movie with the burning passion of a million suns. His voice was all right, but he just did not have the power behind his voice that it takes to play Javert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1OgS0MuBs
^THIS is how Javert is supposed to be played.



I guess it is your choice, but there really isn't anything extremely graphic in it. I think there's 2 things for a grand total of 5 minutes (one is a song that is kind of raunchy) in an entire 3 hour movie. I don't know if you should let these 5 minutes turn you away from a 3 hour movie. Les Mis is a musical I would DEFINITELY call Christian and you come away feeling edified. It's not like Phantom where, while it's good, you're not quite sure what to think. And Fantine's prostitution is used to show the abuse she's experienced. If anything, it should awaken you to the reality of the sex trade and the horrors of it. The thing is, this kind of exploitation of young women who need money is still happening all over the world, and honestly, probably only a few miles from your home. The point of Les Mis is not to be raunchy. Not at all. It is a story of the power of mercy, redemption, and love, but love in a Christ-like manner, not love as you find in most movies today. Val Jean is a fallen man at the beginning of the movie, who is shown mercy, and this act of mercy breaks him, and he recognizes the saving power of Christ and the forgiveness that can be found there. Through the rest of the movie he strives to become a better, more honest man.

In short, this production was excellently done, other than a few minor blips in the singing department ("Bring Me Home" is one of the most difficult songs to sing of all time, so I forgive Hugh Jackman for that). My 16-year-old brother all the way to my 79-year-old grandmother loved it.

I have only ever liked Philip Quast as Javert in the musical. He is absolutely amazing; so I will be looking forward to seeing Russel Crowe as Javert, as I have heard very good reviews of him in it.

Well this is coming from a girl who currently only has the Original London Cast album. So it's with Colm Wilkinson as Valjean and Roger Allem as Javert. I prefer that soundtrack to the 25th anniversary cast (aside from Samantha Barks as Eponine).

But I still feel like... somehow... Russell Crowe nailed Stars. He... He played the character in such an internal way. It was almost like playing a mind game with him. So his version was quieter. It didn't have to be so magnificent and grand and loud. He got into the mind of the character and sang it that way... I can't really describe it. And I'll have to see it again. But at the time I just fell in love with how he did it.

His performance does take getting used to. But all of the actors have to get used to. All of their performances are so different from what we're used to. I'm not sure we should go into the movie thinking, "This guy did the part the only way it was meant to be played." There are soooo many ways you can portray these characters... And once you can kind of adjust your mindset from comparing the movie to what you know (which is very difficult and I did some) and enjoy it for the way these actors are portraying the story, it's so neat. Fascinating. Very well done.

But these are all my opinions. And I am going to see it again, soon hopefully. So maybe I'll come out with a different opinion. But that is my initial reaction.

I'm glad you enjoyed it a lot too! The story is so powerful. I was bawling at the end, though I didn't cry anywhere else.

Another thing I loved about the movie was when Eponine dies, how they have Gavroche listening in and crying. I learned from reading the abridged book that Gavroche was actually her brother, which I hadn't realized before, so I liked how they showed that special connection there.

And did anyone else love how Colm Wilkinson (the original Jean Valjean from the Original London Cast and Broadway Cast IIRC) was the Bishop?!

He did all right, but I think his sound was muffled. As my friend put it, "Javert took the loaf of bread Val Jean stole and stuffed it in his mouth right before Stars." :p I just felt that he was awkward in the part, but I don't think it's his fault either. The casting department offered him the role and he was like "OMG A ROLE" and took it and did his best. So I give him props for that. I've listened to every soundtrack of Les Mis I could find, and, with the exception of the Jonas Brother in the 25th anniversary edition, I love every version I've listened to.


Yes!! I didn't know he was going to be in it, and when he appeared as the bishop I freaked out a little inside and wished he could just stand in for Hugh Jackman and sing "Bring Me Home". :p

I LOVED this movie. Having never seen the play (before today, when I watched the 25th anniversary performance on Youtube), I had nothing to compare the singing to, and I thought all the actors did incredible jobs. Especially Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks, and Eddie Redmayne... I think I fell in love with Marius when he sang "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables". Russell Crowe's singing was weaker than everyone else's, but I felt he more than made up for it with his portrayal of Javert.

One thing I love about the story is the theme of redemption that runs through everything. It's so interesting to see how Javert's belief in salvation through works destroyed him. He was so convinced his own "righteousness" would save him that he completely hated the idea of grace.



I'm not trying to change your mind, but here are my thoughts on that issue:

My mom was really worried about the prostitution scene, too, especially after reading the Plugged In review. And I did turn my head for about five seconds at one point. However, I thought that that scene was handled well; everything that happened was portrayed as evil and terrible. The actual sex scene (during which I looked away) was very brief - maybe 10 seconds, but probably less.

There was one other scene, during "Master of the House", but it was even shorter, thankfully.

Anyway, now I'm reading the book... only 900 pages to go!

I love the 10th anniversary of Les Miserables. I didn't like the grown up Cosette, but Michael Ball plays the best Marius ever, I think. I've never liked anyone else as Marius up to now, having seen Michael play that part (His rendition of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables is fantastic). Colm Wilkinson I love as Valjean, as I have already said I love Phillip Quast as Javert; and Ruthie Henshall was amazing as Fantine. So that's the best production I feel I have seen of it up to now.

But I have heard such good reviews of this new film, I am really looking forward to going to see it.

10th anniversary is very good, and I would agree that Michael Ball is the best Marius I've heard, though Eddie Redmayne did very well too. Maybe not QUITE as good vocally, but still VERY good vocally. Especially since the Jonas Brother is such a disappointment in the 25th anniversary edition. But I'm going to have to say that Alfie Boe is the BEST male vocalist I've EVER heard in my life. He KILLS it as Val Jean in the 25th anniversary edition.

This movie was so wonderful!

On avoiding it for the sex though, I would have to agree with what others have said-it was really just about 5 seconds. They showed nothing. The worst of it, for me, was actually what was leading up to it, but it was not glorifying it at all.

Remember, people, why we avoid this stuff in the first place: not just because it's immorality, but because it's glorified. Sex in shows like New Girl or books you find in the romance section are glorifying it, leave you disgusted or with impure desires, and should be avoided. Stuff like Les Mis and Mark of the Lion and such do not glorify it, and actually are showing redemption from it.

I don't know, I guess I just sort of see it as, "I'm not going to be close to that person, because she was raped," as opposed to, "I'm not going to be close to that person, because she sleeps around and is of this world." ((Please note the word close, to: while it's not ok to be super bff's with someone of the world, if we do not show love how will they ever get out of it and find Christ?))

Ok, off my little rant now. : )

This movie was just one of those that left you feeling like you gained something from it. Like, it wasn't just a nice story-it had substance, in an incredibly Christian way.



I never thought of it like that! But it makes so much sense! Both him and Jean Valjean were just brilliant characters through and through.

While that is a perfectly good reason to avoid "this stuff," it is not the only reason. There are many other perfectly good reasons, like, for example, not wanting to see it.

The point you made is perfectly valid, but at risk of sounding harsh, I will say this.

We go to the theater to be entertained. Violence in films is fake. "This stuff" is not. Actors really do "this stuff" in front of a camera. If I may be frank for a moment: Nudity in films is real. Just as real as if that person was standing in front of you, instead of a camera. The same thing goes for "sex", no matter how much or little they "show". At the very least, you're watching people being genuinely sensual on stage, even if it doesn't go beyond that. You wouldn't go to a play and watch two people do "this stuff" on stage, even just for five seconds. But most of us a perfectly fine with watching two real people do "this stuff" on a movie screen. I really don't see this difference. But we're all, myself included, a little too willing to compromise our morals just to be entertained. Sometimes by things that shouldn't be entertaining.

We don't go to movies to experience moral enlightenment. We go to be entertained. Probably we should be spending our time and money on something better, but we live in the First World and therefore have a surplus of both. If we're going to invest these incredibly valuable things in something as temporary and unfruitful as entertainment, why settle for having to spend half our time in the theater looking away, or plugging our ears, or trying to forget what we saw or heard because we didn't look away or plug our ears.

I could say more on that line of reasoning, but it's probably more than enough already. I guess I would summarize what I said like this:

Watching movies is about entertainment. We could get the learning, the inspiration, the message, in other ways. In terms of Jesus and Eternity and What We Should Be Doing, entertainment is the most temporary and fickle of pleasures. If I find myself having to look away, even for five seconds, I feel that it's too high a price to pay for being entertained, no matter how entertained I could be.

Also, while there is nothing wrong with drawing Christian parallels from this work, I would caution that it isn't automatically "Christian" (whatever you would have that mean) just because you can draw those parallels. The original novel was written by a man who was at least an agnostic, if not an atheist. The work was intended to advance socialistic beliefs about society, philosophy, and religion.

The Musical is no better in this regard, at times striking me as outright communist, and certainly as profane.

The movie is merely a film version of the musical, which is a very faithful rendition of the spirit of the novel.

Sorry to rant, and I'm also sorry if I was a little too frank. The discussion will have to continue in PMs since this isn't the appropriate place for a debate on such a delicate topic, given the average age of our membership.

I want to be clear: I'm not judging. I'm not saying that anyone is in sin for watching this film. Paul said that "all things are lawful", and while I don't know what that means, between it and my own sins, it's not my place to tell you what's wrong and right when it comes to morally greyish movies like this one. But I do have a concern about which things are "useful" and to me, this movie isn't.

A very thought provoking post, Neil.

Yes, very.

Well said, Neil.

Great discussion, everyone! I was on the Historical thread about the film, but I had to pop over here and make my remarks!
I LOVED the movie! As a Les Miserables fan, I thought they really hit the nail on the head with this movie. Yes, I was bawling pretty hard by the end of the movie.

All the actors were very well cast. Hugh Jackman was amazing, Anne Hathaway was fantastic, the Cosette was great, and the Gavroche was awesome!


I agree. I'm very picky with my Gavroches (the one in the Liam Neeson film was awful!) I was also pleased with how much they included him in the movie. He deserved it.

As for Russel Crowe - I think he did a great job as Javert, but sorry - his voice just didn't quite cut it. He was okay in the dialogue, but in his solos, he was trying so hard to survive, he couldn't put as much meaning into it. Even his final note was held too short, in my opinion. I think the directors chose acting over singing, and that is their choice. Random fact: Russel Crowe almost denied the role, but Tom Hooper's enthusiasm won him over.

As for the sex scene - yeah, it was more than I expected. Even though they kept it snappy and didn't show much, that type of thing simply isn't edifying. Just because it happens doesn't mean we need to see it, really, especially at my age. Anne Hathaway's rendition of I Dreamed a Dream that followed though: fantastic. The ugly version was far more appropriate than the Broadway version.

And, although I love Les Miserables, as someone who has read the book, I can tell you that it isn't Christian. Theistic, yes, but not really Christian. Victor Hugo was by no means portraying the redemption found in Jesus Christ; he was not making an allegory about freedom from the law and Jesus' grace. But the Christian themes are there, and that is what makes the story so powerful. The themes are super powerful! Jean Valjean sacrificing his ownership of Cosette in love of Cosette, Javert confronted with mercy, a life of hate exchanged for a life of love - wow! But was Victor Hugo - and the movie - trying to point towards God? No. And I agree, it borders on communism, but mostly Hugo was trying to argue that Les Miserables - the poor people, the miserable people, the Eponines, the 24601's - deserved something more than what they were getting.

Loved your thoughts, Phylis. *is enjoying reading what everyone has to say *

I guess that's more what I was trying to say. As Augustine speaks of in his Confessions, truth about God can be found in the art and creations of things not intended to be Christian. I think it is very important to remember not to write off something simply because it is not explicitly Christian. Either way, I completely agree with your comment here.

I have seen a high school production of Les Miserables, and it was absolutely exceptional - way high quality for a high school performance. Also, since it was a high school performance, there wasn't any of the content you guys have mentioned here. Thus I'm not sure I will go see the movie after all.

Has anyone listened to the audio drama of Les Miserables produced by Focus on The Family?

No, but that sounds awesome! I am a fan of most things Focus on the Family and Les Miserables. ('Cept maybe not the movie, which I stated in my previous post.)

The Focus on the Family Radio Theatre audio version is awesome! That's what got me into Les Miserables in the beginning.

I am probably going to go see this tomorrow.

This film was absolutely fantastic. I'm going to go see it again with my parents. At the end you could just hear everyone crying! Even my sister, who never cries in films, cried in this one. Definitely would recommend it.

The scenes weren't that bad at all. I didn't like the Master of the House song, in fact I found it far more offensive than the brief scene with Fantine.

I loved the cast; Hugh Jackman stole the show, his voice and his acting is brilliant. I like how Javert was portrayed by Russel Crowe, and Anne Hathaway played the best Fantine ever.

It is definitely worth watching, even if you wait for it to come out on DVD so you can fast forward those two parts. They probably last less than 5 seconds put together. There is no nudity.

I haven't watched the film (and probably won't see it), but, yes! The Radio Theatre is great!

(Here's what I posted over on the Historical Fiction Forums)

I watched the film and enjoyed it a great deal. I think it now joins the list of my favorite films. Like Elanor's sister, I don't cry in films, too, but I cried in this one. (I think everyone in the movie theater did.)

Gavroche stole my heart. I've always admired Hugh Jackman as an actor, and he was just brilliant as a singer. Anne Hathaway was really, really good too. I think this is the first film I've seen with Russell Crowe, and I like him as an actor, but not so much as a singer. (That's probably just me though.)

I still recommend that all who watch it for the first time watch with caution. When I get it on DVD, I'd definitely forward through the Thenardiers "Master of the House" song. But other than that and perhaps the Fantine scene, it was great.

I like how the film portrayed the despair, the poverty, the difficulty of the lives of the French people. They didn't tone down or "prettify" anything but showed things as they were. I heard that they put raw fish on set so that the actors and the ensemble could really feel the scene--that they were really on dank, muddy streets. And I think they all did a good job showing the lives of the French people back then.

That being said, I'll probably watch it a few more times while it's showing here.

I love it how I end up knowing a film inside out before I even see it, thanks to HWers.


He's a good actor. You should see him in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, and also A Beautiful Mind. [/offtopic]

He was really good in Master and Commander.

I loved it. I was introduced to it by listening to the Focus on the Family production and hearing Mom play some of the songs. I'd also seen the 25th year anniversary production they did in 2010. I can't call it a play, because it was just the singing. But back to the movie...WOW! Definitely some parts qualified for the skip button when it comes out on DVD, but overall it was fantastic. Granted, the singing wasn't as good as the 25th anniv. version, but it was still strong, and some of the characters really belted it. As for the acting, it was stupendous. And what a touching story, even if it wasn't told from a Christian perspective.

I agree, Tarin. I thought that the Christian message was there though, rather strong throughout, even if it wasn't openly endorsed.

I can understand where you're coming from with that, E. My Mother doesn't like musicals and she didn't enjoy it, because it was all singing. So for some people they have to like that kind of thing to fully enjoy it. Some people (like you and my Mother) find the all singing aspect annoying.