Rating: 
Summary: Best Movie of the Past 8 Years
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Determination
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible Interpretation of the Story
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: I thought it an excellent movie
Review:
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
Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Literary Homicide
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: A movie that deserves to be seen
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A classic on TV
Review: 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...
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent acting, but poor characterization
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Great movie!
Review: 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!
| 
