"I mean as a country would you really be that obvious? What do they actually gain from Trump and Le Pen?"
I take it you've not actually been paying any attention to Russia communications. Lets take Crimea, where the blanket denials of Russian support and action where contradicted at the time. After things had settled (ie the West wasn't going to counter attack*) in Putin's annual press conference he straight up admitted that the Russian troops had seized it, but it was all OK, since that was what people clearly wanted.
Same way as the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines plane, so much FUD spread from the Russian press, as well as meddling with the physical evidence still didn't change the actual facts that is was a Buk, and highly unlikely to have been under the control of rebels (versus Russian control). But the FUD is enough, if you make it look like everyone is dirty, then you get away with your crimes.
As for wanting Le Pen or Trump, it's much more about who doesn't get in. Clinton was always going to take a hard line on Russia, she's more hawkish than Obama, and Russia needs those sanctions lifted in the next few years or things might start unraveling. That Trump is uninformed, weak and unpredictable is not great for Russia, but he's clearly easy to manipulate. They've got plenty of experience dealing with puffed-ego dictators, and there's the bunch of shady money that Trump has borrowed which, like Le Pen, is not "officially" Russian state assets.
Le Pen and Brexit is about weakening the other geo-political bloc that is anti-Russian. Well, the EU would actually probably be OK (economically) with lifting the sanctions on Russia, the very public dicking with the elections is somethng them technocrats are not happy about.
I'll also note that hacking and then releasing information on wikileaks to discredit a candidate is something that the USA (or at least anti-Russian types) has done before, the Panama papers and Putin's hidden fortune being splashed just before the Russian election. It's just that Putin is massivly popular (and feared, so a proper Machiavellian leader) in Russia, so no-one really cares he's nicked off with a few tens of billions.
TL&DR: Yes, it does suit Russia to visibly interfere to elect divisive nationalistic candidates or agendas (Brexit). But it's not new, the USA certainly has been using the same tools.
* That the West was also dicking around in Ukrainian politics is also pretty indisputable