Les Miserables

Rating:
Summary: Didn't read the book -- THIS IS AN EXCELLENT FILM
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: One question...
Review: 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 the Thenardiers and their daughters? For that matter-- why didn't the other students get their moments in the spotlight? If a musical can do a better job at illustrating the theme and characterizations true to the novel on which it's based-- something is most certainly wrong with this film. There are countless more mistakes in this film, but some have already been mentioned in other reviews, and there are simply too many to be counted... A pity; this film could have had promise, being taken off of such a beautiful story...

Rating:
Summary: wonderful, i don't care what those other idiots say!
Review: This is a masterpeice in itself. I don't think that it's fair that people were saying that the Valjean in the movie was happy that Javert was dead, he was happy because he was free! Wouldn't you be happy if all your life you'd been running and you were finally free? I mean, not having to worry about Javert or any other jerkfaces like him would be a wonderful, beyond wonderful feeling! He had a right to walk away smiling. He probably would've jumped in the river to save Javert, but I guess he knew that that was what Javert wanted. The Valjean in the movie was one of the most noble men I have ever seen in my life, you don't much of that in movies nowadays. And about Valjean and Fantine being in love? I think that that was a major improvement over the book from what I've heard. It made the movie even nicer to watch, it made Valjean more human. This movie also proves that human nature isn't inherently evil, it just takes a simple act of kindness to change somebody like Valjean was when he was a convict. Javert was probably just possessed, I guess. And about the way it ended, leaving us hanging and all that? Well, that way, you can decide for yourself whether he goes back to Cosette, or goes on his way like in the book. The ending was suited for people with different points of view. One minor thing that I liked about the movie was the fact that they had a black guy in it, that was cool. He died a noble death and he was very brave and dashing. And Liam Neeson is a personal favorite of mine, so I have no problem with this movie whatsoever.

Rating:
Summary: See the musical instead!
Review: I definitely DO NOT recommend this video. It makes a mockery of one of the best stories of all time. The characters were okay, but they didn't seem like they knew what the story was about. Valjean is meant to be a caring person, if someone's just thrown himself into the River Seine, would you laugh. One of the most important thing was, where was Eponine and Enjolras. Eponine is one of the best characters in the story and Enjolras is one of the most courageous characters there is. The Thenardiers were in it for about 2 minutes and they didn't just give Cosette away that quickly. Another complaint is the barricade scene, that could have been one of the best moments in movie history, but it was boring. If you want something decent, SEE THE MUSICAL!

Rating:
Summary: more that just a weak movie
Review: The problem with this film is not that it deviates from the story line of the novel, the problem is that it changed what Victor Hugo was trying to say. This movie was extremely materialistic, especially that ending! All about material happiness and NO substance! Hugo wrote Les Miserables to combat that sort of philosophy not to support it! The writer of this film had no clue what Hugo was trying to say, thus we ended up with a Bishop who is an old sarcastic geezer, a Valjean who goes from being a mean thug to being a "nice thug," a Javert who is some sort of supper villain. . . etc True no film is going to be as good as the book, but there comes a point where there is a line drawn from 'not good' to 'down right offensive' - this film crossed that line one too many times. On the other hand the musical does a great jobs with the story AND the themes! I could go on forever but I won't. So instead of watching this film again do yourself a favor and read the book! It's sooooo much better than this film!

Rating:
Summary: Les Miserables for the masses
Review: While it is true that there is deviations from Hugo's immortal work, I believe that up until the ending (which falls short of the mark), the story line is true to the novel. My point is simply this: any novel converted to a movie must be edited. Any judgements to be made by those who know the source should take into account the motivations of the characters and the major details of the story, not wory if all 1463 pages were covered. I was moved by Jean Valjean's motivations to protect Cosette, to hide from Javert and project the godliness of the Bishop to all his actions. Liam Neeson is true to the character and Geoffrey Rush plays Javert par excellence. The character of Thenardier wasn't evil enough, however he was omitted from the second half of the story, where his evil and cunning are truly developed in the Novel. Cosette's character was a bit modernized and liberated too much.

Rating:
Summary: WHAT!
Review: Ahem. Actually, I happen to be one of those people who know the actual story "too well", and I think I am perfectly justified in rating the show the way I do. I don't deny that it was well-filmed, and that the acting was good, but, you see, what's the use of that when the characters which are being acted are so callow and unfaithful? The show had perfectly gruesome scripting. The thing that irked me the most about this show (and we are not even talking about the casting) is the total disrespectfulness which it showed towards Hugo's book. Accuracy has nothing to do with it (boy, if I went on that part of it we'd be here until next year). I mean to say, what is a person expected to think of a show titled "Les Miserables" which has got NO focus on les miserables in it (unless you count the fictitious and totally improbable queues of people lining up to get food from a wanted man who is just asking to be identified), and which actually goes out of its way to make the audience laugh [I watched this in a cinema, so I know] at the very things that Hugo was trying to make his readers see were tragic? Just one example: The Champmathieu (and he isn't called that in the show) courtroom scene. Everyone was laughing at poor Champmathieu. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE! And what was so great about the characterisation? The actors did the best they could, but in characters so flimsy, how could the show work? Look, the audience is actually left with the impression that Javert is the bad guy! Did you know that in the book there is NO bad guy, least of all Javert, and the only "evil" characters are Thenardier and Montparnasse? (and by the way, the way Marius was stalking Cosette in this version, he should have played MontP.) Les Miserables was a book with a moral, a book which played on the deeper strains of human compassion. In comparison the film is a parody. And obviously it was trying to rely mainly on three things to help it sell. Sex, violence and camp. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, though; these views are purely my own, and if you would like to express views to the contrary, you could contact me perhaps.

Rating:
Summary: Epic
Review: The problem with most reviewers of this film is that they simply know the story too well. You'll find in most reviews(as in Amazon's editorial one above) comparisons to the Hugo novel, or comparisons to 1995 Cluade Lelouch french version in other reviews.This is unfortunate (for them), they've simply seen to many movies and thus could never watch this one with an objective eye. I am not ashamed to say that I never saw another version of the story, nor have I read the book, and having just seen the film on video I can truly say that it is a magnificent epic. Beautifully photographed, acted and scored.The wonderfully controlled villanous performance by the great Geoffery Rush is particulary brilliant, he is a man who simply must do his job, a man who aspires to be a perfect law machine through brutality. The reason why I don't give 5 stars is that in the final third the story shifts to a somewhat less interesting story of youthful romance, but the film recovers with a great final scene.This film didn't receieve much press or hype, but I still advice you to check it out, especially if you're not familiar with the story, beause for much of the time it really soars.

Rating:
Summary: IF YOU LIKED THE PLAY, YOU WILL LIKE THIS MOVIE!
Review: Because I love the play so much, I didn't think I would like a movie version of this story. When I saw it, I was happily surprised! The story is a little different, and things have been inserted and deleted, but it still remains a grand, swirling epic. Even though Eponine (my favorite character) was left out of this version, I still liked it alot. For anyone who liked the play, I would recommend this. (the ending is happier!)

Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking and glorious... a true classic.
Review: Amybe not so popular among younger people, which is why it slipped through the cracks and was soon forgotten, but this film is an absolute wonder by all means. Delivering powerful performances by a talented cast, and beautious scenery, this film depicts the life of a convict who is transformed by a single act of kindness, with a detective on his tail for over twenty years. Not exactly like the book, but that doesn't make it worse. It's a winner, and if you're a fan of the movies Elizabeth and Braveheart, then rent this one tonight! The DVD release is wonderfully mastered, with a widescreen format to truly enjoy the intended images, two Dolby soundtracks that give high-guality sound, and a theatrical trailer. Give this one a chance; you won't be sorry.