The film adaptation of "Les Miserables" premiered on Christmas Day, Dec. 25, with a star-studded cast that included Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. 

Set in 19th Century France and based on Victor Hugo's classic book, the film revolved around ex-prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman) who was imprisoned for 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread and is now hunted by relentless policeman Javert (Crowe) after he breaks his parole. The story includes romance, death, sacrifice and a change in the lives of the characters when Valjean ends up caring for Cossette, the young daughter of factory worker Fantine (Hathaway). Valjean acts on selfless love by bringing up Cosette although his own life is in danger with Javert relentlessly chasing him.

Comic relief is provided by Bonham Carter and Cohen, while Seyfried and actor Eddie Redmayne are youngsters in the middle of their own love story.

Film critic for USA Today, Claudia Puig, gave "Les Miserables" 3.5 out of 4 stars, saying Hathaway was "superb as a tragic Fantine" and Jackman was "masterful as Jean Valjean." She added that Jackman's performed his "finest screen role."

"Victor Hugo's grim, but redemptive, classic novel is given resplendent new life on the big screen," Puig added. " 'Les Miserables' is sweeping, as would be expected given the scope of the hugely popular stage musical from which it is adapted. But it's also wonderfully intimate, thanks to Tom Hooper's deft direction." 

Rafer Guzman of Newsday also gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, yet said "somehow, 'Les Miserables' isn't the major movie event it should be." He noted that the "weakest link" among the cast was Crowe for his singing abilities, and director Tom Hooper failed as well.

"Hooper bets everything on his actors, a strategy that earned him an Oscar for 'The King's Speech,' " he said. "But he forgets the overall sense of, well, theater needed to adapt a musical like this one. 'Les Misérables' works fine as a movie, but falls just short of spectacle."

Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter said, "A gallery of stellar performers wages a Sisyphean battle against musical diarrhea and a laboriously repetitive visual approach in the big-screen version of the stage sensation.

"As the enduring success of this property has shown, there are large, emotionally susceptible segments of the population ready to swallow this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's good." 

David Edelstein of New York magazine called the film a "tasteless bombardment" that would under most circumstances turn audiences away, however, he added "the film is going to be a monster hit and award winner, and not entirely unjustly."

What do you think?