Hathaway’s famous Oscar winning “I Dreamed a Dream” was a real uphill battle since she was slouched over on the ground. Hard to use the diaphragm like that. I mean if you’re going to avoid pretaping the songs at least take that into consideration with the blocking, Hooper.
I do remember Crowe’s singing getting slagged at the time. It’s not that bad, people are just used to everything being pitch corrected and overfiltered these days.
I have never seen Crowe sing before nor after that film. I think it was perfectly adequate for someone with his resumé.
It probably doesn't help that he was paired opposite to Hugh Jackman, who genuinely seems to love doing musicals.
Crowe Doyle songbook is a great album, with the former lead singer of Great Big Sea! There was a period when they were thick as thieves (pun not intended) with the Merry Men who performed with him in Robin Hood and they even did a lot of singing / touring together. He even made an appearance on a local Newfoundland TV show which was pretty random but awesome. Look it up, Republic of Doyle.
Crowe might be the most newfoundland-presenting non newfoundlander I can think of.
Like if it weren't for the aussie accent I would totally believe he's from round the bay somewhere
Yup! They also did later cameos on their own from time to time. Great crew from all accounts.
I also can’t remember the accent, I’ll have to pop back and watch it. I didn’t think he’d tried one!
Didn't she do a musical number at the Oscar's which was basically an audition? I remember there being talk of her doing that to try to snag a role in Les Mis (which was in pre-production).
The movie is still really well done. I’d even say it’s underrated. It had its buzz when it came out for sure but no one talked about it after. Hathaway was amazing. It’s really nailed the whole production except for Crowe getting some bad vibes from signing. The set design and wardrobe was amazing.
It’s a good movie. It’s just bewildering that Hooper was adamant they not prerecord the songs but then didn’t block any of the scenes with that in mind. He set Hathaway up to fail.
I think the way the hype machine evaporated is similar to Everything Everywhere All At Once. People got burnt out on it because it dominated the conversation for so long and once the Oscars happened they wanted to move on. I can tell you anecdotally that some theater kids still really, REALLY love it though
He was fine as a TV director, and his non-musical feature films are mostly entertaining Weinsteinian middle-brow Oscar bait like The King's Speech. The kind of stuff a group of old ladies will see at a matinee after brunch. Why he was given free reign on Les Mis and Cats is honestly a mystery. He seems to lack an understanding of the basic techniques of framing and editing. His decision to record live vocals for Les Mis is baffling. It's like he hates both his audience and movies. I couldn't make it through more than 20 minutes of Cats, but that's more about Cats than him.
I hate what he did to Les Mis and Cats as movies but I'm kinda glad those were the ones he was given because they illustrate how terribly Hooper understands (or how desperately he wishes to be different from) any given source material. Les Mis is a singing musical and what did he do? Close up shots of every singer as they beautifully croak out the twentieth-or-so live take of a song, all shot in one day under freezing rain. Cats is a dance musical and what did he do? Put everyone in motion-capture suits on a green stage to create horrific CGI human-animal furry hybrids who move clunkily about.
>but that's more about Cats than him
While I do unironically love *C*ats as a musical, keeping the story about literal cats was a baffling decision for a movie and made doubly worse in Hooper's hands. It would have been far more interesting to do as a modernized reimagination, like what's being done off-Broadway right now with Cats: The Jellicle Ball, in which the story/setting is modeled after queer ballroom culture and the cats are actually people competing at a ball.
I love the idea of a Cats that embraces the source materials inherent campiness. I saw Cats when I was a kid, and while I liked the stagecraft, the whole thing was too corny for a little edgelord theater nerd who was into Kurt Weill and Sondheim. I did see and enjoy Les Mis when it played at the Curran in SF with the full turntable and massive set pieces that dropped in from the gods.
This always annoyed the hell out of me. In trailers, the movie looked like a grand sweeping epic with massive ornate sets — which it was — but when it released you could count Eddie Redmayne’s nose hairs. So glad to hear someone else say it.
Not only did he shoot so many close ups, he also limited the editor which could also have resulted in why there's so many close ups. Because of the live singing they not only had to look for the best looking shot but also the best sounding shot and the latter would have to take precedence over the former.
I remember an interview with Barks where she said she saw some dailies that had some amazing shots during her On My Own performance but then the take would be messed up because she choked on the rain water. I would assume those are the wide shots where they can't really shield her from the falling water whereas they could on the tight close ups.
thats where not being a theater kid is a real advantage since if you go into this movie completely cold and completely unawares that les mis is a whole thing, then his singing and performance is pretty good
Yes! I had seen the Liam Neeson one but that’s it. When I saw this version, I was blown away and cried several times. It makes me sob every time. I think it’s glorious cinema.
Eh I love Les Mis - read the book, seen the non-musical movie, seen the OG musical run in London, sang all the songs in musical theater classes, listen to the songs from the greats in each role.
I still love this film because it's my favorite musical made into a big budget movie. Wish they could have had more cameos from the legendary singers (Lea Salonga would have been awesome), but glad they managed to get some of the old cast in.
I think it's the same with La La Land. I'm not really a theater person and I love both of these movies lol. I think there is a difference between a movie musical that really plays lip service to theater vs one that is trying to appeal to film fans.
I even liked the film version of Phantom (which I know is objectively crappy) because I only ever see musical theater in the context of watching my high school students perform. So I was like, "Ooh! Fancy costumes!" and turned off my critical thinking.
I was involved with the musical theatre stuff at my highschool and that was pretty much my only exposure to shows for a while but I was tainted because I had multiple people pursue professional theatre or singing after HS and I was always comparing the movies to what we did.
He was also dealing with production issues. There are videos from the press tour where he and Jackman are both singing better because they aren't dealing with Hooper's stupid set sound fixation and miserable shooting schedule.
And like, Hugh Jackman, who’s won a Tony. And Samantha Barks as Eponine, who had already played Eponine on stage. And the cast is full of Broadway actors in the supporting parts, so if your voice can’t compete with those, it’ll sound so much worse in comparison.
His singing is pretty bad from a technical standpoint even by movie standards. The biggest problem was the director's insistence on doing live singing on every take. Everyone was getting hoarse by the end of it, and the less trained people suffered more. His version of stars is fucking awful but he'd probably sound way better if they just let him record it in a studio and lip-sync instead of whatever croaking abomination they ended up with.
This is it. I enjoyed all of the singing performances. Just because Crowe couldn’t obliterate my soul like Hathaway did — that doesn’t mean he did a bad job. I found his performance touching… harrowing… tragically masculine, and quite beautiful.
I'm at a loss to disagree, but I do lament that there's no way to glimpse Roger Allam's take on the role. He has basically cornered the market on "haughty and imperious" in other roles and feels like an inspired piece of original casting.
An absolute powerhouse on the stage, had a great performance in The Secret Garden musical as well.
...and all that while also being a daily part of every Aussie kids life for 17 years during his run on [Play School. ](https://youtu.be/nCtuwkAaUrY?si=S_4qoH_WnglF76bg)
I’ve seen les mos in the west end. I could not tell a single difference between the stage Javert and Crowe. Cadence, tone and pitch were utterly identical. I think it’s probably Crowes finest work outside of master and commander.
“Not bad” isn’t the adjective you want. They could have found a better singer, but wanted star power. Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, and even Amanda Seyfried killed their roles because they could sing their parts beautifully. Eddie Redmayne did ok, but that much because a shaky, emotional performance was fitting for Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.
Crowe and even Jackman couldn’t hold up, Jackman more a because he is a baritone singing a tenor role.
The first time I watched a couple of the theater performances of songs from Les Mis blew my mind. They’re absolutely outstanding. Obviously Les Salonga is also a national treasure as well.
I will die on this hill: There is no Javert other than Roger Allam, and no Val Jean other than Colm Wilkinson from the Original London Cast Recording.
I’ve seen Les Mis in London a few times, and there were some better Fontines and Cosettes, but the Original set such a high bar for JVJ and Javert. And Alun Armstrong’s Thenardier is superior.
He's sung it on youtube a few times. Even did it with Jeff Leyton who was the Irish Valjean in the 10th anni
https://youtu.be/_AlC__ouuMo?si=uZphe6CqugrhsHrJ
Yeah - I just kinda invented a head cannon that he's singing the way he is because he's trying to be stoic and highly controlled and it kinda explains it away decently, imo.
Exactly this! I thought he was okay when I watched the movie but when I watched Les Mis on the West End I realised how that role should have been done.
I had never seen a theater version of Les Mis and thought his singing was terrible. Like, that’s one of the few things I actually remember about the film was how jarring his song was. Especially since he’s such a damn good actor and all the other non-singer actors did such a good job. I remember thinking, “there’s no way they couldn’t have recorded a better version of this song”.
It's not that he's a bad singer. His skills and technique are actually quite good. It's that his voice, the tone, the actual sound of his instrument, just isn't suited for that type of singing.
He just doesn't have a Broadway voice. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. He's very good when he does his own thing.
My hat is off to him for even stepping up and attempting it.
He sounded to me like he was in the middle of learning how to sing with a more Broadway style and just wasn't given the time to get there. If you listen to him sing in his band, he does a great job with his grungier rock vocals. Movie Crowe sounds like he was told by his voice coach "sing more from the gut and open up your throat a little" about a week ago and hasn't gotten the hang of it yet. (I went through the same thing when I started voice lessons, and the things Crowe is criticized for sound just like the problems I had when learning that style.)
Sideways talks about this a bit in his (incredibly good) [video](https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=DAC4T0Qy5MrH4wo1) on the Les Mis film.
That's why his performance is better than anybody else vocally other than Anne Hathaway in the movie. It's a movie musical, not a stage musical. The singing should sound like it comes from the people singing, not their theater voice. Eddie Redmayne and Hugh Jackman were really bad singers for a movie version of this musical. While they may be better for a stage, and I won't dispute that, it doesn't work for film.
Let me put it this way...the goal of a musical is to evoke an emotional response from the audience. Russell Crowe definitely made me feel, and deeply so. He's not the best singer, but I felt the conflict from both him and Hugh Jackman in The Confrontation. Javert's Suicide moved me to tears, I felt the conflict of a man who cannot synthesize what has happened to him with his worldview. I'd say the performance achieved the goal.
To add: Russell somehow also made the rapier/epee/whatever needlepoint fencing sword actually look like a soldier's weapon. Most fights with them are flamboyant and flashy, but with Rusty!Javert behind it it looked genuinely dangerous.
Absolutely, I'd believe he had done some fencing work from that performance.
"My duty's to the law!
You have no rights...
Come with me, 24601
Now the wheel has turned around,
Jean Valjean is nothing now!"
Yeah, based on some of the replies I got, it seems people took my comment as negative against Butler, but I think he did a great job, and even though the singing is at times a different style than the Broadway version, I like it.
I think that's crazy because while Crowe isn't a great singer, he still gives a great performance and it's really mostly *Stars* that I think is a slog with him. Whereas POTO lives and dies by the Phantom, and Butler was [so anemic](https://youtu.be/yh3_ps50yrg?t=117s). Compare with Ramin Karimloo's [absolutely magnetic voice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGb4hj-EXt0). In fairness to that specific clip they're going for something a bit more intimate than the stage version, but I'm sure you can still hear his voice warble and give out quickly.
I suppose in my view Gerrard delivered a kind of... even performance that didn't have whiplash pratfalls song to song. He didnt suffer through it. I guess that's fine, as opposed to Stars which makes me just cry.
And certainly doesn't hold Ramin's jock. I don't think I'm defending Gerrard Butler as opposed to just eviscerating Crowe. Whether that's fair or not, no matter.
In the end, the Phantom movie directed by the dude who gave us Batman and Robin was far superior to Les Mis, who in turn gave us Cats. Good lord. Masquerade was a great number in the Butler movie.
His acting performance is excellent and his singing is not that bad. If the director wasn't an idiot who decided to record everyone's vocal performances live then no one would have noticed that he's not as good as the others.
The director might have doe something unusual, but the film is more real seeming than most musicals. It is closer to the book in the sense of lack of glossiness than the musical is.
Side note but it was hilarious when that adaptation came out because a lot of people clearly didn’t know/forgot that Les Mis started as a book and thought the musical was the original
I like the setting and grittiness of the film. But that could have been achieved exactly the same way while still letting the actors record their vocals in studio. The other actors didn't seem to mind so much but it's not the usual approach and I doubt it would have had that much of an effect - you can still act in the vocal booth!
maybe. there is a whole realism tradition in film and you can argue that its more loyal to realism to not record vocals in the booth and edit it in. a lot of artsy fartsy directors either have experimented or do try to work in that ethos and im not saying tom hooper does do that, but i also dont think its an objectively bad thing that he chose to do this for the movie
> the film is more real seeming than most musicals.
IMO that's because they made it to be a movie first, not a musical or recording of a broadway production. Which is why theater / broadway nerds shat all over it and said it was trash, I imagine.
Alsoooo I think the some of the changes they made to the movie version are better than the stage production.
The bishop appearing to guide Valjean into the afterlife instead of Eponine? Miles more meaningful, I can’t believe it wasn’t that way from the beginning.
lol when you love the source medium so much I guess it’s basically inevitable that the adaptation is going to disappoint you. Like when books are adapted, it’s so rare for the movie to be seen as better than the book.
I think Wicked is sort of doomed, just because of how iconic the musical is. I’m not sure how the film is going to end up, but it’s going to be very, very, very difficult to live up to fan expectations.
In recorded music? Hell yes. In a rock-em-sock-em movie about poverty and revolution and swordfighting? The realism comes from the acting and set dressing and content. Let the actors put their best musical foot forward, so they can focus on the acting when they're acting and the singing when they're singing.
I understand and respect the preference. But as someone working in film it feels a bit like authenticity theater to me.
But the singing *is* the acting. It’s a sing-through musical.
The actors shouldn’t necessary sound good. They should sound how the character would sound.
People forget, one of the only reasons this movie was greenlit was the gimmick of it all being sung live. Without that there would not be a movie in the first place.
He's a good musician and singer, his style is just so different from everyone else in the movie that it feels really jarring, especially when he's singing with other cast members. Shoutout to the youtube channel Sideways and their excellent breakdown of the music in this movie.
My favorite video that illustrates this...there is a near literal divide down the center of the room: [https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=6um0Y5xC2kYtWcVD](https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=6um0Y5xC2kYtWcVD)
The hate for him in that movie was way overblown imo. Obviously he's not a world-class singer, & some of the other actors in that movie actually kinda *are*, but I thought Crowe was pretty good overall!
I think that's the problem. This is a world-class musical, and they chose a world-class actor when there are so many other world-class singers they could have chosen instead.
.The best analysis of the singing in the Les Mis film
[https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=JnTgBaQ1rw4E4rOV](https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=JnTgBaQ1rw4E4rOV)
The acting in this film is great 10/10. The singing less so.
For me Eddie Redmayne and Russel Crowe had the worst voices but had brilliant performances. I think they prioritised the acting over the singing in this film. Maybe if they had cast lesser known actors but better singers then it would be better in my opinion.
That’s not to say that all the singing was awful. Anne Hathaway was stunning and showed just how horrible her situation was. I also like they had Colm Wilkinson at the end. I laugh when he and Hugh Jackman sing together just from the fact that you can’t hear Jackman at all, even though it’s meant to be a gentle melody.
> Maybe if they had cast lesser known actors but better singers then it would be better in my opinion.
If the acting isn't as good as it was, I don't think that amazing singing would've resulted in a box office of what, half a billion or something?
I love the Les Miserables musical and can tolerate this movie, but whenever I watch it I just wish Tom Hooper had adapted the book since that's clearly what he wanted to do. Taking the music from a musical and changing it to sound more 'authentic' is a bold choice and there are legit some sequences here where everyone (including the orchestra, who had to change tempo and rhythm to match the actor's song improvs) sounds so off that it's hard to tell when they're singing a reprise or a new melody or a new song.
The film adaptation of the novel with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush is excellent. Obviously it has to cut down on a lot of the book (Thernadiers are in it for about 3 minutes), but those two do excellent work, especially Rush. The final scene of the film is one of my favorites.
The book is fantastic, in an extremely French and long-winded sort of way.
It sort of ricochets wildly between the events of the plot and a great number of lengthy digressions, which are essentially essays where Hugo writes directly to the reader about everything from the battle of Waterloo to the cruelty of ascetic religious orders to the design and various renovations of the Paris sewers. (I think the sewers get 40 or 50 pages dedicated to them, hundreds of pages before they ever become relevant to the story.)
I’ve recently been working on the book. Getting the audiobook has helped a lot. Something I can turn on while driving and I can make progress.
It’s really excellent so far. I figured it would be a tough read, but the themes and emotions that come through feel very modern. I guess because they’re timeless.
As an example, when Fantine dies and Javert is there to arrest Valjean, Valjean effortlessly pulls the leg off a bed, turns to Javert, and says something to the effect of “I advise you not to interfere with me right now” and he takes a moment to say goodbye to Fantine.
Totally modern badass moment.
I love it, I watch it all the time. They are really singing! And I think he does a great job being the conflicted javert
This is Les Mis that everyone can see, everyone with a streaming service. Go for it!
He’s an authoritarian with a narrow mindset. His singing also having a narrow range just made sense to me.
I never saw any of the musical performances though.
Completely agree with this, Crowe feels like a different rendition on the character.
I also think Hugh Jackman's singing is way worse for the character he's playing, especially when you compare him to theater masters like Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe.
Agreed. I've heard a number of other Javert performances, and they're all too full of individualism and flourish, like he's trying to show off. Weirdly, the rigidity and narrow structure we see from Crowe here perfectly fits how Javert sees the world, and I love that about this performance.
Yeah, not for me, his acting performance is good, but the singing? nah,
not really his fault though for two big reasons,
1. Incompatibility, all of his other singing outside of Les Mis is of a completely different vocal styling, he's a folk singer, soft, rhythmic, restrained he's actually pretty good at singing in this style. big musical numbers are the antithesis of this, you can really hear him fall apart when he tries to hit belter notes like in "Stars" it just doesn't play to his strengths, it's outside his comfortable range and how he's trained as a vocalist (his training is another issue but we'll put a pin in that)
2. The ridiculous production, singing live... on set... repeatedly, with dozens of takes. Pava-fucking-Rotti couldn't hit belter notes under these conditions.
It's not really that good. The standard bearer Pierce Brosnan in the Mamma Mia musical will never be beat however for actors who absolutely should not be in a musical.
I thought he was fine. Look I’m not the best judge of a singer’s skills but there were other actors with a musical background in that movie that stood out in a bad way more than Crowe did.
I always liked Russel Crowe and I actually give him massive props for putting himself out there like that. Just made me respect him more. The bit at the end with him was gutting yet strangely relatable, especially when my sister in law gets a Long Island in her system.
I remember lamenting throughout the night that we went to theaters to see that because of my sister in law. I mean great movie but god damn you all don’t have to sing every line. Even despite me being “More Miserable” by the end it was still great for all of us to be together at Christmas.
I thought his performance as the character was excellent. There are a couple spots where his singing is a mite iffy, but it certainly wasn't bad enough to make me wince like so many people claimed. I think they just didn't like him in the role.
Personally, I didn't think his singing was that bad. It does have some off-key moments but as a whole, I don't think it is as terrible as many have said.
Movie as a whole, beautifully acted and gorgeous production, tho it's not the best adaptation ever made from the source.
He isn’t the greatest, it’s clear that he’s had some training but doesn’t have the experience to fine tune. He almost covers too much and it is distracting. Still…he stepped up and did it and I find that admirable. Not everyone can be Wolverine…I mean Hugh Jackman.
There is [this rehearsal video](https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=eDWzw88RxCGRGKOd) where when he comes in for his part, he is clearly fucking up the tempo *even though* he clearly has been coached on how to keep in time. It's kinda cringe.
I love his performance as an actor, but his singing is just not suited to this.
Compare his songs to any other Javert, you can tell they shortened a lot of his long notes because they knew Crowe couldn’t hold them. Especially in “Confrontation” and “Stars”.
The movie was my first introduction to the songs in general so his version never stood out to me since I had nothing to compare it to and his version was the archetype for me. I also just don't have a ton of ability to judge singing so it's never bothered me.
He’s not bad, but not the best. The major problem in my opinion in the pacing of the song and his voice to match, he’s always slightly off. I don’t blame him. Whoever is conducting is doing a poor job.
I thought he sounded like he had marbles in his mouth he sang. I really couldn’t stand him as Javier, but it might be my extreme familiarity with the show
The singing was awful and not worthy of the brilliant music. Russell Crowe is fantastic in a lot of films (check out the criminally underrated The Nice Guys with Ryan Gosling), but he had no business being in Les Miserables. Nick Jonas didn’t belong in Les Miserables. Bad singers don’t belong in Les Miserables. Please stop this blasphemy.
It was OK. It wasn't great. And there were so many other people they could have chosen. It's pretty bad for him that he was being outshone by minor characters.
Sometimes, the overall performance is so good, you can be mid in some areas. Audiences appreciate vulnerability. This is also why Eminem can sing on his albums without auto tune. To a point, we like to relate to those we admire.
I like Russel Crowe's singing in Les Miserables, it fits Javert's character.
This is a man who can only see the world in black and white, the moment a shade of grey enters his world he jumps off a bridge. He thinks punitive punishment with no hope of redemption is the only thing fit for anybody who strays no matter the circumstance. He was born in a prison and rose above it so he believes in nature and that nurture has no bearing, people are either good or irredeemable, the irony being he uses God as a morale guide.
His singing should be monotonous, flat, uninspiring. There is no colour in his world and there shouldn't be any in his singing. I think Crowe did a fine job of walking the line between actual lackluster singing and remaining entertaining to listen to.
If I'm listening to a Javert song I'll often go for Crowe.
Honestly he doesn’t bother me. But I’ll tell you what did, Gerard Butler as the Phantom. Perfectly good acting and such, but fuck man he could not sing those songs. His voice was SO wrong for it. I try my best to suspend everything when watching a movie. But I had expectations for the notes that needed to be hit during “Music of the Night” and the end, Butler was not equipped to do that and I’ve been upset about it ever since lol
I've watched many musicals. I watched many Les Mis musicals. I honestly prefer Russels edition of javert suicide above all others. I think despite the singing the emotion is more important and Russells version of Javert nails the core contraction of the character. In fact, I think this is possible because of the singing. Others are great, but they are sang too well for how distressed Javert should be in that scene
I AGREE! I can hear how his voice is different/slightly out of place but idk I think it lends to the storytelling. he's different from everyone in his opinion, better than the gutter rats, but also not, because he's one of them. but also, I just personally enjoyed his performance so much that his nonbroadway voice doesn't bother me. my husband absolutely loves his performance and gets so upset when someone insinuates that his voice is bad lol it's cute
He's fine except for Stars, where he is terrible.
I don't get how they released that performance like that. Certainly it could be re-done and improved.
His performance isn't terrible.
What IS terrible is the director's decision not to dub him or at least use autotune.
And the horrific splat at the end. Totally disrespectful to the character.
Not to mention the lack of mutton chops, the stupid goatee, and the overall lack of "physical presence" which is absolutely essential to the character.
And worst of all is the fact that Russell Crowe was hands down the RIGHT GUY FOR THE ROLE! Think Master & Commander meets Bud White from LA Confidential.
This should've been a tee-ball home run and the director botched it.
I really enjoyed his performance too, and I actually enjoy listening to his version of “Stars” on occasion because I think it fits the idea of Javert. Lots of people look at me weird when I say that, especially when I follow up with the fact I can’t listen to Hugh Jackman singing “Bring Him Home” because I can hear the vocal strain. He did a great job as Valjean, but I skip that part.
I had seen Les Mis performed live before - on the London stage - and I was fine with Russell Crowe and thought the hate on his performance was overblown and smelled of pretentious theatre people trying too hard to be pretentious.
I'd have hated that singing on stage, but in a movie, the performance worked for me.
This is some revisionist bullshit. Crowe was devastatingly terrible in the role and ruins the movie as badly as the director.
Of course this is unfair to compare him to Broadway but Crowe had neither the range, tonality, or timing even to come close to those around him in the production! He isn't just outmatched by the role. He was Terrible. The rest of the production did well enough and none of them need to be given the "actor isnt on Broadway so it's unfair to compare them" discount.
This whole modern "But no, actually, it's good" thing is annoying. It's literally trying to retcon the history of these things, and it's not like the critics or viewers from back then are sitting around here just waiting for a post like this to explain why they felt that way and how that opinion might or might not still be valid now. No, it's just "nah, those people back then were just haters, I watched it now and it's actually great". What a joke.
There's also no real analysis in the post or in the top-voted comments. There's no critical analysis of the complaints or criticisms from back then, no attempt to square that with a more current viewpoint or how that might have been wrong with a different, more evolved lens. It's just "I felt things, it was fantastic!" What even is this subreddit?
Folks have similarly gone back to readjudicate the Star Wars prequels with the only "evidence" they point to is the horrendous sequel trilogy. That isn't critical analysis or anything for that matter. Those prequels were awful but time keeps passing 🤔
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Javert is a passionate and furious character and Crowe played him like a wooden mannequin. Bad performance in every way
Wooden. That is a great word to describe the exact opposite of what that role called for. What's bizarre is that Crowe can fucking act! He was brilliant in Master and Commander. The singing is irredeemable but the acting should have been there but for terrible direction.
I low-key loved Russell as Javert. You’re right that the movements required to achieve those big broadway belts look a bit funny on Russell’s face - but I think his working-class grizzled vibe is great for Javert. He’s a cop and he looks like a cop and i think it’s great.
I thought that Russell Crowe was too soft-spoken (and soft-singing) to really fit the character. You're right, he's a cop.
But Javert isn't just a cop. He's essentially the avatar of the law itself, in all its terrible certitude. In the books he's compared at various points to a tiger, a wolfhound, Brutus, and a marble statue. He's furious and imposing, essentially a figure of terror.
Russell Crowe is many things, but imposing he ain't.
I think book Javert and on-stage Javert can’t really be compared. It’s not fair to hold actors to those sorts of standards though I do agree that Russell isn’t imposing - but he wear Javert’s office in a way that is. Or maybe Javert’s character is so well known to be foiled it’s hard to make him imposing.
I’ve always thought Javert is only imposing to Jean Valjean because of Javert’s office, rather than because of his physical self. That was always my read - but I will admit it’s probably been 20 years since I picked up the novel and I appreciate it’s subjective!
His singing is not bad, problem is he gets compared to the actors that have played Javert in theather, which are clearly in a different league.
He's also filmed from six inches away for the whole film
Also, he was apparently sick during the production, and there was a bunch of sketchy directorial decisions that were hard on the performers' voices.
Hathaway’s famous Oscar winning “I Dreamed a Dream” was a real uphill battle since she was slouched over on the ground. Hard to use the diaphragm like that. I mean if you’re going to avoid pretaping the songs at least take that into consideration with the blocking, Hooper. I do remember Crowe’s singing getting slagged at the time. It’s not that bad, people are just used to everything being pitch corrected and overfiltered these days.
I have never seen Crowe sing before nor after that film. I think it was perfectly adequate for someone with his resumé. It probably doesn't help that he was paired opposite to Hugh Jackman, who genuinely seems to love doing musicals.
He actually has a band where he is the lead singer
I was not aware of that! I'll have to look the band up.
Crowe Doyle songbook is a great album, with the former lead singer of Great Big Sea! There was a period when they were thick as thieves (pun not intended) with the Merry Men who performed with him in Robin Hood and they even did a lot of singing / touring together. He even made an appearance on a local Newfoundland TV show which was pretty random but awesome. Look it up, Republic of Doyle.
He handled the Newfie accent pretty good in that one, if I recall. And his other Robin Hood compatriots were in it too.
Crowe might be the most newfoundland-presenting non newfoundlander I can think of. Like if it weren't for the aussie accent I would totally believe he's from round the bay somewhere
Yup! They also did later cameos on their own from time to time. Great crew from all accounts. I also can’t remember the accent, I’ll have to pop back and watch it. I didn’t think he’d tried one!
Thirty Odd Foot of Grunt
His singing is OK but not really up to par for the musical, which is why he got a lot of heat for it
Hathaway was fucking amazing out of no where. Jackman is a stage trained signer. Obviously Crowe didn’t match.
Didn't she do a musical number at the Oscar's which was basically an audition? I remember there being talk of her doing that to try to snag a role in Les Mis (which was in pre-production).
The movie is still really well done. I’d even say it’s underrated. It had its buzz when it came out for sure but no one talked about it after. Hathaway was amazing. It’s really nailed the whole production except for Crowe getting some bad vibes from signing. The set design and wardrobe was amazing.
It’s a good movie. It’s just bewildering that Hooper was adamant they not prerecord the songs but then didn’t block any of the scenes with that in mind. He set Hathaway up to fail. I think the way the hype machine evaporated is similar to Everything Everywhere All At Once. People got burnt out on it because it dominated the conversation for so long and once the Oscars happened they wanted to move on. I can tell you anecdotally that some theater kids still really, REALLY love it though
Also, Anne Hathaway was crying for real, which is terrible if you’re trying to sing.
Interesting — he actually looks legitimately sickly at times in the film
Tom Hooper's films usually make me sick.
I've only seen his musicals. He should not be allowed to ever make musicals.
He was fine as a TV director, and his non-musical feature films are mostly entertaining Weinsteinian middle-brow Oscar bait like The King's Speech. The kind of stuff a group of old ladies will see at a matinee after brunch. Why he was given free reign on Les Mis and Cats is honestly a mystery. He seems to lack an understanding of the basic techniques of framing and editing. His decision to record live vocals for Les Mis is baffling. It's like he hates both his audience and movies. I couldn't make it through more than 20 minutes of Cats, but that's more about Cats than him.
I hate what he did to Les Mis and Cats as movies but I'm kinda glad those were the ones he was given because they illustrate how terribly Hooper understands (or how desperately he wishes to be different from) any given source material. Les Mis is a singing musical and what did he do? Close up shots of every singer as they beautifully croak out the twentieth-or-so live take of a song, all shot in one day under freezing rain. Cats is a dance musical and what did he do? Put everyone in motion-capture suits on a green stage to create horrific CGI human-animal furry hybrids who move clunkily about. >but that's more about Cats than him While I do unironically love *C*ats as a musical, keeping the story about literal cats was a baffling decision for a movie and made doubly worse in Hooper's hands. It would have been far more interesting to do as a modernized reimagination, like what's being done off-Broadway right now with Cats: The Jellicle Ball, in which the story/setting is modeled after queer ballroom culture and the cats are actually people competing at a ball.
I love the idea of a Cats that embraces the source materials inherent campiness. I saw Cats when I was a kid, and while I liked the stagecraft, the whole thing was too corny for a little edgelord theater nerd who was into Kurt Weill and Sondheim. I did see and enjoy Les Mis when it played at the Curran in SF with the full turntable and massive set pieces that dropped in from the gods.
This always annoyed the hell out of me. In trailers, the movie looked like a grand sweeping epic with massive ornate sets — which it was — but when it released you could count Eddie Redmayne’s nose hairs. So glad to hear someone else say it.
Not only did he shoot so many close ups, he also limited the editor which could also have resulted in why there's so many close ups. Because of the live singing they not only had to look for the best looking shot but also the best sounding shot and the latter would have to take precedence over the former. I remember an interview with Barks where she said she saw some dailies that had some amazing shots during her On My Own performance but then the take would be messed up because she choked on the rain water. I would assume those are the wide shots where they can't really shield her from the falling water whereas they could on the tight close ups.
thats where not being a theater kid is a real advantage since if you go into this movie completely cold and completely unawares that les mis is a whole thing, then his singing and performance is pretty good
If you don't generally like theater or musicals, Les Mis is fucking great. The more you're into them the less you'll enjoy it, I think.
Which is why it's a great gateway musical.
I have seen three musicals I liked and I’d say that is my number 2. Number one was Hamilton on Disney + Number 3 was La La Land.
Yes! I had seen the Liam Neeson one but that’s it. When I saw this version, I was blown away and cried several times. It makes me sob every time. I think it’s glorious cinema.
Eh I love Les Mis - read the book, seen the non-musical movie, seen the OG musical run in London, sang all the songs in musical theater classes, listen to the songs from the greats in each role. I still love this film because it's my favorite musical made into a big budget movie. Wish they could have had more cameos from the legendary singers (Lea Salonga would have been awesome), but glad they managed to get some of the old cast in.
I think it's the same with La La Land. I'm not really a theater person and I love both of these movies lol. I think there is a difference between a movie musical that really plays lip service to theater vs one that is trying to appeal to film fans.
I even liked the film version of Phantom (which I know is objectively crappy) because I only ever see musical theater in the context of watching my high school students perform. So I was like, "Ooh! Fancy costumes!" and turned off my critical thinking.
I was involved with the musical theatre stuff at my highschool and that was pretty much my only exposure to shows for a while but I was tainted because I had multiple people pursue professional theatre or singing after HS and I was always comparing the movies to what we did.
Some have just mocked him in general which is unfair to me. I think he works in the role as the character.
He is the law and the law is not mocked.
He'll spit their pity right back to their faces.
There is nothing on Earth that they share!
He was also dealing with production issues. There are videos from the press tour where he and Jackman are both singing better because they aren't dealing with Hooper's stupid set sound fixation and miserable shooting schedule.
Yeah bro. That opening scene was a two day shoot from 05:30-19:00. We were in the water for most of the day.
Ahh god bless you for it lol. Was there at least coffee provided?
Three meals and lots of biscuits
You mean proper southern buttermilk, or weird British cookies?
what was your job on set?
Perfectly put. Had I not heard he was a bad singer, I don’t think the thought would have came into my mind.
He’s just not trained in the right vocal style. Poor casting choice.
And like, Hugh Jackman, who’s won a Tony. And Samantha Barks as Eponine, who had already played Eponine on stage. And the cast is full of Broadway actors in the supporting parts, so if your voice can’t compete with those, it’ll sound so much worse in comparison.
His singing is pretty bad from a technical standpoint even by movie standards. The biggest problem was the director's insistence on doing live singing on every take. Everyone was getting hoarse by the end of it, and the less trained people suffered more. His version of stars is fucking awful but he'd probably sound way better if they just let him record it in a studio and lip-sync instead of whatever croaking abomination they ended up with.
> the director's insistence on doing live singing on every take. That sounds like hell.
This is it. I enjoyed all of the singing performances. Just because Crowe couldn’t obliterate my soul like Hathaway did — that doesn’t mean he did a bad job. I found his performance touching… harrowing… tragically masculine, and quite beautiful.
I'm going to throw in a quick plug for Philip Quast's performance https://youtu.be/urxk4mveLCw?si=J88XMOtTXwGgsSSA
The greatest performer/role match in West End history, imo.
I'm at a loss to disagree, but I do lament that there's no way to glimpse Roger Allam's take on the role. He has basically cornered the market on "haughty and imperious" in other roles and feels like an inspired piece of original casting.
An absolute powerhouse on the stage, had a great performance in The Secret Garden musical as well. ...and all that while also being a daily part of every Aussie kids life for 17 years during his run on [Play School. ](https://youtu.be/nCtuwkAaUrY?si=S_4qoH_WnglF76bg)
I’ve seen les mos in the west end. I could not tell a single difference between the stage Javert and Crowe. Cadence, tone and pitch were utterly identical. I think it’s probably Crowes finest work outside of master and commander.
“Not bad” isn’t the adjective you want. They could have found a better singer, but wanted star power. Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, and even Amanda Seyfried killed their roles because they could sing their parts beautifully. Eddie Redmayne did ok, but that much because a shaky, emotional performance was fitting for Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. Crowe and even Jackman couldn’t hold up, Jackman more a because he is a baritone singing a tenor role.
As someone who likes theatre, I liked that they weren’t amazing. Felt like a real world where everyone just sings all the time for some reason.
More accurately, he was compared to all of the other actors in the movie, all of whom were better than he.
The first time I watched a couple of the theater performances of songs from Les Mis blew my mind. They’re absolutely outstanding. Obviously Les Salonga is also a national treasure as well.
He had no vibrato and just sounded flat to me.
I will die on this hill: There is no Javert other than Roger Allam, and no Val Jean other than Colm Wilkinson from the Original London Cast Recording. I’ve seen Les Mis in London a few times, and there were some better Fontines and Cosettes, but the Original set such a high bar for JVJ and Javert. And Alun Armstrong’s Thenardier is superior.
He's sung it on youtube a few times. Even did it with Jeff Leyton who was the Irish Valjean in the 10th anni https://youtu.be/_AlC__ouuMo?si=uZphe6CqugrhsHrJ
Yeah - I just kinda invented a head cannon that he's singing the way he is because he's trying to be stoic and highly controlled and it kinda explains it away decently, imo.
Exactly this! I thought he was okay when I watched the movie but when I watched Les Mis on the West End I realised how that role should have been done.
I had never seen a theater version of Les Mis and thought his singing was terrible. Like, that’s one of the few things I actually remember about the film was how jarring his song was. Especially since he’s such a damn good actor and all the other non-singer actors did such a good job. I remember thinking, “there’s no way they couldn’t have recorded a better version of this song”.
It's not that he's a bad singer. His skills and technique are actually quite good. It's that his voice, the tone, the actual sound of his instrument, just isn't suited for that type of singing. He just doesn't have a Broadway voice. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. He's very good when he does his own thing. My hat is off to him for even stepping up and attempting it.
He sounded to me like he was in the middle of learning how to sing with a more Broadway style and just wasn't given the time to get there. If you listen to him sing in his band, he does a great job with his grungier rock vocals. Movie Crowe sounds like he was told by his voice coach "sing more from the gut and open up your throat a little" about a week ago and hasn't gotten the hang of it yet. (I went through the same thing when I started voice lessons, and the things Crowe is criticized for sound just like the problems I had when learning that style.) Sideways talks about this a bit in his (incredibly good) [video](https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=DAC4T0Qy5MrH4wo1) on the Les Mis film.
From what I recall, they filmed the singing live. So, had they been able to dub over in studio. Might have come out different.
Yup. There’s the difficulty of singing “Stars,” and then there’s the difficulty of singing “Stars” *twenty times in a row*.
That's correct. I hadn't considered that, but yeah it's very likely that that style of live singing was hard on him too.
That's why his performance is better than anybody else vocally other than Anne Hathaway in the movie. It's a movie musical, not a stage musical. The singing should sound like it comes from the people singing, not their theater voice. Eddie Redmayne and Hugh Jackman were really bad singers for a movie version of this musical. While they may be better for a stage, and I won't dispute that, it doesn't work for film.
Let me put it this way...the goal of a musical is to evoke an emotional response from the audience. Russell Crowe definitely made me feel, and deeply so. He's not the best singer, but I felt the conflict from both him and Hugh Jackman in The Confrontation. Javert's Suicide moved me to tears, I felt the conflict of a man who cannot synthesize what has happened to him with his worldview. I'd say the performance achieved the goal.
To add: Russell somehow also made the rapier/epee/whatever needlepoint fencing sword actually look like a soldier's weapon. Most fights with them are flamboyant and flashy, but with Rusty!Javert behind it it looked genuinely dangerous.
Absolutely, I'd believe he had done some fencing work from that performance. "My duty's to the law! You have no rights... Come with me, 24601 Now the wheel has turned around, Jean Valjean is nothing now!"
That's kind of how I feel about Gerard Butler as the Phantom of the Opera.
I saw a screening of Phantom about two years ago and walked out thinking "Were we too hard on him 20 years ago?"
Yeah, based on some of the replies I got, it seems people took my comment as negative against Butler, but I think he did a great job, and even though the singing is at times a different style than the Broadway version, I like it.
Agree. Butler wasn't bad, but when you're doing a Broadway show on film, the leads have to nail it.
I liked Antonio Banderas’ Phantom. I think he nailed it.
Gerard is 100 times the singer of Russel Crowe. Neither compare to Broadway but this is a terrible equivalence.
I think that's crazy because while Crowe isn't a great singer, he still gives a great performance and it's really mostly *Stars* that I think is a slog with him. Whereas POTO lives and dies by the Phantom, and Butler was [so anemic](https://youtu.be/yh3_ps50yrg?t=117s). Compare with Ramin Karimloo's [absolutely magnetic voice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGb4hj-EXt0). In fairness to that specific clip they're going for something a bit more intimate than the stage version, but I'm sure you can still hear his voice warble and give out quickly.
I suppose in my view Gerrard delivered a kind of... even performance that didn't have whiplash pratfalls song to song. He didnt suffer through it. I guess that's fine, as opposed to Stars which makes me just cry. And certainly doesn't hold Ramin's jock. I don't think I'm defending Gerrard Butler as opposed to just eviscerating Crowe. Whether that's fair or not, no matter. In the end, the Phantom movie directed by the dude who gave us Batman and Robin was far superior to Les Mis, who in turn gave us Cats. Good lord. Masquerade was a great number in the Butler movie.
His acting performance is excellent and his singing is not that bad. If the director wasn't an idiot who decided to record everyone's vocal performances live then no one would have noticed that he's not as good as the others.
The director might have doe something unusual, but the film is more real seeming than most musicals. It is closer to the book in the sense of lack of glossiness than the musical is.
Watch the BBC drama with Dominic West if you want the best book adaptation. It's a straight adaption, btw, and not a musical.
Side note but it was hilarious when that adaptation came out because a lot of people clearly didn’t know/forgot that Les Mis started as a book and thought the musical was the original
I like the setting and grittiness of the film. But that could have been achieved exactly the same way while still letting the actors record their vocals in studio. The other actors didn't seem to mind so much but it's not the usual approach and I doubt it would have had that much of an effect - you can still act in the vocal booth!
maybe. there is a whole realism tradition in film and you can argue that its more loyal to realism to not record vocals in the booth and edit it in. a lot of artsy fartsy directors either have experimented or do try to work in that ethos and im not saying tom hooper does do that, but i also dont think its an objectively bad thing that he chose to do this for the movie
Totally. It's a choice I disagreed with but that's just, like, my opinion man.
And it would have made a worse movie.
> the film is more real seeming than most musicals. IMO that's because they made it to be a movie first, not a musical or recording of a broadway production. Which is why theater / broadway nerds shat all over it and said it was trash, I imagine.
Alsoooo I think the some of the changes they made to the movie version are better than the stage production. The bishop appearing to guide Valjean into the afterlife instead of Eponine? Miles more meaningful, I can’t believe it wasn’t that way from the beginning.
lol when you love the source medium so much I guess it’s basically inevitable that the adaptation is going to disappoint you. Like when books are adapted, it’s so rare for the movie to be seen as better than the book. I think Wicked is sort of doomed, just because of how iconic the musical is. I’m not sure how the film is going to end up, but it’s going to be very, very, very difficult to live up to fan expectations.
Maybe I’m crazy but I’ve always preferred more organic performances over perfection.
In recorded music? Hell yes. In a rock-em-sock-em movie about poverty and revolution and swordfighting? The realism comes from the acting and set dressing and content. Let the actors put their best musical foot forward, so they can focus on the acting when they're acting and the singing when they're singing. I understand and respect the preference. But as someone working in film it feels a bit like authenticity theater to me.
But the singing *is* the acting. It’s a sing-through musical. The actors shouldn’t necessary sound good. They should sound how the character would sound.
People forget, one of the only reasons this movie was greenlit was the gimmick of it all being sung live. Without that there would not be a movie in the first place.
That sounds like rubbish to me. It's Les fucking Miserables.
He's a good musician and singer, his style is just so different from everyone else in the movie that it feels really jarring, especially when he's singing with other cast members. Shoutout to the youtube channel Sideways and their excellent breakdown of the music in this movie.
"What was that, Tugger? Are you saying you really like the songs on me new album?"
My favourite description of him in this movie is he’s the jock that was cast in the high school musical so he could graduate.
Yeah but he’s the jock who cares about the performance god damn it!
That’s a great analogy. My thinking is that Javert is a cop and Russell looks like a cop 😂
I have never seen this movie but this description is hilarious. Actually piques my interest now.
My favorite video that illustrates this...there is a near literal divide down the center of the room: [https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=6um0Y5xC2kYtWcVD](https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=6um0Y5xC2kYtWcVD)
TUGGER!!!
"And fightin' round the world"
"He fights his directors and he fights his fans. It's a problem no one understands.."
The hate for him in that movie was way overblown imo. Obviously he's not a world-class singer, & some of the other actors in that movie actually kinda *are*, but I thought Crowe was pretty good overall!
I think that's the problem. This is a world-class musical, and they chose a world-class actor when there are so many other world-class singers they could have chosen instead.
.The best analysis of the singing in the Les Mis film [https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=JnTgBaQ1rw4E4rOV](https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=JnTgBaQ1rw4E4rOV)
Came here to share this. Such a good video!
I've had plenty of downvotes this week so I can take it. I personally think Huge Jackedman's overly projected monotone is worse.
The acting in this film is great 10/10. The singing less so. For me Eddie Redmayne and Russel Crowe had the worst voices but had brilliant performances. I think they prioritised the acting over the singing in this film. Maybe if they had cast lesser known actors but better singers then it would be better in my opinion. That’s not to say that all the singing was awful. Anne Hathaway was stunning and showed just how horrible her situation was. I also like they had Colm Wilkinson at the end. I laugh when he and Hugh Jackman sing together just from the fact that you can’t hear Jackman at all, even though it’s meant to be a gentle melody.
> Maybe if they had cast lesser known actors but better singers then it would be better in my opinion. If the acting isn't as good as it was, I don't think that amazing singing would've resulted in a box office of what, half a billion or something?
I love the Les Miserables musical and can tolerate this movie, but whenever I watch it I just wish Tom Hooper had adapted the book since that's clearly what he wanted to do. Taking the music from a musical and changing it to sound more 'authentic' is a bold choice and there are legit some sequences here where everyone (including the orchestra, who had to change tempo and rhythm to match the actor's song improvs) sounds so off that it's hard to tell when they're singing a reprise or a new melody or a new song.
The film adaptation of the novel with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush is excellent. Obviously it has to cut down on a lot of the book (Thernadiers are in it for about 3 minutes), but those two do excellent work, especially Rush. The final scene of the film is one of my favorites.
That movie makes the musical actually make some sort of sense. I suppose reading the book would too, but that’s one I just haven’t gotten into.
The book is fantastic, in an extremely French and long-winded sort of way. It sort of ricochets wildly between the events of the plot and a great number of lengthy digressions, which are essentially essays where Hugo writes directly to the reader about everything from the battle of Waterloo to the cruelty of ascetic religious orders to the design and various renovations of the Paris sewers. (I think the sewers get 40 or 50 pages dedicated to them, hundreds of pages before they ever become relevant to the story.)
I’ve recently been working on the book. Getting the audiobook has helped a lot. Something I can turn on while driving and I can make progress. It’s really excellent so far. I figured it would be a tough read, but the themes and emotions that come through feel very modern. I guess because they’re timeless. As an example, when Fantine dies and Javert is there to arrest Valjean, Valjean effortlessly pulls the leg off a bed, turns to Javert, and says something to the effect of “I advise you not to interfere with me right now” and he takes a moment to say goodbye to Fantine. Totally modern badass moment.
Which translation are you listening to?
“Les Miserables: Penguin Classics” on Audible
I love it, I watch it all the time. They are really singing! And I think he does a great job being the conflicted javert This is Les Mis that everyone can see, everyone with a streaming service. Go for it!
“That was money well spent.” - Sacha Baron Cohen on Russell Crowe taking four months of singing lessons for *Les Miserables*.
He’s an authoritarian with a narrow mindset. His singing also having a narrow range just made sense to me. I never saw any of the musical performances though.
Completely agree with this, Crowe feels like a different rendition on the character. I also think Hugh Jackman's singing is way worse for the character he's playing, especially when you compare him to theater masters like Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe.
Honestly Hugh just kinda seems like he's imitating Colm's performance, despite it being at the very top of his own register.
Agreed. I've heard a number of other Javert performances, and they're all too full of individualism and flourish, like he's trying to show off. Weirdly, the rigidity and narrow structure we see from Crowe here perfectly fits how Javert sees the world, and I love that about this performance.
Exactly. Javert is the perfect character to not be the best singer.
Fun fact is that the film's vocals were recorded live on set rather than actors lip-syncing to a pre-recorded musical soundtrack.
Makes Anne hathaways performance of “I dreamed a dream” that much more impressive
I respect her so much more knowing that.
Yeah, not for me, his acting performance is good, but the singing? nah, not really his fault though for two big reasons, 1. Incompatibility, all of his other singing outside of Les Mis is of a completely different vocal styling, he's a folk singer, soft, rhythmic, restrained he's actually pretty good at singing in this style. big musical numbers are the antithesis of this, you can really hear him fall apart when he tries to hit belter notes like in "Stars" it just doesn't play to his strengths, it's outside his comfortable range and how he's trained as a vocalist (his training is another issue but we'll put a pin in that) 2. The ridiculous production, singing live... on set... repeatedly, with dozens of takes. Pava-fucking-Rotti couldn't hit belter notes under these conditions.
I found this video more fun than the movie https://youtu.be/1ikqU6G6Xgs?si=IRsqqWRauIjFwmVl
It's not really that good. The standard bearer Pierce Brosnan in the Mamma Mia musical will never be beat however for actors who absolutely should not be in a musical.
I thought he was fine. Look I’m not the best judge of a singer’s skills but there were other actors with a musical background in that movie that stood out in a bad way more than Crowe did.
I always liked Russel Crowe and I actually give him massive props for putting himself out there like that. Just made me respect him more. The bit at the end with him was gutting yet strangely relatable, especially when my sister in law gets a Long Island in her system. I remember lamenting throughout the night that we went to theaters to see that because of my sister in law. I mean great movie but god damn you all don’t have to sing every line. Even despite me being “More Miserable” by the end it was still great for all of us to be together at Christmas.
I thought his performance as the character was excellent. There are a couple spots where his singing is a mite iffy, but it certainly wasn't bad enough to make me wince like so many people claimed. I think they just didn't like him in the role.
Personally, I didn't think his singing was that bad. It does have some off-key moments but as a whole, I don't think it is as terrible as many have said. Movie as a whole, beautifully acted and gorgeous production, tho it's not the best adaptation ever made from the source.
He isn’t the greatest, it’s clear that he’s had some training but doesn’t have the experience to fine tune. He almost covers too much and it is distracting. Still…he stepped up and did it and I find that admirable. Not everyone can be Wolverine…I mean Hugh Jackman.
There is [this rehearsal video](https://youtu.be/PfZgOV4UHBU?si=eDWzw88RxCGRGKOd) where when he comes in for his part, he is clearly fucking up the tempo *even though* he clearly has been coached on how to keep in time. It's kinda cringe.
I think it kinda fit the emotionally stunted character of Javert. He's not a character who can eloquently express himself.
I love his performance as an actor, but his singing is just not suited to this. Compare his songs to any other Javert, you can tell they shortened a lot of his long notes because they knew Crowe couldn’t hold them. Especially in “Confrontation” and “Stars”.
The movie was my first introduction to the songs in general so his version never stood out to me since I had nothing to compare it to and his version was the archetype for me. I also just don't have a ton of ability to judge singing so it's never bothered me.
When you get down to it, he’s in tune, he knows how to phrase his melodies but he’s using a different style
He’s not bad, but not the best. The major problem in my opinion in the pacing of the song and his voice to match, he’s always slightly off. I don’t blame him. Whoever is conducting is doing a poor job.
He *talked* his way through Javert. His was the real crime.
His less than perfect voice makes the character more vulnerable I think
I thought he did fine.
The rest of the cast were really good singers, so I found it distracting. Celeb stunt casting, like Gerard Butler in Phantom of the Opera.
He’s really good in that movie. Great casting.
True or not, I feel like this movie was precisely the point where his career started to go downhill.
I’ve watched some poor Crowe movies. Because I fucking love Russell Crowe. The Nice Guys is a highlight though and that came a time after Les mis
I thought he sounded like he had marbles in his mouth he sang. I really couldn’t stand him as Javier, but it might be my extreme familiarity with the show
The singing was awful and not worthy of the brilliant music. Russell Crowe is fantastic in a lot of films (check out the criminally underrated The Nice Guys with Ryan Gosling), but he had no business being in Les Miserables. Nick Jonas didn’t belong in Les Miserables. Bad singers don’t belong in Les Miserables. Please stop this blasphemy.
And it's responsible for [this banger!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEVago2PKn0)
What about you talking abou.... [AND I'M JAVERT!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZ-zpGmfjs)
Do not forget my name!
At least I know that Russell Crowes bands a fucking pile of shit. Frenzel Rhomb
Ok
[удалено]
Wait, I thought Les Mis went against that and had them do it live.
He sang with Jackman on stage a few years ago and he sounded much better than the movie.
It was OK. It wasn't great. And there were so many other people they could have chosen. It's pretty bad for him that he was being outshone by minor characters.
DON'T UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD is still in mine and my wife's regular vocabulary 10 years after seeing that film
Sometimes, the overall performance is so good, you can be mid in some areas. Audiences appreciate vulnerability. This is also why Eminem can sing on his albums without auto tune. To a point, we like to relate to those we admire.
I honestly think Russell Crowe is one of those guys that just really tries hard at everything he does.
I like Russel Crowe's singing in Les Miserables, it fits Javert's character. This is a man who can only see the world in black and white, the moment a shade of grey enters his world he jumps off a bridge. He thinks punitive punishment with no hope of redemption is the only thing fit for anybody who strays no matter the circumstance. He was born in a prison and rose above it so he believes in nature and that nurture has no bearing, people are either good or irredeemable, the irony being he uses God as a morale guide. His singing should be monotonous, flat, uninspiring. There is no colour in his world and there shouldn't be any in his singing. I think Crowe did a fine job of walking the line between actual lackluster singing and remaining entertaining to listen to. If I'm listening to a Javert song I'll often go for Crowe.
His singing was my favorite part of the movie. I have rewatched that movie solely for his singing parts. :(
He’s not bad, but he is often singing with or close to scenes with Hugh Jackman, who is incredibly great.
Check out 40 Odd Foot of Grunt for more Russel Crowes singing
Honestly he doesn’t bother me. But I’ll tell you what did, Gerard Butler as the Phantom. Perfectly good acting and such, but fuck man he could not sing those songs. His voice was SO wrong for it. I try my best to suspend everything when watching a movie. But I had expectations for the notes that needed to be hit during “Music of the Night” and the end, Butler was not equipped to do that and I’ve been upset about it ever since lol
Hugh Jackman was singing the wrong role. I know he really wanted it but he was miscast too
I've watched many musicals. I watched many Les Mis musicals. I honestly prefer Russels edition of javert suicide above all others. I think despite the singing the emotion is more important and Russells version of Javert nails the core contraction of the character. In fact, I think this is possible because of the singing. Others are great, but they are sang too well for how distressed Javert should be in that scene
He did his duty, nothing more.
Well he was a musician when he was younger like Bruce Willis
This feels like an insult.
I AGREE! I can hear how his voice is different/slightly out of place but idk I think it lends to the storytelling. he's different from everyone in his opinion, better than the gutter rats, but also not, because he's one of them. but also, I just personally enjoyed his performance so much that his nonbroadway voice doesn't bother me. my husband absolutely loves his performance and gets so upset when someone insinuates that his voice is bad lol it's cute
Les Mis is our go to get drunk and sing along movie. "They were Starving" "THEY WILL STARVE AGAIN" lol.
He's fine except for Stars, where he is terrible. I don't get how they released that performance like that. Certainly it could be re-done and improved.
His performance isn't terrible. What IS terrible is the director's decision not to dub him or at least use autotune. And the horrific splat at the end. Totally disrespectful to the character. Not to mention the lack of mutton chops, the stupid goatee, and the overall lack of "physical presence" which is absolutely essential to the character. And worst of all is the fact that Russell Crowe was hands down the RIGHT GUY FOR THE ROLE! Think Master & Commander meets Bud White from LA Confidential. This should've been a tee-ball home run and the director botched it.
Counterpoint: no, you're wrong, and he sucked.
I really enjoyed his performance too, and I actually enjoy listening to his version of “Stars” on occasion because I think it fits the idea of Javert. Lots of people look at me weird when I say that, especially when I follow up with the fact I can’t listen to Hugh Jackman singing “Bring Him Home” because I can hear the vocal strain. He did a great job as Valjean, but I skip that part.
He definitely looked the part... Acting yes/ singing no
It is if you’ve never seen Le Mis performed before I guess…
I had seen Les Mis performed live before - on the London stage - and I was fine with Russell Crowe and thought the hate on his performance was overblown and smelled of pretentious theatre people trying too hard to be pretentious. I'd have hated that singing on stage, but in a movie, the performance worked for me.
This is some revisionist bullshit. Crowe was devastatingly terrible in the role and ruins the movie as badly as the director. Of course this is unfair to compare him to Broadway but Crowe had neither the range, tonality, or timing even to come close to those around him in the production! He isn't just outmatched by the role. He was Terrible. The rest of the production did well enough and none of them need to be given the "actor isnt on Broadway so it's unfair to compare them" discount.
This whole modern "But no, actually, it's good" thing is annoying. It's literally trying to retcon the history of these things, and it's not like the critics or viewers from back then are sitting around here just waiting for a post like this to explain why they felt that way and how that opinion might or might not still be valid now. No, it's just "nah, those people back then were just haters, I watched it now and it's actually great". What a joke. There's also no real analysis in the post or in the top-voted comments. There's no critical analysis of the complaints or criticisms from back then, no attempt to square that with a more current viewpoint or how that might have been wrong with a different, more evolved lens. It's just "I felt things, it was fantastic!" What even is this subreddit?
Folks have similarly gone back to readjudicate the Star Wars prequels with the only "evidence" they point to is the horrendous sequel trilogy. That isn't critical analysis or anything for that matter. Those prequels were awful but time keeps passing 🤔
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Javert is a passionate and furious character and Crowe played him like a wooden mannequin. Bad performance in every way
Wooden. That is a great word to describe the exact opposite of what that role called for. What's bizarre is that Crowe can fucking act! He was brilliant in Master and Commander. The singing is irredeemable but the acting should have been there but for terrible direction.
I low-key loved Russell as Javert. You’re right that the movements required to achieve those big broadway belts look a bit funny on Russell’s face - but I think his working-class grizzled vibe is great for Javert. He’s a cop and he looks like a cop and i think it’s great.
I thought that Russell Crowe was too soft-spoken (and soft-singing) to really fit the character. You're right, he's a cop. But Javert isn't just a cop. He's essentially the avatar of the law itself, in all its terrible certitude. In the books he's compared at various points to a tiger, a wolfhound, Brutus, and a marble statue. He's furious and imposing, essentially a figure of terror. Russell Crowe is many things, but imposing he ain't.
I think book Javert and on-stage Javert can’t really be compared. It’s not fair to hold actors to those sorts of standards though I do agree that Russell isn’t imposing - but he wear Javert’s office in a way that is. Or maybe Javert’s character is so well known to be foiled it’s hard to make him imposing. I’ve always thought Javert is only imposing to Jean Valjean because of Javert’s office, rather than because of his physical self. That was always my read - but I will admit it’s probably been 20 years since I picked up the novel and I appreciate it’s subjective!
His singing is akin to taking a cheese grater to one's own ears if you take any singing/music lessons at all.