Frenchman Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson), imprisoned for stealing bread, is paroled after nearly two decades of hard labor. A gift of silver candlesticks from a kindly priest helps him begin anew. Forging a decent and profitable existence, he finds success as a businessman and as the mayor of a small town. He even takes in a pregnant young woman (Uma Thurman) and raises her daughter as his own. When a former prison guard (Geoffrey Rush) recognizes Valjean, his past catches up to him. Director Bille August culls mesmerizing performances from his cast, but loses us with an ending that panders to teen audiences. The focus shifts dramatically, and uncomfortably, from the haunted Neeson and his hawk-like pursuer, to his daughter (Claire Danes) and her romance with a handsome revolutionary. After this narrative shift, the script leaves behind the Victor Hugo classic's themes of revenge and redemption to focus improbably on teen angst--hardly what Hugo had on his mind.
--Rochelle O'Gorman
1 Let's make a mockery of a classic, shall we?
This movie was an awful adaptation of the book. It lacked depth and the merciless slashing of characters was almost humorous. How could they cut out Eponine? Eponine is a truly loved character in the book and the musical, how lacking in vision must you be to cut her out? Painting Marius as the leader of the rebels was completely in defiance of the Victor Hugo character. And Claire Danes was actually more whiny and affected than in any of her previous movies... which is saying a lot.
Don't bother with this silliness.
2 Profound. Moving. Brooding. Powerful.
This is an exquisite movie full of symbolism, allegory, political and social themes, and above all, a soaring spiritual message.
Spiritually, this is a story of redemption. A man full of hate and darkness becomes a new man for God. VanJean's great heart is in full display despite bitter circumstances. Mercy triumphs over judgement again and again. And at the critical moment, a savior emerges unsuspected. Freedom and redemption erupt in glorious outburst. You can almost hear the heavens open and angels celebrate the triumph of the cross.
At ground level, it is a love story. VanJean and an impoverished, desperate woman. Love between a young lady and a fiery revolutionary. Love bewteen surrogate father and daughter. And across the halls of time, even love between mother and daughter. Ultimately, the film is an expression of God's love for us as manifested by the death of Jesus.
Sweet, brooding, dark and exultant- all these elements combine to create a forceful, powerful film worthy of the highest acclaim.
3 Probably my favorite movie!
Les Miserables is one of the best movies ever made. While not completely true to Hugo's amazing and inspiring novel (but the book was around 1200 pages, and they couldn't follow it exactly! We'd have a 50 hour movie!) it's portrayal of the themes were accurate. It's true they changed some of the characters in ways they shouldn't have been changed. Cosette is too much like a rebellious teen of today. Marius is less honorable and didn't seem to have the sense of duty he had in the book. He kept slipping away from the meetings! The actors and actresses were perfect for their parts however, and though people complained that in the book, Javert's suicide wasn't anywhere near Jean Valjean, the way the movie did it added a spiritual dimension. In the Old Testament blood was demanded for sin. In most cases, a lamb or bull was sufficient. Jesus paid the ultimate price for our sin and while Javert isn't a great example of Jesus, (Jesus was forgiving and merciful!) it did show an individual paying the price for another's sin. Whether or not this was what Victor Hugo intended, I don't know. Overall, this is a REALLY awesome movie! Definitely, definitely, definitely get it!!!!!!!
4 Beyond The Barricade
This movie is what got me into Les Mis. While, it's easy to understand why the flimmakers had the problems they had- it's hard to adapt a movie from a spotless book and one with such a immense fan following but- they did and did more than a wonderful job.
Les Miserables is all about revenge, love, loss, sin, redemption, and trying to right yourself. There is a little Jean Valjean in everyone common good- trying to become better and do the right thing at all costs while also, having to be honest about your past. There is a little Fantine in everyone people that have made one mistake and are condemed for life because of it. A little Javert in everyone hell bent on revenge. Cosette- that sweet naivity and Marius- wanting to be known for something, wanting to change the world. We all can relate to the characters from Les Miserables and that was Victor Hugo's intention.
While, I maybe no critic this movie moved me on a level I rarely see in the cinema. By the end credits I found myself wanting to change the world and be just an honest/decent person. While many people will complain about the historical accuracy and the literary aspects I found this movie nothing sort of touching.
Liam Neeson was perfectly cast for the role of the selfless Jean Valjean and does good living up to the "good guy" image he set forth in "Schindler's List."
This movie will make Les Mis fans proud and even those who aren't Les Mis fans will be impressed. All in all don't what rent or buy this movie and see what is beyond the barricade!
5 REVENGE, REMORSE, REDEMPTION: STUFF THAT EPICS ARE MADE OF
We'll never quite know how the Academy overlooked this breathtaking masterpiece but it's one of the best adaptations I've seen of Hugo's classic. No easy ask to be riveted to a story one knows so well and has sludged through in both book and theatre form, but this production just has all its ducks in a row. The screenplay that hems in its multi-decade saga is put together with a pacy clip, the set designs of an Hosmanian France are credible, the dialogue is literate, and above all, the acting by the entire crew, particularly Geoffrey Rush, is immaculate. No flowery paeans needed, make place for it in your DVD collection. It's one of those.
6 Don't Compare to Book or Musical and it's Wonerful.
I read all the reviews and thought the movie was going to bomb when I finally rented it. But I ended up loving it. It had great acting and all that jazz, but you've heard that. Let me focus on the problems that many people have pointed out.
- Valjean was in prison for FOURTEEN YEARS. He did NOT want to go back. Therefore his lash out at the bishop was justifiable. He obviously did not WANT to do it, and had 'GUILT' stamped all over his face when he was brought back.
- Javert is NOT sadistic, and has a high and rigid standred for himself and the Law. But he's mortal too. When the men were beating Fantine, a prostitute, he was reminded of the disdain he had for them, and so let them carry on a bit.
- Fantine and Valjean never had anything between them, and I didn't really think there was much of that in the movie. He saved her life, so she felt affection and a bond to him. It's never shown as anything else.
- Marius isn't the type to be a political activist, it's true, and Enjolras is a incredibly key character. But not everything can be included in a two-and-a-half long movie, so it focuses around the struggle between Javert and Valjean.
- Cosette was not portrayed as a teenage rebel. She was in a coventent for ten years, and nothing was ever explained to her about her past or the past of Valjean. She was naive and didn't understand their plight.
- Valjean did hit Cosette, and for that I winced. But it was an incredibly small hit to the face, and he did it more out of stress then true anger, and showed emotion to be sorry.
Of course the book is better then the movie, but they did a pretty good job with this one- and coming from a true movie cynic, this is very rare.
7 Wonderful!
This movie is very good. I love the movie alot better than the play. This movie is worth whatever they make you pay for it.
8 How the HECK can you be a mayor if you can't read or write!?
This is one of the few movies that will actually prompt me to shout at the TV.
I was willing to be patient with a Les Mis movie adaptation, because the novel is sooooo lengthy and detailed. But they just completely twist everyone's personalities around.
I put up with the characterization errors (the characterization that made the novel so wonderful) but then I turned it off when I saw that they'd made Valjean the mayor when he couldn't read or write. It specifically says in the novel that he learned how to write/read in prison. Again, I wouldn't care, but I don't quite see how any town could flourish under an illiterate mayor.
Here is what all bothered me:
- I saw people praise this movie because it didn't change Valjean as drastically, i.e. he sometimes becomes violent and hits people. Valjean was NEVER violent. He was freaking put into prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family. Whenever he attempted to escape, it did not involve violence. Valjean would never, ever, hit anyone--prison made him full of bitterness and hatred, but not violent.
- Javert is NOT sadistic. He's certainly not a very likable guy, but his personal experiences gave him a very rigid sense of justice.
- Liam Neeson is just too young to play Valjean, I think. They should have aged him up a bit, especially during his stint as Monsieur Madeleine
- I also don't think Liam Neeson looked powerful enough. Remember, the man lifted a cart and scaled a wall and bent prison bars.
- Fantine and Valjean never had anything between them. She was a little too busy, y'know, dying.
- Marius as a political activist is a strange and horrible thought.
- Les Mis has many stories inside of it, not just Javert vs. Valjean.
- Enjolras is a necessary character
- ABC is pronounced "Ah Bay Say," it's a pun
- Eponine isn't entirely necessary, but the movie would have been more enjoyable with her
- Cosette is not a teenage rebel without a cause who throws a tantrum when she does not get her way
- Valjean would sooner hit himself than hit Cosette
I could go on, but I won't. It isn't just the novel mistakes. It's just a very boring and stuffy movie. As one reviewer I saw put it: "You keep itching for someone to burst into song." The characters aren't endearing at all in the movie; I didn't fall in love with Valjean like I did in the novel. I didn't cry over Fantine having to sell her hair and teeth and locket. When you can't really like any character in a movie, you have a big problem.
9 A 5 Star Adaption With Liam Neeson As Jean Valjean
I have not seen the other adaptions. However, I find this adaption to be outstanding. Liam Neeson is perfectly cast as Jean Valjean. The movie is somewhat different than the book. It has to be or else the movie would be over 4 hours long. The movie is dramatically pleasing and stands on its own and it does capture the essence of Victor Hugo's writing.
10 Anthony Perkins shines as Inspector Javert.
Having read Victor Hugo's wonderful book, I was most interested to see how Anthony Perkins would portray the difficult role of Inspector Javert, the relentless pursuer of escaped convict Jean Valjean, ably acted by Richard Jordan. I was not disappointed with Perkins work; this is one of his better performances in a long career, now sadly cut short by his death.
Perkins is true to Victor Hugo's vision of a man who is filled with repressed hate and rage. His own life is filled with misery and he seeks revenge against any hapless victim of the draconian laws in France that will imprison a man such as Jean Valjean for five years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.
Perkins is relentless in his pursuit of a person that he knows in his heart is both a good man and a force for good in society. He obeys the letter of the law and ignores his own conscience and best instincts. In doing so he condemns himself to a life bereft of any semblance of humanity. In the end the truth of his existence is too much for him to bear.
If Perkins is so good, then why only three stars for the production? Unfortunately the version that is advertised on Amazon.com has been drastically cut for reasons I do not understand. The result of the many deletions in the film is a story that is missing vital character development. This is nowhere more true than with the story of Cosette, Valjean's adopted daughter. This part of this film has been cut so badly that the climax of the plot loses some of its power and dramatic intensity.
Another reviewer has suggested that the film be seen in VHS format which carries the entire production designed by the director. Now that I have seen the DVD version of the film, this advice seems sound to me. For those viewers who decide to watch the DVD, the film in this format is worth seeing with the noted reservation.
11 A Moving Film
I guess first things first. I have read the book, and it is beautifully written (by a man who knew all but nothing about writing, too). However, making a film that precisely follows it would be undesirable on many different levels. Victor Hugo goes off on a detailed history of the French Revolution rather abruptly towards the middle of the book, and to make a long story short, much of the book is just that... abrupt. By the time you get back to "actuality" you've forgotten what you read before. Beautiful writing, but it would make a horrid movie.
What they have done here is taken that and removed all the abruptness and detours. They singled out the actual plot of the story itself, and turned it into a film that -as a film in and of itself- is magnificent. Also, those who enjoy good music will be in heaven... I could watch the movie just to listen to it alone. The acting is well-done, with little strain. The story flows. It's moving. The filmography is appealing. And it makes you think.
While it doesn't imitate the book as closely as some fans may wish, I give it five stars for being a terrific MOVIE that still captures the essence of Victor Hugo's writing.
12 Incredible Movie
I know it is a little different from the book by Victor Hugo, but it is still a wonderful adaptation. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush were great. Where were their Oscar nominations for their work here?
13 This Movie Is A Wonderful Masterpiece...!!
I Was watcging this movie Once and when I saw the first 15 Minutes I Just had to Continue because of hoe seductive it was.
I recommend this movie to people who like differnet types of films and definitely DRAMA, this is a great (Catch me if you can" type movie but nothing like Catch me if you can. I have watched it tons of times and love it eack time. There are scenes in this movie that are really worth watching for everybody and the whole family.
14 they didn't...
Oh yes; they did.
Good points: Valjean and Cosette were nicely cast. Had they been given the right material to work with.
However. I'm not entirely sure the writers read the book before trying to write the script!
In order.
The romance between Fantine and Valjean. Ah heh. No way. There is No Way.
Next- this goes for the entire movie. Where are Valjean's inner struggles? This is what the book is About (that, and I think the insurrection might be an equally large plot point, though it takes, like, 1/30th of the pages in the book)! Here, Valjean is sort of "well, I'll be good because I have to be." It's not genuine.
Moving on.
The Thenardiers serve pretty much no purpose. No links to Marius's dad, they don't try to rob Valjean later on. Zip. Nada. They're there to abuse Cosette and that's it.
And while we're on the subject.
I don't like the glorified musical Eponine, but that certaintly beats no Eponine at all! You can't have Les Mis without Eponine. You just can't. It's almost like trying to have the insurrection without Enjolras.
So Why is Marius waltzing about making political speeches, pretending to be Enjolras? You can't have Les Mis without Enjolras... It's just not possible. Enjolras is the leader of the student insurrection. Marius is absent-minded and starry-eyed. Marius is not, as described in the movie, a "dangerous radical."
So Marius is, in one hand, a strong, chaste, and powerful leader. In the other, he goes and fawns over Cosette.
And Why is Valjean slapping Cosette? Valjean would Never, Ever slap Cosette! Montparnasse, sure. Then he'd give him a purse. (well, not exactly a slap, but the basic concept...) But Cosette?
And What is with them giving Cosette a gun? She'd Faint if she laid hands on a gun.
And Javert kidnapping Cosette? What?
And what was with that suicide?
Oh, yes. Valjean would just skip away after that. HE NEEDS TO DIE!
And as for Cosette and Marius? What happens there? It seems we'll never know...
15 Good...but different
Les Miserables is an extremely long book and it is very hard to make it accurate to the true story. I've seen a lot of movie versions of the story and this has to be one of my favorite adaptations. It obvousily doesn't hold a candle to the muscical, but what does?
Liam Neeson does a superb job as Valjean. He by far was the best Valjean I've seen on screen. Goeffery Rush was equally good as police inspector Javert And Uma Thurman played a very good Fantine. Claire Danes did a good job as Cossette, but she often annoyed me. I was pretty upset that they completely forgot about Eponnine(who is one of my fav characters) because she puts a little more intrest in Cosette and Mauris's relationship.
one of the biggest reasons i liked this was cause not everything was like the book and it had a couple of changes that i liked. The ending was pretty bad, but what can ya do?
Overall, a pretty good movie, but i would beware if ur a purist.
16 This movie is one of the best.
I have read over some of the other reviews, and I couldn't differ with them more. For one thing, 99% of all movies which are taken from books, do not ever live up to, or follow the book completely. That is the same for this movie. But, it does include all the main ingredients to make it a hit. The actors do an outstanding job with their characters, and the movie rolls very smoothly as the story is told.
I am a history teacher, and even though the events of the French Revolution portrayed in the moive are slightly off timeline, the content of the inner battle in all of the characters acurately portrays the French Revolution period. This is a movie about how a man can change, and does change, to be a giving and caring person. He is chased by the Inspector, who is brought up to live within the boundaries of the law, no exceptions. In the end we see the inspector dealing with his inner turmoil, about how to handle Jean Valjean, and he does it in the only way he can allow himself to handle it. All this follows exactly with the ideology of the period for which it took place.
I have shown this movie to my classes for the past four years. In most cases of showing movies in class, most of the kids fall asleep during movie time. I have never had any student not like this movie. Several have even gone to rent the movie to watch again, after we have watched it class.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone intersted in taking it at its face value as a great movie about life during that time period. But, it is not for those who want something taken exactly from the book.
17 A Miserable Adaptation
Bille August's 1998 adaptation of the famous tale written by Victor Hugo in the 19th century: the Charles Dickens of French literature. A horrible adaptation that plunges the film into your typical melo-dramatic Hollywood fluff. A terrible film that shouldn't bear the title of such a great literary masterpiece.
The retelling of Jean Valjean's (Liam Neeson) tale as the ex-con whose escape leads to a chance encounter with a benevolent priest who sets him on a new course in life to do good deeds, is horribly mutilated in this watered-down version of the story. As with the recent 'Count of Monte Cristo' with James Caviezel, so many aspects of the story have been changed that there's little resemblance to the original work as intended by its author. Instead, we have the vision of poor writers who arrogantly presume to be more adept at writing a story than the most brilliant literary masters. The result is a screenplay demonstrating no talent or imagination: adding plots and themes that either obscure or completely undermine the author's thematic message. I will not go into detail as to those changes as previous reviewers have elaborated on that quite well.
The title and concept of a great story are here packed with Hollywood fluff to cover up the ineptitude of those who contrived this pathetic screenplay. Although the acting is quite good, the essential components of the film such as the screenplay, plot and theme are far below average and almost completely at odds with the original story. If you want to see a faithful adaptation of Victor Hugo's great story, don't see this film!
18 Great movie, but.....
Great movie, but the book was better...The movie is about the ex-convict, Jean Valjean, trying to help Fantine, a poor woman trying to make enough money to pay the Thenardiers to take care of her child Cosette, and later raising Cosette as his own, while also being persued by the persistant Inspector Javert.
What happens in the movie basically happens in the book as well, but the book also has much more going on. The book has an intricate connection between many of the characters that the movie doesn't have, and also focuses on much more than Jean Valjean, whom the movie mostly focuses on.
I would suggest reading the book first, and then watching the movie.
19 An enjoyable classic!
I can't judge this movie fairly. I have read the book and watched the musical, both live and on DVD. So, naturally, I will be making subconscious comparisons, even though we all know that movies generally undertake their own artistic direction.
For one, although some people have claimed the storyline to be jumpy, I thought it was rather smooth-flowing, possibly because I already know the story beforehand. Although changes were made to the original story, for example, Valjean admitting to Cosette that he is a convict when he only did so before he died in the end, and Cosette remembering that Valjean is not her father when it was originally intended for her to believe that he was her real father, these changes were probably made to accommodate the short play time (2 hours is barely enough to fit in a 1484-pages story).
Liam Neeson portrayed Valjean to be exactly the way Hugo would have intended Valjean to be. In the beginning, he was a hard, animalistic beast of a man. But Neeson is able to morph into the gentle Mayor with ease, and that highlights Valjean's transformation. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as Javert. Never was there anyone more suited to play the cold, sadistic inspector. Uma Thurman is surprisingly convincing as Fantine. I had begun to stereotype her as the sort of action-thriller-sci-fi flick girl but this proved me wrong. Watch this movie for these three actors alone, for they bring class to your living room.
What I didn't like about the movie was the lack of development on the revolution. Hugo was a revolutionary. He wanted Les Mis to ignite the people's spirits. The revolution was a crucial scene, and the death of the revolutionaries a touching one. Through this movie, I can barely recognize which ones are Enjolras, Courfeyrac, Feuilly etc and yet the character names appear on the credit roll in the end.
The change of the ending (with Valjean walking free) did not leave much of an impact on me compared with the original ending. I loved the last page of Hugo's novel, where Cosette read Valjean's letter. Valjean had a tragic life. He was one of the Les Miserables, the underdogs, the wretched. For me, they had distorted the true message of Les Mis by changing the ending of the wonderful classic.
20 i didnt like it
I seen this Movie in English. and i didnt like it at all. i found it boring and the guyz hittin faintain and it isnt right. my friends and i didnt like it at all. it had a story... buh it was kind of jumpy. we only watched the first part, i would like to see the second part just to see how it all ends and everything. but to be honest i didnt like the movie at all. i am a grade 9 student and i dont think i know anyone who likes the movie. other then the teacher (maybe)
21 Les Miserable - The Protagonist
It was a rare saturday (last night) when I got to stay at home just to watch HBO and as luck would have it, at 4 in the morning this movie, which seems to be set in the old times somewhere in Europe, starts and catches my attention. I had not heard of 'Les Miserables' ever, but now after seeing what I saw I can't wait to get my hands on the book and also experience the musical.
I found the movie a beautiful peice of art. Set in the old times in France, the movie tries to show the hardships faced by this man, once a convict followed by being a generous mayor then a caring lover of a woman, who spits on his face (I got to say Uma Thuran looks absolutely fabulous in the movie), a caring father-like, and then the saviour of an infamy (among the cops) revolutionary for his daughter.
There were two parts in the movie which which particularly left an impression & which I shall never forget:
1) when he lifts Uma in his arms and brings her to the table for having a meal with her;
2) after the inspector tells him, he's free and kills himself, you could see the expression on his face that for the first time in his life he feels free and doesn't having anything to fear...
I wish I could read the book forst, so i could judge the adaptation more critically.. but currently, i am high on the performances and the imagerry.
Real Nice!!!
22 Good....but where's the ending?
I had just recently seen the musical when I first saw the movie, and it had to be one of the best plays I had ever seen. When I watched the movie, I did not expect it to be as good, but I did expect a good movie. I got the good movie, but there was no comparison to ending. It was in fact, horrible. I really like the movie, but when it got to the end I could not believe it. I sugest that you watch to movie, but don't expect to be thrilled with the ending.
23 This "Les Miz" is Les Bomb!
First, of all: WOW! This movie has got to be the best film I've ever seen! Whoa! I've read the book, seen several adaptations of it, and even listen to a drama presentation done entirely without visuals. This has got to be the best adaptation yet! I had to stay home from school the day it premiered on TV. I watched it, taped it, and watched it again all in the same day.
PLOT: The movie tells the life story of an ex-convict turned politician, then lover, then father, and last but definetly not least, war hero.
PROS: The movie is fast-paced, entertaining, and the music was the most beautiful of any of the 11 other adaptations!
CONS: Are there any?
FAVORITE SCENE: Marius and Cosette's battle with the evil Javert.
24 great film!!!
This movie came as a surprise to me. I hadn't heard much about it but found this to be and excellent film. Everything about this movie was done well. Casting, acting, directing, editing, producing, etc. You name it. But what it all boils down to is the story and you couldn't choose a better story to portray life's tragedies and triumphs in a whirlwind of dramatic events.
25 A good movie, but a terrible adaptation!
Well, I am an ardent fan of Les Miserables. I love the book and the musical. I was prepared for it to be different, but it was horrible! I've seen it twice- once I rented it, and once in English class. They left out two of the best characters (Eponine and Enjolras). They also left out all the Amis! The only characters that weren't warped at all were Javert, the bishop and Fantine. Cosette was just a snivelling crybaby. There was no mention of the Thˇnardiers after Montfermeil. Gavroche looked too young, so it sounded weird to hear about his "babies". The third act was totally stupid. Marius is too much of a lovesick moron to lead a revolution. And there wasn't even a proper ending! Can't a misaholic get at least a little bit of sympathy? The movie made Victor Hugo spin in his grave, and the Mizzies spin in fictional character land.
26 great
I have not read the book and I can't stand musicals, but I watched this movie on AMC, I think, and was simply astounded. This was a very well directed movie with great acting and a top notch sense of story line.
27 I loved it!
I haven't read Victor Hugo's novel, nor have I seen the musical interpretation, but I love this film. Wonderful story. Superb acting. It's worth every penny - buy it.
28 Where's Eponine?
I absolutely love the musical version of Les Miserables not to mention the book so I thought I would give the movie a view. Now, I will admit that I am standing at a totally biased point of view because I am an avid musical fan and in so, I had some expectations for this cinematic drama. It is wrong on my part to assume so much in the film but I can't help but be disappointed. I thought the movie took away some of the best characters and story lines. I also thought that the progress of the movie was rather awkward. It was a nice attempt to smoothly blend Jean Valjean's conscience and get-away from Javert and Cosette & Marius but it ended up being rushed and confusing. But with that aside, I think on some levels the movie does the book justice as the casting is quite good. If you like Les Mis, be it the musical and/or the book, then this movie is a decent way to kill some time. Disappointment may ensue but it won't traumatize you.
29 An Answer to A Prayer, an "Eponineless" Les Miserables
This is beautiful, not the musical, but still beautiful. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush are very well cast in their roles as Valjean and Javert. Uma Thurman makes a heart wrenching Fantine and Claire Danes is a beautiful Cosette. And best of all, there is no rival for Marius' affection in this movie, no Eponine stealing the scenes singing "On My Own." This movie makes it on its own without songs or Eponine.
30 good movie... BAD Les Miserables movie
There are a couple of good things about this movie, like the acting and a bit of the first half. There are so many bad things, I could write an essay longer than Victor Hugo's novel pointing them out. Alone, ignoring the novel, musical, and anything remotely related to Les Miserables, this movie is pretty good. Apply the title "Les Miserables" to this movie and it becomes EVIL. The storyline is that of Les Miserables, but it is loosely strung together and falling apart. The second half of the movie is a bunch of made-up stuff that completely kills any good that there was in the first half. You may think I'm just some Les Miserables fanatic who needs everything to be exactly like it was in the novel... that's not neccessarily true. I am a fanatic, yes, but I realize that "made-up stuff" does have the potential to make a very good movie. This was made clear in the recent Lord of the Rings movies. It was also very clear in the musical play of Les Miserables. "Made-up stuff" can be very good, IF it keeps with the theme and "feel" of the book. However, the made-up stuff in this Les Miserables movie is terrible! Horrific! BAD. The theme, the point, the attidude, and the emotional impact of Les Miserables is completely and totally lost in this movie. The characters, though many have the same names as characters in the novel and musical, are not by a long shot those created by Victor Hugo. They are aliens who share the same name. Some characters, like Eponine, Thenardier, and Enjolras are not condemned to the same fate as Jean Valjean, Javert, Cosette, and Marius. They are not completely mutated until they are unrecognizable and they are not totally ruined. Of course, that is probably because they are NOT EVEN IN THE FILM. For a general movie, its quite good. For a Les Miserables movie, it is shameful. It completely misses the point. Hugo would turn over in his grave. Rent it, record it on TV, but I wouldn't recommend actually buying it.
31 Not Worth Viewing
I very much wanted to see this movie when it first came out and so I did, but was very disapointed.After watching the Dream Cast musical on several occasions. You would think they could make something wonderful out of this book but it looked like to me they didn't even try.
32 Awesome Movie
Some reviewers on this website have given it a poor rating because they felt it diverted too much from the book. We all know this is one of the great books of all-time, but in my opinion this movie is just as wonderful as the book. Different from the book in parts, yes, but still equally as good. Liam Neeson is awesome. The filming is realisic and the acting all-around is first rate. If you're someone who can't stand to watch a film that is a little different from the book, don't bother. If you're someone that simply wants to watch a great movie and story, don't miss it!
33 Not the book, but a splendid film
Some people are saying how horrible this movie is. I don't agree. It's definately not Hugo's novel, but I think comparing it to other movies, it is an excellent addition to your collection. I was very impressed with Uma Thurman's performance as Fantine, and Claire Danes and whoever played Marius are very cute together. :-)
34 Good Movie....... but......
I've read most of the reviews here and most say it doesn't potray Hugo's themes because Enjolras or Eponine aren't in it. The main themes are there. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey rush are great. Would also be good in a lengthened version. But the one who should be recognized is Uma Thurman as Fantine. You really pitty her and she knows how to bring her character across (and it lets you forget that she played Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin.). For those of you who haven't seen the play or read the book, you'll enjoy it alot. But for you others you won't find it that good (except the first half). As a movie it is good. As an adaption.... well..... get it out from the library first.
35 I thought it was very good.
Would you let an ex-prisoner live at your house? What about the Mayor of Vigau? Or would you let a loving father who makes his living as a gardener live in your house? What if I told you that one man was all of these things and more.
Les Miserables is a fantastic movie. It keeps you on your toes the whole way through. You never know if Jean Valjean will get captured, or escape by horse. Les Miserables is a famous novel written by Victor Hugo in the 19th Century. It was later turned into a play, which is still running to this day. The last thing they made the book into was this enjoyable movie.
The move is about a man by the name of Jean Valjean played by Liam Neeson. He was an ex-convict, who became the Mayor of a city in France. This is where he takes in a woman from his factory, (Uma Thurman) who had a daughter, Cosette, out of wedlock. But when a guard from the prison camp, (Geffory Rush) recognized him, he escaped Vigau, and fled to Paris where he became a gardener at a Catholic Church. He picked up an orphan on the way to Paris, and he raised her as his own daughter, Cosette, whom Claire Danes plays. Cosette falls in love with a man by the name of Marius who is the leader of the rebellion against the government in France. Jean has to save Marius and bring him back to his daughter. All while facing many challenges and he even faced death in the eyes.
The climax of the movie doesn't hit until the end, but Jean Valjean's betrayal from the French police will keep you interested in the movie. Since the book was written in the 19th Century, the movie setting was also from that period of time. The clothing of the characters fit them well for it being the 1800's. The guns looked like guns from back then, rather than the guns from now. They even had a scene where the people of the rebellion were making their own bullets, just like they would have done during that time.
Over all, I really enjoyed watching this movie. Liam Neeson who plays Jean Valjean is also the main character in Shindler's List. He keeps his character so alive; I just want to watch his movies over and over again.
36 Three years later and still disapproving
I actually reviewed this show a long time ago (Jan 14 2000 - by now the review is buried under a whole pile of others) and just revisited this place out of curiosity to see whether such a bad show could actually garner good reviews. I'm surprised that so many people do think it is a good show! Well, it showed on local television a few months back, and I brought myself to watch part of it, thinking that I might have been overly harsh with it before. In the end I had to turn off the TV after a few minutes. It is just so bad. I'm bewildered by the way some reviewers say that this is a show for people who have read the book, not for fans of the musical, and that if you liked the book you'll like the show. What utter nonsense. I should think if you've read the book your blood is likely to BOIL even more than if you're just a musical fan who hasn't read the book yet. I have read the book 11 times since I was 11, and this show is OFFENSIVE to me. Haha I'm normally the mildest and least assertive of people, and the most objective, but this show - urgh - really brings out my DARK SIDE!!! :) That's why I'm being so vehement now - I really can't write a cool-headed review of this show!! I agree with ALL the reviewers here who wrote, "Did the scriptwriter actually read the book?" My goodness. Of all the versions of Les Miserables I have EVER personally watched (I've watched the 1952-French, 1978-British, 1982-French, 1995-French, this show, and 2000-French) this is the worst. It makes even the worst of the others look good!! It can't even be compared to the rest. This show wreaks havoc with Victor Hugo's fine novel and reduces it to a terrible movie full of gratuitous sex, violence and sexual innuendo. Man oh man. If I had not seen Liam Neeson and Uma Thurman in other shows before this one, I would have gotten a bad impression of them forever (and in fact that's why I do have a bad impression of Geoffrey Rush,having never seen him in another show before - I must watch Shine one day to wash away the bad taste!) Were they trying to appeal to a brainless teenage audience? Well, I'm a teenager and I must say it doesn't appeal to me at all. HAH! That was the [worst] show I have ever seen in my life. Les Miserables aside, even, it hardly stands on its own merit. With pasteboard characters and blatant marketing of sex and violence, it really insults the audience - even an audience who isn't already foaming at the mouth because it's read the book!!
If I were a great writer and someone dared to desecrate my book like that I think I'd rise up from my grave and haunt the set and plague the production with problems so that the movie would never get made hahaha :) seeing that Hugo didn't do that, he must have been exceptionally tolerant!
If you are looking for a faithful production of the book, personally I think the little-known 1982-French (d. Robert Hossein - sometimes the date of release is put at 1985) version is the best. It's hard to find though, so a more accessible version, and also very good version, is the 2000-French version (Gerard Depardieu; with a gorgeous Christopher Thompson as Courfeyrac!! :) be warned though, the VHS version doesn't play in colour on non-French VCRs). Most British productions are OK, I think. I haven't seen many of them myself. If you want to see famous people like Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud and Ian Holm playing Frenchies, then the 1978-British version's for you :) well, in the end, anything, ANYTHING, is better than this one!!!
37 I honestly cried at the end of it, but not for a good reason
After seeing Les Miserables on Broadway, I became an instant fan. Haven't read the book yet, but I read many excerpts and know quite a bit about it.
While going through the TV guide one weekend, I was shocked to see that there was a Les Miserables movie on that night. My initial reaction was "YES! A Les Mis movie!". I got a blank tape ready to record it. Eventually, it came on. Hit the record button, and began watching.
..Sigh. I'll give it credit for the first half. Stayed pretty true to the story. However, Valjean was overly violent. And Valjean and Fantine's little romance? That made me laugh. A lot. But I dismissed it as minor things, and tried to enjoy the movie anyway.
Then...it got to the point where Cosette was older. Okay, so far, so good. They showed a man making a speech...my first thought "ENJOLRAS! YES!"....but no. It was Marius. I got upset, but meh, I have patience. 'They'll show Enjy soon enough', I thought.
As the movie continued, I inched closer and closer to the nearest sharp object. No Enjolras. No Eponine. No Friends of the ABC! What ever happened to Grantaire, everybody's favorite drunk cynic? Oh, I think he was in one scene, guarding Javert. About 5 seconds of fame. Yay for R.
They...murdered most of the remaining characters, in a sense.
And the ending....oh god, don't even get me STARTED. It was the source of jokes between me and my friend for...hell, we're still making jokes about it. Javert randomly deciding to handcuff himself, falling backwards into 2 feet of water, and sinking like a brick...while Valjean watches, then prances off smiling.... Why....WHY?!
Don't watch this movie. Read the book, and/or see the musical. This movie is simply a huge joke.
The only reason I'm giving it 2 stars is because it gave me a source of amusement for a long time. Between the ending and an earlier scene where Javert keeps telling Valjean "You must punish me"....hehehehe, we all know that he wan-- ::gets shot::
38 Definitely thumbs up - read why!
I was shocked by the number of people who did not like this movie. I am a huge fan of _Les Miserables_. I have been in love with the book for years. (The version translated by Charles E. Wilbour is best.) _Les Miserables_ has also always been my favorite musical.
I would like to say, first of all, that it is almost impossible to make a movie that is exactly like this amazing book without making the film nine hours long. So for the sake of keeping the movie as short as possible, there were a lot of parts cut out. Just because there is no Eponine (my personal favorite character) and no Enjolras (my favorite male character), you can't say that this is not _Les Miserables_.
The movie was wonderfully adapted; I'd like to see anyone else try to make a movie based on this book. I also think that the actors did wonderful jobs portraying the characters. Yes, there were some things added in here that were not in the book. For instance, the love between Fantine and Valjean. And yes, that was a bit ridiculous, but it was to make the movie more dramatic.
The first time I saw this movie was on television. I absolutely loved it, and could not believe my eyes when I saw all these terrible reviews. Granted, there were some that gave it the praise it deserved, but the majority seemed to be reviews from people who don't realize just how well-done this movie is.
To all of you who are undecided as to whether or not you should buy this movie, I definitely recommend it. Ignore the fact that it is slightly different from the book and very different from the musical. Sit down, watch it, and enjoy just like you would with any other movie. And if you haven't read the unabridged version of the book, definitely give it a try. You won't regret it.
39 satisfied my curiosity....
My gut instinct on this movie was that it would [stink] (for lack of a better word) and I found out that I was right. After reading the extremely diverse reviews on this site I was nevertheless curious and rented it. *shakes head in shame* I couldnt agree more with the younger reviewers previously posted, and I commend their taste when it comes to identifying commendable work in the entertainment industry. How anyone could give both the broadway musical version and this lame interpretation of a classic novel highly praised recommendations is beyond me. And as for accepting its "good work" as a movie instead of critiquing the flick against the book/musical, well my opinion is this: If you are going to produce a movie based on a classic, it needs to be reviewed in that manner too, because that was the GOAL of the production in the first place. And scripts conflict are ridiculously obvious from charatcter omissions (Eponine) to serveral added scenes that never took place in any other account of the original story (Val-Jean slapping Cosette, and his presence as Javert's suicide), a common hollywood practice to attempt to give it that unneeded "flare".
As for the acting aspects of the movie.....UGH. Almost every actor portrayed a very misguided veiw of their particular character's personalilties. Clair Daines portrayal of a bratty whiny Cosette was disapointing but not suprising (Romeo & Juliet anyone??), and Liam Neeson almost made Val-Jean look like a unrehabilited villian the entire movie. it's not a wonder that extra flare was added, because the actor/character role relationships were just plainly not there.
Don't waste your money on this DVD, it's money better spent seeing the broadway show (well, after may it's only cycling off broadway) ...
40 A Poor Adaptation
Attempting to capitalize on the success of the Broadway production of the Victor Hugo novel "les Miserables" is this adaptation of the same novel. Liam Neeson stars as the forever haunted Jean Valjean. Valjean is a man imprisoned to hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread. He escapes after years of backbreaking labor to start anew.
Inspector Javert (Geoffrey Rush) is a former prison guard who recognizes Valjean one day as he sees him lift a cart off of a man in the street. Javert believes that only one man has the strength to do such an act, that man is Valjean.
"Les Miserables" is a long book even by nineteenth century standards. It even includes a detailed description of the Paris sewers, which become important to the story at a later time. Any adaptation of this novel must leave out much unless it is to run three or four hours long. At around two hours, 40 minutes, this adaptation is perhaps too short. Or simply does not include the right material.
It is difficult for me to judge the merits of this movie on its own. Having read the novel (and liked it very much) it is difficult for me separate it from Hugo's story. For anyone who has read the novel, I would suggest skipping this poor adaptation. I unfortunately cannot recommend another one to try; but, I would be willing to bet that a French language version would likely be the best.
41 Terrible.
This movie left out a lot of important aspects of the Hugo classic,like EPONINE and the fact that Marius & Cosette would never have met if it weren't for EPONINE.And the Thenardiers are only in one scene.....I say this movie disgraces the book.
42 Incredible Movie
I loved this movie! Not only is it a classic, but it has some amazing spiritual conotations as well. The acting was very good. My favorite part is the end when Jean Val Jean is walking home. The expression on his face portrays all the emotion that he is feeling. It was incredible! I love this move and highly reccomend it!
43 Superb!
Hands down one of the best films I have seen in a long time. I kept putting off seeing this, for some reason believing that because it was Les Mis it would be somehow trite. Boy was I TOTALLY mistaken. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush put on stunning performances, the storyline (Victor Hugo) has been adapted to the silver screen masterfully- even better than the Broadway version, and the music, setting, etc. are all brilliantly composed for this incredible saga. If you rent any one film in the upcoming days or weeks, please- do yourself a favour- rent or buy this film on video or DVD- you will not be disappointed. This is a very powerful film, and sinks like an anchor right to the depths of the soul.
44 Classic Greatness
A story of great pathos and a good production.
Those who are disappointed by the departures from the book should just "get over it" and enjoy the movie as a "movie" and quit criticizing it as a "film."
It is a movie that reaches rare heights of emotion and nobility of character.
45 Redemption & Grace
This is an amazing film. I've heard of the story before, but never read it. There is one golden string that trails all along the film: the power of grace; the strength of mercy; the beauty of redemption. Themes that are not exploited anymore. Just for that it is refreshing and worth viewing over and over. The struggle of a man who was unfairly crushed in his body and soul for so long... triumphs in the end. A man who remained true to his promise, without showing any agressivity toward his enemy... truly unheard of...
You will love this film if you know about grace...
46 I couldn't believe how bad it was!
I love the story of Les Miserables. It's my favorite musical. And this version ripped it to shreds, turning it into a movie for the modern teen instead of the heartbreaking story of sacrifice for love and duty that it really and truly is.
First off-
Where were Eponine and Enjolras? Eponine was my favorite character, I was flabbergasted and angry that they omitted her. She may not have been "main," but she was important! Her death for Marius supports the theme of sacrifice for undying love. How could they not include her? And Enjolras, he was fantastic! He was the strong leader, the gung-ho man fighting for France. He needed to be there!
AND WHY WAS IT NOT A MUSICAL? I rented it expecting a musical, and it wasn't one! I was so annoyed, the music is the best part of Les Miserable! Not like they could have had songs like "On My Own" or "Do You Hear the People Sing" without Eponine and Enjolras.
And as for Cosette, good God, where do I start? She was not a whiny brat. She did not disobey her father like that. Marius snuck *into* the garden to see her, she never left the house to see him! And how did he find her? Eponine shows him the way- I guess they forgot that little fact!
And Valjean! He would never, never, never hit Cosette! And he wasn't there when Javert killed himself, and even if he had been, he wouldn't have smiled and walked away like that.
Marius- That was not the way he was portrayed! He wasn't a leader! And he was never going to be good enough to lead!
As for the Cosette/Marius relationship- that line, "tomorrow you'll be making love to her a free man?" They never slept together! They never would have! For heaven's sake, this movie was ripped to shreds and modernized!
If you've never seen Les Miserables, this movie just may be for you. But you'd have to see another version or read the book to understand what it was actually based on, what it was all about, and to see Eponine and Enjolras especially, and more on the Thenardiers. If you love Les Miserables, don't watch this movie and be outraged at how the story was destroyed, the same way I was.
All in all, this movie is a nice story. However, it is *not* Les Miserables. I feel bad for Hugo... at least he's not alive to see what's been done to his tale.
47 An Entirely Different Story--And a Bad One, At That
This isn't Les Miserables. This doesn't even remotely resmble Les Miserables. For heaven's sake, even the musical was truer to the story than this! The Valjean of this movie never really repents, which takes away the theme of the story. He is driven by self-preservation rather than duty to God. Javert is pitifully one-dimensional. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush do an admirable job with what they have to work with, but it's kind of a lost cause. Their acting was the only thing that got this movie up to two stars. Fantine isn't too bad, but her romantic relationship with Valjean drove me to laughter, rather than making me cry. Claire Danes as Cosette makes me want to throw blunt objects at the TV screen. She portrays the easy-going Cosette as a whining, spoiled brat. If it's possible, Marius is even worse. He gripes, he's pushy, and he's not even cute in this version! And where have Enjolras and Eponine gone? Marius leading the students? Is this a joke? They've cut out the love triangle? That's kind of a suicidal move on their part-Eponine is the character everyone likes! Please don't waste your money on this pitiful excuse for a re-vamp.
48 Okay Movie, Terrible Script
This review gives away info about the movie, if you are going to buy it don't read my review. I didn't like the movie, lets leave that at that.
The review: The acting was marginal at best, with some touching moments and some interesting scenes, but the characters were inconsistent and shockingly poorly developed. For instance Valjean standing there watching as Javert killed himself and then smiling and walking away is totally out of spirit with how they started developing him. Valjean was never tender, and didn't even seem to have found his soul as one would expect. Cosette was written as a spoiled teenager who has finally been freed from being sheltered. Overall I couldn't relate to any of the characters except Javert, who at least seemed consistent throughout and dedicated to his purpose. And in the end, he found himself unable to relate to a world that was turned upside down on him. I guess if I were part of this movie I might have wanted to take a dunk in the river too.
I have seen the stage musical of this, even with the worst set of actors I have seen it done with, it was so much better than this movie. Even if I ignore the obvious turn away from the book in this movie, it still had very little that was good. The fact that they introduced an entire story line that didn't exist anywhere before while dropping important plot items is sad. I have now seen this movie twice, and when I watched it this last time I thought I hadn't seen it before, now I know why, I tried my hardest to forget.
The worse thing of all, is that all of these actors could have done so much better. They are all very capable, and even with their ability the characters were just so shallow that they couldn't bring them to life.
49 Decent telling of a great story.
This movie certainly isn't great. But it is solid, entertaining, and worth watching. I rate it somewhere between a 3 and 4, with the nod going to 4 simply because it puts on display just how great a story Les Miserables really is.
Strengths? Liam Neeson brings an interesting balance of realism and extraordinary decency to the role of Jean Valjean. It is a subtle enough performance that it brings additional layers of complexity to the character that I was surprised to see. Valjean has, through years in prison, been redeemed, it appears, from a life and ethos which was not as pure and innocent as the stereotypical view of him might suggest. You get the sense that it likely was his almost two decades behind bars that brought almost all the way to redemption, coupled with a few acts of unnecessary kindness and mercy that completed his transformation. Neesons performance was so convincing that I truly came to expect him to dive into the frigid water to save his nemesis in what was disappointingly executed ending.
Geoffrey Rush's performance was moving in its own way. Inspector Javert could easily have been reduced to one dimension--as many other actors have done. Not so here, although his performance is not so finely nuanced as Neeson's. Rush brings a satisfying degree of sadism to Javert's character that plays a logical twin to self-righteousness. Still, I've seen others do a better job with this character.
Uma Thurman was terrific, too. Claire Danes? I still don't get Clair Danes. She could barely keep her accent straight, she has little or no magnetism on the screen, and she turned what could have been a moving, torn role into a throwaway.
50 They don't make films the way they used to do
Well, times have changed, nowadays, studios and directors certainly don't make films the way they used to, that is, making use of LOCATION SHOTS, instead of shooting 95% of the film in a studio. Yes yes yes, this edition of Les Mis certainly have more location shots than any recent film that I have come across, but still, the parisian street scenes, especially the barricade scenes, look so FAKE!
And the Marius character in this edition has some of the WORST acting I have ever seen in ANY film! I don't know if it is the actor himself that is annoying to the extreme or his acting. This Marius is plain pompous, clueless, witless, and gutless while we are at it.
Claire Danes in this edition has the honor of being the seond worst actor in this edition.
My apologies, Titanic style teenage love story just doesn't cut it for a classic of this caliber.
Aside from the weak acting found in the second part of this movie, this is a pretty decent movie, if one ignores the numerous deviations from the actual book.
51 Eponine was brilliant
What can I say about this film? Liam Neeson as Valjean. Good choice, actor wise. He wasnt quite the right build, but a good performance. Geoffrey Rush as Javert. Perfect choice. Couldnt have had a more perfect Javert if they tried. Uma Thurman as Fantine. Brilliant. She was the best thing about this movie. She ranks up there with Ruthie Henshall as the best ever Fantines. Claire Danes. Okay I guess. She's a bit too teeny for the part, but she can really turn on the tears when she needs to. Sylvie Koblizkova as Eponine. She was great. Her performance moved me like no other. In fact, if you look really closely in the background of the Thenardiers Inn when Valjean goes to get Cossette, you can see her playing with Azelma. That's it. Was she in love with Marius? No. Does she take him to Cossette? No. Does she take Marius's bullet? No. Did she have lines? No. How about we remake Star Wars and get rid of Han Solo. Yes, I know what your thinking. That's insane.
This was a terrible movie. For many reasons. They messed up the characters. Valjean would NEVER NEVER hit Cossette. NEVER. She was his life. Valjean doesnt bea up Javert. Valjean doesnt hit the Bishop. The man hits NO-ONE! Cossette would NEVER disobey her father! They seemed to find it neccessary to turn Cossette into a modern day teenager. She wasnt. She doesnt run away to see MArius, he sneaks into her garden. And since when did Marius have time to do any of the planning required for the revolution? That's where Enjolras was needed. They didnt cut Enjolras out of the film, they just didnt introduce him. THey ddint introduce any of Marius's friends.
They barricade was huge. About 2 feet high. It was about 10 feet+ in the book. The most the films barricade would have done was stub the enemys toes.
The film ended over 100 pages before the end of teh book. One of the most brilliant endings in literature was cut out completely. (SPOILER) and when Javert kills himself, Valjean is nowhere near him.
Where was Thenardiers gang? Where was the attack on the Rue Plumet? Why did Fantine have ratty black hair? And Valjean DID know how to read! He taught himself in prison! duh!
The film was beautifully filmed. When Javert hits the water....woah. But apart from that, this film ruined the greatest story of all time, removed one of the best characters ever (Eponine) and messed up one of the best romances ever. When Valjean hit Cossette, I'm sure I heard Victor Hugo turn in his grave.
See this if you havent read, or have no respect for the book. Next time Hollywood wants to butcher a classic, they could at least have the courtesy to change the title.
52 A book too good for Hollywood
I warn anyone against doing what I did--finishing the fantastic book and then watching the movie shortly afterwards. The movie would have been fine in its own right, but it was a poor interpretation of the novel. Obviously no movie can fully represent all of the characters and scenes in a 1400 page book, but even the themes were badly altered. A deep and complex novel was reduced to a sappy teenage love story with a Harrison Ford-Tommy Lee Jones type chase thrown in for drama.
Even the appearance of the characters was bothersome--Cosette was played by an actress who was about 8 years too old and the "hulking" Liam Neeson was about 50 pounds and 3 cycles of dianabol away from even hinting at the strength the main character was supposed to possess. But those were minor issues in comparison with the interaction of the two--Jean Valjean striking Cosette (which he never did or would do) and her forcing him to confess about his past. He hid this from her throughout the ENTIRE book and this sacrifice was one of its central themes.
Not a bad movie if you haven't read the book, but if you have--get ready to cringe.
53 "I've bought your soul... and now I give it back to God."
There is perhaps no novel as gripping or emotionally draining as Victor Hugo's Les Misˇrables, the story of redemption, overzealous fundamentalism (justice at all costs) and selfless heroism. Which is probably why it has been translated into numerous languages, and portrayed on Broadway, television, and by Hollywood a dozen times over. Jean Valjean has been brought to the screen by many actors, but perhaps none with quite the charisma and on-screen passion of Liam Neeson, the Oscar-nominated actor from "Schlinder's List." With an ideal, stunning cast, a gorgeous soundtrack, and a premise that should touch even the most hardened of hearts, Les Misˇrables is a triumph.
If you worship the book, this adaptation may fall flat... but for this viewer, who had never before seen the story of Jean Valjean (and who now has become a fan of both book and film) this is a masterpiece. The story is spellbinding... Jean Valjean has spent nineteen years at hard labor in a French prison for stealing a loaf of bread. Released but still in bondage by a yellow passport that brands him as a convict, he travels the lonely roads of France seeking for redemption. Turned away by all the inns, he finds a place of safety and solace within the church, and by the hand of a compassionate old Bishop. But Valjean has grown hard and cruel in prison, and he betrays the man by thieving his silver and stealing away in the night. Fate, however, is not upon his side. He is caught and returned to the judgment of the church. But instead of judgment, he receives mercy... and a new lease on life.Ź
But the past returns to haunt him in the figure of Inspector Javert, a merciless and overly-zealous member of the Paris prefix. Valjean, who has become the mayor of the small but prosperous town of Vigau, is able for a time to conceal his real identity... but Javert suspects and begins to seek information to use against him. This isn't even traversing into the side plot, the prostitute Fantine and her abused daughter Cosette, who is forced to work as a slave at an inn. To them Valjean will be tied... his fate bound with their own by a simple act of compassion.
What unfolds through the two-plus hour epic is a touching story of renewed faith and moral strength in a time of revolution and cruelty. Valjean and Javert are two men of conviction. But in one there is an allowance for human failings; in the other, no exceptions are made. It has romance, suspense, action, a stunning soundtrack, and unforgettable performances. My first viewing left me in utter astonishment, captivated by the story that unfolded before me, managing to touch me so deeply that it has since retained a place of honor in my film case. It's a tale of compassion, honesty, transformation, morality, and forgiveness that might not adhere exactly to Victor Hugo's original but still leaves one with a sense of having spent two unforgettable hours in France. You'll never look at Paris -- or a convict -- the same way again.
54 Best Movie of the Past 8 Years
Best Movie of the Past 8 Years. I have never read the novel, I could care less to read the novel. I base my review purely on it's appeal to me as someone who has never even heard of Les Miserables before renting. There is many more reviews below from their perspective (and most are very worthy of reading).
If you have nerver heard of L.M. before now and want honest outsider opinion here it is. If you love movies with heart, morals, time frame settings, ect.. you will love this movie with heart. I have never rated a movie on Amazon before, but one is worth rating. It is my favorite by far of recent times.
55 Absolute Determination
From the first time I watched this movie, it became my favorite. The look on Jean's face at the end, brings tears to my face everytime. After a lifetime of determination to be a good man,while trying to stay out of the clutches of an old prison guard, he finds happiness and peace. Absolutely beautiful and all consuming.You will not regret this movie.
56 Terrible Interpretation of the Story
I agree that actors and actresses were good, however, they way the story was interpreted is way off the original idea of the book. If you like this book, don't watch this movie, it will drive you nuts when you saw Valjean beat up the bishop when stealing the lamp; you will be upset to find out Marius turns out a street rat; and many many more. I would suggest you to find the French version of this novel, both the old version (which is the best) and the Jean-Paul Belmondo's new "Les Miserable": I would rate the former 5 stars and later 4.5 stars.
The later one use World War II France as the background of the story to demonstrate the universal truth of Hugo's "Les Miserable". You won't regret by watching it.
57 I thought it an excellent movie
The Victor Hugo aficianados decry the absence of some characters, and changes in the script of which they do not approve, but as for me, I was transfixed by the story as presented.
I thought the acting was excellent, and the casting great. Liam Neeson makes a great Jean Valjean, and Geoffrey Rush is a thoroughly threatening Inspector Javert. Claire Danes also depicted Cosette skillfully.I found the resulting story thoroughly believable, and the camerawork unobtrusive and well-handled.
The problems in filming a great classic are nearly insurmountable, because so many people are familiar with the book and are prepared to be disappointed. Also the culture being depicted in this case, as someone has pointed out, is foreign to today's viewer. Conditions that we find unspeakable today were the accepted pattern in France, 200 years ago. Even in the United States, in that period, people underwent conditions and practices that we cannot relate to today. Many trades in common practice then are nonexistent today, and their very names are unknown--for example, who knows what a "cordwainer" was? It was a skill in high demand--a worker in cordovan leather.
Hugo's main theme was, indeed, the possibility of redemption. In that time, and even today many people believe, "once a thief, always a thief." The fact that it is usually true only makes the story resonate the more strongly. In those days, the convict's chances of regaining a normal life after his release from prison were slim to non-existent. Today, they are not much better.
I think this story carries Hugo's theme out very well, and the changes in the storyline are insignificant. I found the movie riveting, and I highly recommend it. Compared to most movie fare available today, it was outstanding.
Joseph Pierre
58 Excellent movie!
This movie is a wonderful depiction of grace and redemption. From the very start where Jean Valjean stole silver from the bishop and when he was returned by the police the bishop said it was a gift and asked why he didn't take the candlesticks as they were worth more. And then the bishop told him that he ransomed Valjean from evil and bought his soul which he now is giving to God.
From that time forward, we see the life of Valjean is transformed and how it affects the lives of the people around him to the very memorable end where the policeman who has hunted Valjean for 20 years has to make a decision what to do with him.
I was very impressed by the movie. I thought it was well done and well worth the time to watch. And the undertone message of grace, forgiveness, mercy, and compassion are very tastefully acted out and enjoyable to watch.
59 Literary Homicide
This movie is supposed to be Les Miserables? Funny, I wouldn't have even noticed if not for the names of the characters. This movie did not even attempt to follow Hugo's masterpiece. Allow me to elaborate:
Granted, it did a fair job until the second half. It showed Cosette's rescue from the Thenardiers, Valjean's confession at the trial of Champmathieu, and so forth. Then, ten years later, in the great city of Paris...
Things got ugly. The second half of this movie was nothing but one flaw after another. The only good thing about it was that it included that cute part about little Gavroche and his "children". However, it neglected to mention that the children were really Gavroche's long-lost brothers, and that their parents were the evil Thenardiers. In fact, the Thenardiers aren't even mentioned after Valjean rescues Cosette, which leaves a gaping hole in the plot.
Then there was Cosette. Okay, where to begin? Let's see-she wasn't sweet or childlike, and she didn't have a garden in the Rue Plumet. This Cosette is strong willed and insolent. This is a "modernization" of the character that really screws up the storyline. Listen, I know that "modern" society doesn't like "passive" women, but that's what the ideal woman was like back in nineteenth-century France! Deal with it! Cosette is cool the way she is. She can be a strong character without being He-Man.
Oh, and please, don't get me started on the things they did to Marius Pontmercy. Marius has always been my favorite character, but unfourtunatly, this movie did not actually include Marius. The character they put in his place really should have been named Enjius. Marius was the leader of the students in this version, instead of Enjolras. Yes, I mean Marius PONTMERCY. Now, while I do like Marius, he is no Enjolras. He was too shy and not charismatic enough to be a great leader. Plus, this script had him constantly sneaking out of the barricade to see Cosette. Marius would have never shirked his duty that way, not even for Cosette. Oh, and like every other re-incarnation of Les Miserables, this one disappointed me by leaving out Marius' complex family struggles and his worship of his dead dad. Oh, and another thing-the real Marius was vehemently virtuous where Cosette was concerned, and would never have laughed at other students' bawdy jokes about "making love to her as a free man".
What's that you ask? If Marius is leading the revolution, where is Enjolras? Nowhere. Enjolras was cut from this movie. Enjolras! The heart and soul of the revolution! There wouldn't have even been a barricade without Enjolras. To cut such an important character is an insult to the viewer's intelligence. Oh, and in addition to cutting Enjolras, they didn't really make much mention of any of the other students. Laigle wasn't a jinx, Joly wasn't a hypochondriac, Grantaire wasn't a cynical drunk, Jehan wasn't a poet...Well, you get the message. I don't even think the movie ever even called them "Friends of the ABC" (or abaisse, or however you care to pronounce the pun)
Another important character they left out was the despondent Eponine, daughter of Thenardier, and all around pathetic gamine. How could those Hollywood schmucks even think of leaving out Eponine? She's the character everyone likes! Furthermore, Eponine is a great example of "the wretches" of Industrial-Age France, the people who the revolutionaries were fighting for. And I ask you, what about the love triangle? That was one of the most touching, tragic parts of the whole story. Eponine, with her hearbreaking unrequited love for Marius, whose too clouded with love for Cosette to notice Eponine's feelings. And finally, Eponine's heroic action of taking the bullet for Marius on the barricade. That was moving, dang it!
So, to make a long story short, stay away from this hunk of junk. On it's own, it would be a passable film, but to try and pass it off as Les Miserables is a crime against literature. If you want Les Miserables, buy the novel or musical. And Hollywood, if you can't love the classics the way they are, then just leave them be!
60 A movie that deserves to be seen
Although I have not written reviews before, I would like to add my comments to the 1998 movie version of "Les Miserables" and to some of the reviews I have read here. I believe this movie is being very misunderstood at least by some. I believe the producers of this version in no way tried to make a carbon copy of the novel by Victor Hugo. Clearly, if this had been the case it would have been easily done. I think many viewers fail to see that some of the "twists and changes" done in movie versions of literary pieces are rather designed to engage the attention of the reader and entertain him or her, and not change the plot or the intentions of the author for the meaning of his/her novel. Personally, I think this version of "Les Miserables" deserves to be seen. Most of the actors are excellent and I especially enjoyed Liam Neeson's portrayal of Jean Valjean. I think he was especially made for it, as was the malevolent Javert, performed by Geoffrey Rush. I personally don't think, however, that a great piece of literature can ever be replaced by a movie, so I recommend you read the novel, you'll find it even more moving, dramatic and inspirational.
61 A classic on TV
This is a great adaptation of Victor Hugo's play. I find it has a lot of depth. The caraters force you to question the humain ways. How unforgiven our society is. And that ever desison we take affects our desteny. It realy has everything, action romance drama suspence...Enjoy, I know I will again and again...
62 Excellent acting, but poor characterization
I rented this video due to Blockbuster's regrettable lack of copies of the Les Mis musical. I doubted I would like it- I had heard negative things from other hardcore fans of the book and musical- but I was starting to suffer from Les Mis withdrawal symptoms. (laughs) Ah, vive le republique.
(cracks knuckles) Right then, straight to the point. This movie started off extremely well, true to the novel and musical, and I considered the slight changes (i.e., the Bishop and Javert's nearly identical wounds) to be beneficial to the plot. The acting was remarkable, the scene in which Fantine is tormented by noblemen being especially well done.
Looking back on it now, I don't think having Fantine and Valjean fall in love served to do anything but weaken the storyline- it also destroys the message Victor Hugo explained expressly in the book, that Cosette was the first person Jean Valjean truly loved. I was willing to overlook this, however- as I said, there was far more strengthened segments than weakened ones. I DID enjoy watching the rooftop conversation between Young Cosette and Valjean- very true to both their characters.
And so I sat back and watched and I thought, this isn't so bad. I was almost ready to forgive them their unmerciful cutting-out of Enjolras and Eponine, especially for the fan service given to Grantaire fans for his five-second debut.
Watching the last half... I began to second-guess myself.
I DEEPLY despised the way that Valjean, Cosette, and their relationship were characterized. Cosette, especially, was not only untrue to her character in the book and musical, but was also quite frankly irritating, loud and painfully stupid. As well, when Valjean struck Cosette, it struck me as fitting in poorly with both the characters and the situation- something the producer probably threw in for shock value.
Marius, on the other hand, was acted so well that he rivalled Javert's remarkably well done character. Marius' actor was excellent and so was his characterization, though I certainly think they would have done better to leave Enjolras as the chief revolutionary and Marius as his follower. The love scenes between Marius and Cosette were sweet and believable, and I enjoyed the alternate capture of Javert involving the two. It was amusing as well as well thought out.
The last scene, however, took the rating down an entire star. At first I thought it was gorgeously acted, tense but still relaxed in its pace, and I admired its creativity in finding a way around the seemingly inevitable Javert monologue. I was struck by the emotional power of that last scene, indeed... until the very, VERY end. Jean Valjean's sudden, inappropriate and utterly out-of-character smile nearly ruined the movie. It was a weak ending to the ending, and so dragged down the entire tale.
Just to note, I LOVE whoever it was played Javert. The totally new interpretation of him was refreshing and very well done, and both the way he was acted and the way the other actors behaved around him was very thought-provoking and, indeed, occaisionally amusing ("If you do not allow him to report, I believe the inspector may burst into tears"). As well, the little bit of light shed on his past made him an entirely different character to me, for some odd and strange reason.
To conclude; I would certainly recommend this movie (if only to see Javert in all his glory) but please, don't leave your Les Mis experience there. Read the book or watch the musical, and you'll be left far more moved- or at the very, very least, stop the movie before the end, BEFORE Valjean smiles!
63 Great movie!
Although this movie ends suddenly, and there is more to the story, this is a wonderful introduction to Les Mis. The theme of redemption is strong, and that is the basis of the original book by Victor Hugo. Liam Neeson and J. Rush do a wonderful job!
64 This is not Les Miserables
THUMP! THUMP! That is the sound of Victor Hugo spinning in his grave. This would be an okay movie if they didn't presume to call it Les Miserables. The acting was excellent all around-Geoffrey Rush and Liam Neeson in particular. The parts of the plot they did include were very well done. However, this movie does not even remotely resemble Les Miserables. The characters (the ones they didn't write out of it) couldn't even pass for distant relatives of those in the book.
I'll start with Jean Valjean since he's the main charater. In the book, and even in the musical, he was portrayed as a bitter ex-con who got his life turned around and spent the rest of it doing good deeds. He was your basic saint-type. But they have turned him instead into a paranoid fugitive who only cares about his own safety. I mean, when Javert commits suicide, he SMILES. A smile? Somehow I doubt that Hugo would have approved. But the most ludicrous part of all was the bit about Fantine. VALJEAN would never have falled in love with FANTINE, for crying out loud. Come on! This is ridiculous! And as to Fantine-she wasn't even blond, and seemed to have all her hair and teeth. (heh heh)
Next we come to poor Javert. Now, I am certainly not a Javert fan, but they tore his character to such shreds that even I couldn't stand it. He came off as self-centered, self-righteous, and an all around bully. He was not meant to be that way. He was originally written as a mixed up cop who kind of went overboard on the law and order stuff. I seriously doubt that Hugo would have ever had Javert beat up Marius and tie up a helpless girl in an alley while calling her a variety of obscene names. That is ridiculous. He was supposed to be overzealous, not evil.
Which brings me to the younger generation. Cosette, origianlly a sweet young lady who's never been mad in her life, has been changed into a strong willed, snotty little brat. Come, now! Cute little Cosette fighting Javert with a gun? Unlikely. I doubt she'd even be able to find the trigger. I suppose the movie makers were attempting to make her character a little less one-dimensional, but Cosette was never meant to be a street fighter.
Then there is Cosette's beau, Marius Pontmercy. I, being a huge Marius fan, thought I would like a movie which gave a big part to Marius. That just shows how wrong I can be sometimes. It didn't work at all. Instead of Enjolras being leader of the revolution, Marius was. Marius, though he is a brave man with a good heart, is simply not Enjolras material. Plus it seemed a little silly, with Marius charging fiercely into battle one moment and fawning over Cosette the next. Marius is supposed to be out dreaming of Cosette or crying over his dead dad, not standing on tables screaming political jargon. And, I might add, this movie didn't show a thing about his life with his dad and grandfather, or his connection to Thenardier. It ruined his character worse than the musical did.
Lastly come all the characters this movie left out. Eponine, the Thenardiers' daughter with her unrequited love for Marius, does not even appear in this movie. Les Miserables without Eponine? She's one of the most interesting characters in the thing. And I've already mentioned Enjolras. How can you even HAVE a barricade with no Enjolras? And where is that drunken Grantaire? He could have livened things up a little if they had had the foresight to include him. The evil Thenardiers aren't even included after Valjean rescues the younger Cosette from them.
Many important events from the story were left out also, or altered until they were unrecognizable. For example, Marius and Cosette don't meet in a garden, Marius is ogling her one day and gets little Gavroche to fix them up. Gavroche, while I'm on the subject, was never mentioned to be the Thenardier's son, nor was it ever revealed that the boys he took care of were really his long-lost brothers. And I am sorry, but that whole Fantine-Valjean love affair is just too bizzare for me. And they end the movie with Javert's suicide! What about Jean Valjean? Wasn't he supposed to have a tear-jerking death scene? Marius and Cosette? Weren't they supposed to get married?
To sum it all up, if you have a book report, don't watch this movie in order to avoid reading it. If you want the real Les Miz, this isn't your movie. You'd do better to get the book, or even the musical.
65 Well acted, beautifully photographed
This Bille August flick is the seventeenth such rendition of the Victor Hugo [1802-1885] novel. Many of these were made in the era of silent films. This is the best version I can remember seeing. It is difficult to put such an epic book on the screen, unless it is done on TV as a mini-series, usually a British one. August manages, however, to convey the heart of the story.
This is a visually stunning work. Filmed mainly in the Czech Republic in and around Prague, it looks very much as it probably did in France 150 years ago. Victor Hugo's tale of Valjean, a reformed criminal, and of his nemesis, the police inspector Javert, retains much of its power. There is also, of course, the unlucky Fantine and her illegitimate daughter, Cosette, who is put in Valjean's care. Finally, there is Cosette's lover, Marius, a handsome and passionate Parisian student, who is a leader of a French revolt.
They are all here, and, portrayed by an extraordinary cast, they come to life. These were not easy characters when Victor Hugo wrote of them. They are just as difficult today. Victims of a socially unjust society, they were not cardboard characters, but rather complex ones.
There are a couple of problems with "Les Miserables". As in the book, some scenes occur a bit too conveniently. The other, bigger problem lies in the changing view of morality over the years. I don't think we deal with honor and courage in the same terms the French did in the early 19th Century. This might make the characters seem distant to some viewers. Hardly anyone these days dares to live on the courage of their convictions. When the book was first published, Javert's relentless pursuit of Valjean ultimately showed him to be simply another victim of the social values he so religiously upheld. While this is shown in the movie, I'm afraid the modern view of him is that he's just another bad guy who doesn't know when to quit. His final scene, then, tends to leave some people today scratching their heads. As a study in redemption, it has lost some of its power. To others, it remains one of the most ironic, yet just, climaxes ever created.
66 Pretty good... Inconsistant
I did read the unabridged novel before I stumbled over this movie and to tell you the truth, yes I did enjoy the movie, except for those little things that were changed from the novel. I was a little annoyed with Jean Valjean resorting to violence in three different occasions that did not happen in the book. Valjean did not hit the Bishop, definately not Javert, and he would never hit Cosette. After that, the only last thing I had a problem with was Marius in place of Enjolras. Marius's beliefs were not with this friends' revolution and only appeared on the barricade after Valjean decided to leave Paris. Marius is nothing like Enjolras. He's too love-struck. Ontop of that, I missed Eponine. Where was Eponine? One little shot of her with Azelma. (...) I'll admit one would be a little joyful knowing that you were free, but that was a sacrifice that couldn't be repeated...
Aside from all the gripes I have about it, I have to say, it was pretty good. Some of the script and lines were very similar to the dialogue in the book. I loved Geoffrey Rush's Javert. He did an excellent job. I watch it again and again just to see him.
Oops, I'm ranting again. ^.^;;
67 mercy over justice; forgivness over revenge; love over hate
this was a great movie. the acting was great, espescially liam neeson. claire danes was really good, too [espescially in the "why should i tell you if all you're gonna do is hit me" scene].
what i really love about this movie is that it shows how much better mercy, love, and forgiveness is then cold, uncompromising
justice is.
it is the story of a man who was in prison for 19 years. upon his release he steals from a priest [i guess that 19 years of punishment didn't change him all that much, now did it?]. when the police bring him back to the preist, the preist basically lets him off the hook. he is so touched by the act of mercy that he vows to become "a different man". and he does. anyway, if valjean had been thrown back in jail for stealing from the priest, the only thing it would have done would have been to turn valjean into even more of a monster. when he was shown mercy, he he gave mercy. to quote jesus christ, those who have been forgiven much will love much. the more love you give the better the world is.
68 This is not Les Miserables
is this Victor Hugo's story? absolutly not. this only a ordinary hollywood movie, you really really really need to read the novel or watch the older version movie, if you want to know what a great story it is.
69 Mercy Personified
This movie serves its purpose well. You will completely fall in love with the story and want to read the book and see other movie adaptations. The story is so alive and fulfilling, it will not only capture your heart...it will in fact change the way you think.
Is revenge sweet? Or, is forgiveness sweeter? What joy is there in the death of an enemy? Is there not more beauty in freeing the soul and making your enemy your friend? In all cases this is not possible, but our actions can speak to the heart.
In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson) gives of himself continually throughout the movie. He is the example of how a life can be changed through kindness. We find him on parole after 20 years of hard labor for stealing bread. Still unchanged by his punishment, he seeks to steal again from those who sought to be kind to him. While the owners of the house sleep, he steals their silverware. The next day he is caught and returned. What happens next will not only surprise you, but will set the mood for the entire movie.
This is a story about two men who are given a second chance. Each takes a path and they then meet at the end again. One soul awakens to the chance to start again, the other, prison guard (Geoffrey Rush), is filled with hate and can think of nothing but revenge.
Not only is this about forgiveness but it is also about a father's love for his daughter and what he will give up, even though his daughter is adopted. He treats her as if she is his own child. His daughter falls in love with a handsome "dangerous radical." ;> Who doesn't seem that dangerous. I really wish the story had been longer and they had put more into the character development of both Cosette (Claire Danes who really brightened up the screen), Marius (who needed a lot more character development) and Fantine (Thurman who spent most of her time looking quite ill).
My favorite line: "I didn't breath while you talked, I was afraid I'd miss a word." -Cosette
The filming on location in Paris is a dream. If you have ever been to Paris, you will enjoy seeing places you might have visited. The city is the most romantic place on earth. There is a feeling you get when you are there that cannot be described.
This movie may not be exactly as the story is written, but what movie have you ever seen that captured the complete story? If it makes you fall in love with the characters, then it has succeeded in making you hungry for more. Is that not the point? To get you to read the book? I sure found that to be true.
A movie you will want to add to your top 100 collection! I would have loved if this movie had been much more complex. I could have watched this story for 4 or 5 hours! Basil Poledouris' score adds quite an appeal to this story and evokes the right emotions as a great soundtrack should. I also just became a fan of Liam Neeson. His character is almost mercy personified.
Truly an inspiration and will change your life. One of the most beautiful movies you will ever see.
70 Bad Book, Great Movie
Usually I find that book-screen adaptations are only mediocre, lacking the fire and the intrigue that made the novel so appealing. I saw this movie one lazy, Sunday afternoon, and was so enthralled that I stayed glued to the TV all day. The movie was stunning, complete with great script, incredibly well-acted and well-developed characters. Some say the thematic elements of love and revenge were downplayed, and not well done, but I beg to differ. I thought Geoffrey Rush's character, Javert, the villain, was marvelous - evil and yet very human. I loved every bit about this movie! Uma Thurman and Claire Danes were suprisingly good, as well, and gave a lot of spark to characters that didn't have much on the page.
Ah, the page. Right. Well, of course I had to read the book after watching the film, and so I purchased a handsome hardcover edition at my local bookshop. Even though it's nice having hard-bound volumes of classic literature lying about (and I have quite a bit!), this particular one seems only to gather dust. It's horrible. It's like Victor Hugo is even more confused than the reader is, stumbling back and forth from character to character with no flow and very little interest. His characters are shallow and silly, even the men (it's funny to note how the characters that Thurman and Daines play in the movies are so lively and willfull in the film, since their characters in the book are silly girls that run around giggling and using flowerly language to express their devotion to any and all male characters that seem to be lying about). The author Hugo also doesn't seem to know what he wants his book to be about: a historical look at old Paris? or an adventure story, filled with exciting plot and strong heroes? I still don't know. One minute, the villains are running through the sewers, playing a deadly game of chase... and the next, Hugo has launched into (yet another!) hundred page lecture, this time on the history of the sewers. If you manage to make it through that long, long, loooong chapter, you are so burnt out and confused and disallusioned that the rest of the story holds very little enjoyment. You want to take Hugo by the hand and kindly inform him that nobody really cares about the sewers. And, sadly, nobody really cares about his characters now, either.
Bottom line: watch the movie, it's great. Check out the book from your local library if you want, but please don't pull out of the parking lot until your very sure this book is going to be something that appeals to you. I'd hate to see you throw perfectly good gas money away.
71 A Terrible Adaptation
This is a good movie. I mean, not badly cast. Lovingly done. The acting is great. Yeah, you should enjoy it. Assuming you know absolutely nothing about Victor Hugo's original story. The truth is, if I didn't know better, I'd say whoever wrote the script never read Hugo's masterpiece and based it completely on the 1935 version. Come to think of it, I don't know better. That's probably exactly what happened.
I never thought I'd say this, but I am so glad Hugo didn't have to live to see this movie.
If you've read the book, you will hate this film. TRUST me. The plot, especially toward the end, is mercilessly butchered and rewritten. At some points it becomes utterly unrecognizable. Many of the revisions completely miss or even destroy the essence of characters, and some do not even make sense, the movie ending with Jean Valjean jubilant over the death of Javet, whose life he has made an enormous sacrifice to save.
Likewise, Javert would never attack Cosette; he was obsessively professional, not cruel. Nor would end his life (with minimal explanation, no less) in front of Valjean. Marius would NEVER act like Enjolras (oh, I forgot, there IS no Enjolras). Neither Marius NOR Enjolras would smile at remarks about making love to Cosette, so I find it hard to believe that some mutant hybrid Marjolras would. Cosette would never consider leaving Marius, her soulmate, to stay with Valjean, her adoptive father. And above all, Jean Valjean would NEVER, EVER fall in love with Fantine. The mere suggestion of this limits the portrayal of his charity to people he takes a special interest in.
Small variations are to be expected in any film adaptation of a book, but these all completely distort characters. The people who made this movie may have gotten the message (love, charity, etc.), but they missed the point.
If you've never read the book, see this movie. It is touching and carries a good message.
But it is not Les Misˇrables.
72 A Terrible Adaptation
This is a good movie. I mean, not badly cast. Lovingly done. The acting is great. Yeah, you should enjoy it. Assuming you know absolutely nothing about Victor Hugo's original story. The truth is, if I didn't know better, I'd say whoever wrote the script never read Hugo's masterpiece and based it completely on the 1935 version. Come to think of it, I don't know better. That's probably exactly what happened.
I never thought I'd say this, but I am so glad Hugo didn't have to live to see this movie.
If you've read the book, you will hate this film. TRUST me. The plot, especially toward the end, is mercilessly butchered and rewritten. At some points it becomes utterly unrecognizable. Many of the revisions completely miss or even destroy the essence of characters, and some do not even make sense, the movie ending with Jean Valjean jubilant over the death of Javet, whose life he has made an enormous sacrifice to save.
Likewise, Javert would never attack Cosette; he was obsessively professional, not cruel. Nor would end his life (with minimal explanation, no less) in front of Valjean. Marius would NEVER act like Enjolras (oh, I forgot, there IS no Enjolras). Neither Marius NOR Enjolras would smile at remarks about making love to Cosette, so I find it hard to believe that some mutant hybrid Marjolras would. Cosette would never consider leaving Marius, her soulmate, to stay with Valjean, her adoptive father. And above all, Jean Valjean would NEVER, EVER fall in love with Fantine. The mere suggestion of this limits the portrayal of his charity to people he takes a special interest in.
Small variations are to be expected in any film adaptation of a book, but these all completely distort characters. The people who made this movie may have gotten the message (love, charity, etc.), but they missed the point.
If you've never read the book, see this movie. It is touching and carries a good message.
But it is not Les Misˇrables.
73 Les Miserables
Les Miserables is a great film that everyone should watch. It shows how one person can matter so much to so many. It's setting is so realistic and it gets you into the movie. I thought it only lasted an hour instead of two. The actors really bring out their parts. The emotion flows in this film like something I rarely see. I really enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anybody.
74 Forget the book if you can and give this movie a chance.
If you're expecting a movie that follows the book exactly (as one would, seeing that they have the same title), you will be disappointed. But that doesn't mean that this isn't a worthwhile movie. Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush's performance make this one worth watching. I have never read the book or seen the play, so I suppose I am at a certain advantage because I do not have anything to measure this film against and I just accept this movie as any other movie. The only reason it doesn't get 5 stars from me is because I thought the scene where the lady tries to get the little girl to sit in Valjean's lap in a sexually suggestive way was disgusting. Fast forward through that part, and give it a chance!
75 A grate movie a must see
I loved this movie. It was the very first time I saw it and it was grate. I say this is a must see.
76 Les Miserables: The movie
I did not like this movie much at all! I thought that it was good, but it didn't stick to the story at all. Eponine wasn't even in it. Whoever made this movie had a really great chance to make something really, really, fabulous, but I think that they blew it. Next time they make a movie based on an excellent classic like Les Miserables they should base it closer to the story.
77 This Movie Does an Injutice to Victor Hugo's Brilliant Novel
Having read Victor Hugo's masterpiece of French literature, I was disappointed to no end by this movie adaptation. Firstly, I must say that the casting was superbly done - the respective actors perfectly match ones illusion of Hugo's protagonists (Claire Danes and Jeffrey Rush are absolutely perfect fits). However the story is a `quickie'. It leaves out much information about the characters, thereby not endearing us to them as Hugo was able to do in his text. The movie has become nothing more than a `run-of-the-mill' Hollywood love story. In doing so, it becomes shallow, and the movie viewer is not able to appreciate the true intricacy of Hugo's work; the many crossing of paths, the social commentary which accompanies the story. The ending in particular is terribly disappointing. It ends when the novel is in its twilight stage, though with an immensely interesting part to come. To be honest, I read the epic novel first, loving it greatly for the genius evident in it, and I put-off watching the movie until after reading the 1200 odd pages of text, so as not to spoil the ending - words can not describe the disappointment, the movie does a great injustice to the book. In my opinion, save yourself the time of watching the video and begin to read the unabridged text - you will be astounded by the continual quality and pace of such a long book (but by no means tedious!).
78 Miserable Les Miserables
I guess I would have thought of this movie as fair enough had I not both read the book and seen the musical in advance. Having done both, however, I was very disapointed with this version of Victor Hugo's great tale of the French Revolution.
Although Bille August is a great director, this movie is much too typical of Hollywood to be very interesting. Eponine is written out of the story(!). The whole political message (of quite a historical importance) has had to give way for a clishˇ love-story.
Compared to the Marius in the book and in the musical, this Marius seems stupid and superficial.
My advice is: Do not buy/rent this movie if you have read the book or seen the musical. It will bore and disapoint you.
79 My all-time favorite
I saw this film a few years ago, and had never experienced the novel or musical versions of the story. The film grabbed me, galvanized me, turned my heart inside out and back again... and I'm not an easy guy to do that to. I must admit that I agree with the other reviews on this page that describe the second half of the film - and its focus on "teen angst" - as less enjoyable; but for me, their only ultimate effect is to cause Valjean's nobility and humility to shine even more as the focus switches to emotions and relationships which are shallow and superfluous compared to his own.
After watching this film several times and only enjoying it more each time, I decided it was time to read the novel. I did so, and enjoyed it immensely, staying up to 4 am and getting teary-eyed as I read the final scenes. But I think the film shines even by comparison to this classic work, and it remains my all-time favorite movie.
Liam Neeson became my favorite actor because of this film, and still holds that place. His portrayal is perfect as far as I'm concerned. The burst of violence against Javert doesn't seem inconsistent. The more controversial striking of Cosette doesn't strike me as particularly out of character. To me, it serves to show that Valjean has tremendous energy, and his maintaining a calm exterior is only a statement of his even greater self-control. Most of all, it shows how totally his heart is tied to Cosette, and how devastated he is by the threat of losing her (something that the film had relatively few other chances to depict, compared to the book). That scene might have been inconsistent, but even if so, Neeson's flawless acting saved it from being so.
80 Les Miz fans beware
I was extremely disappointed by this adaptation of the book. Having read the book and seen the musical, I was unable to watch the movie as a uninfluenced obserever and so I was very upset by what they chose to include and leave out from the book. I have yet to see an adaptation of this book that is worthy of what Victor Hugo wrote. They turn a story full of intricate connections and wonderful character development into what Hollywood is famous for, romance and a little action. Marius bares little resemblance to the character that Hugo formed, neither does Cosette. And where was Eponine? As a book and as a musical, this story moves me, as a movie, it was a giant flop.
If you are a fan of the book, stay away from the movie. If you watched this movie as though it was the book, you are far off the mark.
81 Great acting, disappointing end, though...
The thing I liked most about this movie was the amazing chemestry between Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush... They both, I thought, did an excellent job of depicting the conflict between Valjean and Javert. I was a little disappointed with the ending, though - When I watched it for the first time, I wasn't expecting it to have ended where it did (Javert's death). I haven't read the book, but I have seen the broadway play a couple of times, and I was expecting it to have followed the storyline of the play a little more than it did, since the play is hugely popular. I was also a little disappointed that Eponine was virtually non-existant in this movie - I don't recall seeing her appear, maybe she might have, but I missed her. I do think that it was worth the money to see in the theater, and to buy on VHS or DVD, so I gave it 4 stars, because the acting is really good, which in turn makes it worthwile and entertaining for me to watch, despite these few minor disappointments I had regarding the parts that were left out from the play... Also, if you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this (I'm a Liam Neeson fan), it could also be worth your while, since I thought the acting and portrayal of all the major characters was superb, in my opinion.
82 A perfect drama with a perfect cast!
I watched "Les Miserables" expecting an OK movie, yet I was astonished at the discovery of one of the best movies of all times! Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Bush make the perfect pair, and the acting talent of Uma Thurman and Claire Danes just adds to the quality. Also, the story was compelling and beautifully written, adapted from the novel by Victor Hugo. The plot is as follows: a convict on parole -- Jean Veljean -- is shown hospitality by a priest and his wife, but in the middle of the night he steals from the man and escapes. When he is caught and brought back to the priest, the priest lets him go, and gives him a chance to become a new man. Years later Jean becomes the mayor of a small town by the name of Vigo, but is endangered when a new inspector comes to town, who just happens to be Jean's old parole officer. Suddenly he is reminded of the fact that in France once you are a convict you remain a convict for life, and that he must accomplish a great struggle for freedom. I shall say no more, for I neither wish to spoil the ending for you, nor give away the whole story. I guess the best way I can sum all this up is by making the following statement: buy this movie, and you won't regret it!
83 Beautifully acted, One of the best movies!
True, it is not quite the book, but you must give credit to the writers and director for making such a long book into a wonderful movie which explains the finer points of the book so well! Les Miserables is a wonderful movie, and Liam Neeson and Geofferey Rush are superb in their roles! I have read the complete book, as well as watched the movie several times, both are wonderful. I do suggest watching the movie before reading the book, it will make it much easier to understand.
This movie is absolutely captivating, you can't help but hate Javert, and love Jean Valjean, and wish for Marius and Cosette to fall in love. Yes, while the book goes much farther into detail, the movie captures it beautifully...
84 A great movie...
The tragic tale of Jean Valjean is remade wonderfully in this tale of "the miserable". I aggre a bit on the excess amount of focus on cosette, for this story is supposed to be about Jean Valjean. However, This is an excellent movie still, an neeson is very well cast as Jean Valjean.
85 A great film in its own right!
Plot spoilers ahead . . . I've never read the book, so I can't say if this film does a fair adaptation of that or not, but I know the plot of the musical and this does a pretty good job of following it. I know Eponine is cut out of the film entirely, and that characters have slightly different personalities, but what's the point of doing a re-make if everything is the _same_ as all the other versions? I think what I liked best about this film was that it gave it a happy ending without _changing_ anything. It simply cut off the rest of the plot: Javier jumps into the Seine, and Jean Valjean walks away, finally smiling, realizing that, at long last, he was free. That's it; the end; role credits. Nothing changed; we just don't stick around to see if Valjean does indeed die at the "actual end". I was very happy to assume that Valjean goes on to see Marius and Cosette marry and lives the rest of his life in freedom and peace. The acting is superb, the music haunting. Give this film a try! I must say I miss hearing "Master of the House", though . . . :)
86 THIS WAS A GOOD DRAMA
I rarely find drama's appealing. However, this was a good movie. It had a good storyline. People were actually acting in the 90's! Liam Neeson is a good actor. He did a great job. I really felt for him. He was put through alot of pain and he still surived. This is a good movie that teaches you about life. Good will always win in the end. The music was really deep. I'm thinking on checking out the soundtrack. I think this movie deserved some more attention. It's worth seeing more than once.
87 Great movie, unfair to criticize due to differences
I have seen this movie and read the book. Although the film *is* missing alot from the book, it is a film and should be seen as that. Seeing this movie purely as a movie and disregarding the book, it is fine movie with good story elements, nice characters, a wonderful valjean (neeson), great score, and absolutely beautiful locales etc. I really enjoyed the whole tone of the movie. Hollywood always takes different perspectives on books, so I'm not going to make this one lose any stars because it isn't like the book. It doesn't have to be. There isn't a law stating all movies have to be exactly like the book or include your favorite character from the play.
88 Gavroche's momes! No Eponine! an excellent film!
How excellent to keep Gavroches "babies" in the story! I've not seen a previous version to do so. I also must say I disagree with several reviewers opinion of Eponine. The Bishop is nearly the most important character in the entire story, perhaps more important than Valjean. Eponine was a minor character that deserved what came to her after she treated Cosette so badly as a child. Well, that's a bit harsh, but I'm tired of all you little girls singing "on my own" in front of your mirrors with a lone tear drop in your eye. I do miss M. Gillenormand however. He was one of my favorites.
Well, Liam Neeson gives a superb performance as Valjean, and Geoffrey Rush is only rivaled by Charles Laughton for Best Javert.
Most of all I loved this movie for keeping in lots of juicy details that other movie versions failed to (Javert's snuffing habit). It's one of the most faithful movie versions I've seen, and manages to be wonderfully moving, and fresh. I loved it in the theatre, can't wait to get the DVD.
89 hmmmmm
had the director / scriptwriter actually read the book?
i think not.
not a bad film, but it just bears no resmblance to the book. and the book, being one of the finest pieces of literature i can think of, deserved a film that could do it justice.
good cast, good acting, and mmmmm was marius cute, but a wasted oppurtunity.
90 Perfect
This Movie could not have been more perfect. It was not too long, not too short. I'm sorry but some movies like the ones mentioned by the reviewer in the top 500 reviewers catagory, were the most boring and energy depleting films in the history of motion pictures. The only kind of person who sits through those movies does not have a social life. This movie has everything in it and it does not take forever and ever and ever and ever to tell the most simple yet endearing and heartfelt story. Its got all the major hollywood elements without going to the extreme. Its got sex, violonce, rebellion, hatred, love, passion, twists, turns, suspense, drama, mercy, and most importantly it depicts an act of history in one of the most pleasurable ways, In the form of a movie. And for all you students out there, enjoy not reading the book.
91 Great, if you haven't read the book.
This video is great for those who have not read the book or are not familiar with the entire story line. The video leaves so much out that is is a real disappointment to anyone who is familiar with the story line, especially to those of us who have read the book.
The acting is great and the characters are great. The video would be good to see before reading the book in order to visualize better the various parts of the story that are covered in the video.
To those of you who have read the book I would suggest that you rent the video if you can but don't waste the money on buying it.
If you have not read the book or a synopsis of the book, then buy the video but follow it up with the book or an audio version of the book.
92 Great movie, fair adaption
Les Misˇrables - 1998 film version - formal review
This newest film version of Les Misˇrables presents this classic story as the grand sweeping epic that it is, yet diverges from the original story, leaving much to be desired. Fans of Victor Hugo's beloved novel, published in 1862, and of the popular musical, produced in 1985, may be disappointed in this movie's truncated version of the story. However, the film manages to keep intact the main themes of Hugo's story of love, mercy, and redemption.
As a movie in its own right, this film deserves the highest praise. As historical drama it is of the highest quality. The movie portrays Jean Valjean as a true hero, a person whom we can admire because of his courage and self-sacrificing commitment to godly principle. The acting is excellent -- Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush star as Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert, and both simply become their characters. Uma Thurman gives an exceptional performance as Fantine. The soundtrack for the film is beautiful as well.
However, this movie cannot be evaluated separately from the novel and musical (which follows the novel quite closely and has gained a wide following of devoted fans). In terms of faithfulness to the original story, the film falls short. The first half of the movie follows the novel quite well; much of the screenplay is taken almost directly from the book, and no important characters or events are removed. Unfortunately, however, the first half of the movie covers less than one third of the story. In the second half, the movie diverges widely from the original. Enthusiasts of the musical and novel will be disappointed to see that two important characters from the Paris setting, Enjolras and Eponine -- both of whom are popular favorites among fans -- are completely eliminated from the film, their roles given to other characters or deleted altogether. The second half of the film is mercilessly truncated and adapted.
The film's portrayal of Cosette as a rather spoiled young woman who is always ready to pout if she doesn't get her way is inconsistent with the sweet and oblivious Cosette of Hugo's novel. The character of Javert, the obsessed policeman who hounds Jean Valjean, is also altered -- perhaps more subtly -- to make him out as the depraved villain of the story, when in the novel and musical he is more complex and less of a villain. The other characters, however, are faithfully portrayed in the film.
Even in the second half, the movie does shine at times. The depiction of Jean Valjean continues to be brilliant (except for one scene in which he slaps Cosette and then reveals his past to her, both actions in complete inconsistency with his character according to Hugo). The last fifteen minutes of the film do portray well the important universal theme of Justice versus Mercy. However, the movie curtails the original story, robbing it of a good deal of its poignancy.
Altogether, though, the film manages to preserve the main themes and characters of the original novel. It serves as a good introduction to the story. It should inspire viewers to read the original book and listen to the musical as well!
93 wonderful actors, screen writer needs a little work
I have read the unabridged book, seen three version of the movie, and seen the musical (I have almost every song memorized). Les Miserables is almost a hobby with me. The musical as I think most people agree is by far the best representation of the novel. But this was by far the best of all the movies. The filming was fantastic and all of the actors (except Marius who was awful) were perfect for their parts. I have noticed that a lot of people have criticized Claire Danes for her role as Cosette. It wasn't her fault that the screen writer wrote her part wrong, she made the best of what she had to work with. Marius was one of the things that I hated most about the movie. Marius was taller than Cosette, he was also supposed to be handsome, not to mention that this guy was a bad actor, at least in this part. I have no complaints againts Liam Neeson's performance. He was absoulutly perfect for this part and I have not yet seen a Valjean that compares with him, besides Colm Wilkinson (from the musical). Some people have complained that Valjean would never hit the bishop, hit Cosette or smile at Javert's death (though I did not like the end either, it is not true that he was laughing at Javert's death he was happy to be free) all of these flaws are again the fault of the writer. Fantine was fabulous only I would have changed a few of the scenes with her in it. Also Valjean never fell in love with her but I thought that was kind of a interesting twist, I mean you can't wxpect everything to be like the book. Geoffery Rush also did a great job as the merciless Javert. Gavoroche was great.
Though they did leave out a few parts (I really missed Eponine) and I personally would have done a few parts differently, I don't want to sound nagative about the script here I really thought they did a good job with the parts with the bishop, young Cosette, the cart scene, and the courtroom, considering the time limit of the movie and that the couldn't show what the actors were thinking.
I can live with most of the flaws, my major complaint about this movie is the ending which should have been completing different.
94 Six hours wouldn't have killed us!
I admit - I'm an inveterate windbag devotee. I've watched the entire "Civil War" documentary without flinching, I've watched A&E's six hour "Pride and Prejudice" twice in row, I've read "Gone with the Wind" thrice, and I even read "Les Miserables" *including* the bit about Waterloo. Presuming that those who went out of their way to see this version of "Les Miserables" at least trudged through the 1000+ page book and came back for more, would it have been too much to expect more than the two hours with a mangled middle and a truncated end which we were given? Never! The musical lovingly gives us three hours - are three hours too much for those who read the book in three months? No!
Then *why* - given the phenominal casting and performance of Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean, the stirring music and gripping set and costume design, the loving, lingering first half of the script, should the director suddenly turn around once we hit Paris? Could the same pen which added depth and beauty to the Valjean/Fantine line produce the jeuvenile temper tantrums of this skewed Cosette? Could he have at one time kept in the Bishop and at another ignore Eponine? The movie felt like two different films altogether - one, Les Miserables in all its poignant glory; the other, a dribble-nosed shallow escapade through a half-realised 1860's.
The movie is worth renting, if only for Liam Neeson's definitive Valjean, and for the first half of the movie. However, lovers of the book and/or play would do well to stop the film as soon as they reach Paris, and reach for the novel instead.
95 Great movie - poor adaptation
As a film in itself, this version of Hugo's classic is excellent, but as an adaptation of the novel, it leaves a lot to be desired. Jean Valjean's character is distorted, and he is not the man whom Hugo, in my opinion, intended to portray. The satisfaction displayed by Liam Neeson after Javert's suicide is inappropriate, since Valjean neither witnesses nor delights in his adversary's death in the original text.
However, Geoffrey Rush is the ideal personification of Hugo's pursuer figure, and is highly dislikeable, although perhaps slightly less admirable in his duties than Hugo had intended.
On the whole, this film manages to convey most of the events, characters, themes, and politics of the novel quite well. There are of course discrepancies whose imporatnce varies greatly. For example, the ending of the film in no way corresponds to that of the book - indeed, where are the last chapters of the novel?
I would recommend that, if anyone is intending to buy the video of the film, they should also buy the book, which truly is a work of art. Hugo's characters deserve to be fully understood.
96 Didn't read the book -- THIS IS AN EXCELLENT FILM
I rented this film when there wasn't anything else left -- and It has become one of my favorites.[now purchased] Although a classic, it sounded dreadfully boring... However turned out to be one the best stories of the human spirit & forgiveness. Liam Neeson is incredible... DVD /5.1 makes it superb. A MUST SEE. Will have to consider reading the 1500 page monster.
97 One question...
Did the writer of the screenplay even READ Hugo's masterpiece novel? This movie may be nice-looking, have a generally excellent cast (with the exclusion of the whiny Claire Danes as Cosette), but in everything else, it falls sickeningly short of the mark. First off, one of Hugo's chief themes in Les Miserables is redemption; Jean Valjean becomes a saint-like man after being saved by the kindly Bishop of Digne, he goes from an embittered man to a gentle, merciful man, not a wicked convict to a frightened man on the run! This film lost that essence of redemption and thus lost one of the most important parts that made Les Miserables what it is. Also, we were shown that the screenplay writer obviously didn't know who was who in the novel; Marius takes the place of the god-like (they liken him to Apollo in the novel) Enjolras as the student leader, they completely lose the political pun of the Friends of the A B C (ah-BAY-SAY! )... and other small errors that are altogether a display of laziness or dispassion on the part of the writers. The insurrection of the students gets turned into a five minute action scene that serves no purpose in the film thanks to the loss of an ample description of the troubles in Paris.
But back to characterization problems. As above, Valjean has become a harsh, paranoid old man on the run, whereas Javert has become a selfish, overly ambitious cop with an unhealthy obsession and a nasty personality. Cosette has become a headstrong, spoiled little brat as opposed to a kindly young lady in love, and Marius... Marius has turned into Enjolras with his hair dyed black, too many freckles, and a talent for writing love letters in his spare time. Oh yes- one more question. Where are t
