Rating: 
Summary: THIS WAS A GOOD DRAMA
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie, unfair to criticize due to differences
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Gavroche's momes! No Eponine! an excellent film!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: hmmmmm
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Great, if you haven't read the book.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie, fair adaption
Review: Les Misérables - 1998 film version - formal review This newest film version of Les Misérables 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!
Rating:
Summary: wonderful actors, screen writer needs a little work
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Six hours wouldn't have killed us!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie - poor adaptation
Review: 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.
| 
