Some of these comments appear to be for a different item. This is the Staged Concert in London starring Alfie Boe as Jean Val Jean, Michael Ball as Javert and Nick Jonas as Marius, i.e., a filming of a stage production, not the movie. Hugh Jackman is in the movie, not the staged concert. This version was shown on PBS and in my opinion was very good.

Absolutely horrific. Awful singing. Awful lyrics. Looks more like a really bad sunday school musical.

A musical film, it succeeds at portraying this story in a powerful and moving way.

Although Hugh Jackman performed well, the movie slogged on and didn't hold my interest. Better to watch the 1935 non-singing version with Fredric March and Charles Laughton. The library's DVD of that movie also includes the 1952 version with Michael Rennie (of "The Day the Earth Stood Still").

Hugh Jackman won the Oscar for his role in this movie proving he is far more than a comic book kind of guy.

Boring! Saw it on Broadway ... more impressive with more talented singing. Hate these movies where they place actors/actresses with no singing talent! Didn't bother to finish towards the end.

Horrifically awful bombast totally devoid of nuance that features several acclaimed actors phoning it in. The only one who did well was Anne Hathaway, and she barely has any screen time. Russell Crowe's singing is an honor to his surname - to real human beings, it's so bad it almost makes me feel ashamed to be the same species as him. Also props to Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter for their equally awful singing, their voices could probably induce comas.

Loved the book....just couldn't get into the movie and all the musical parts....never did like musicals

I once performed in Les Miserables, as part of a school play that was so good it made the front page on the Hamilton Spectator, and I really loved playing it. That fact set the bar pretty high for this movie. And surprisingly enough, it met that bar. It reminded me of the play a lot, but at the same time there were a lot of small differences that I have mixed feelings about. There’s a part of me that thinks they should have stuck to the original script a lot more, but the rest of me thinks that they’re interesting and more-or-less welcome changes to the story. I am intrigued by some of the aesthetic choices in the movie in a good way, and it changed how I view some of the characters, adding a bit more depth to them. And without spoiling anything, I also found all of the special features extremely intriguing. If you’re a fan of the play, then you should see this movie. Or if you want a reason to cry, then this is definitely your movie!
@R2-D2 of the Teen Review Board at the Hamilton Public Library

WAY WAY BETTER THAN LA LA LAND!!! Could have used some more work in smaller/transitional scenes, certain shots are ad hoc and show the people's zits rather than convey tight quarters. Memorable musical numbers, even Russel Crowe gets a pass. Yes, I said that; sue me. My brother isn't much of a musical number, and he LOVED this film. That's saying something.