This film is an aural abomination!

Agreed the movie was a disgrace. And beyond the hurrendous singing. The sets, i.e. Cgi everythjng, the cinematography, direction. It was such a bad movie it was laughable. A complete train wreck the moment Crowe fails at being Javert. This movie should've been an absolute masterpiece. A 3rd grader could've won best film with what they were handed. (Story, music, etc...)

I love Le Miserable, the musical. I know what TPTB were going for in this movie. I just don't like it. I also love to listen to Jackman singing, but not here, not the way it's done. It appears his massive weight loss negatively affected his voice, including giving him an awful, wide vibrato. It is beautiful music and it should be sung by beautiful voices. I was so looking forward to this and I hated it.

Interesting topic. I rewatched the movie last night. I must say I'm one of those rare birds who thoroughly disliked the Broadway production, yet I thought the movie was wonderful.
It seems that most of those squabbling about the vocal "deficiencies" of the film actors are the dyed in the wool "Les Miz" fanatics - the kind who boast of having seen the show 10,000 times, have flown to every country where the show has been performed and can sing the score backward. Those who believe every note and lyric are Holy Writ.
Not being one such person, my take is different. When a camera is six inches from your face, conveying the realism of emotion takes precedence over singing each note with peerless technique and unwavering dedication to vocal purity (and yes, I am a singing actor who has appeared in more musicals than I could possibly remember). Needless to say, film acting is markedly different from stage acting.
The objection to a performer shifting from singing to speaking within a musical number has been going on forever, but it happens even in stage shows (FOLLIES, CATS). Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter would never have been able to get through a live theater performance of SWEENEY TODD but what they did worked on camera. Film is intimate - theater, generally speaking, is not. That can become evident when an actor recreates a role in a movie he had already performed on stage but neglects to tone things down a bit for a different medium. When Hugh Jackman or Anne Hathaway spoke a line or two or cried in a manner that would not necessarily read on stage, it moved me in a way no stage production ever has. And to those who think Billy Whozis who played Valjean in the Estonian cast of the show would have been a better choice the movie, do you honestly think an unknown person would be cast in the leading role of a 61 million dollar film?
I've given up one those who think Russell Crowe should be eviscerated for daring to play Javert; shut up already. He gave a first rate performance and his voice was just dandy...again, not for the stage but for the movie screen. They are not going to remake it with Terrence Mann or anyone else in the part or dub another voice to replace his vocals - nor is there any need to. Crowe was believable and a most appropriate choice to play Javert, and anyone's whining about it will change nothing.
Okay, now come the vicious attacks from the enraged theater (sorry - theaTRE) queens of both sexes.