Rating: 
Summary: This is not Les Miserables
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Well acted, beautifully photographed
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good... Inconsistant
Review: 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. ^.^;;
Rating:
Summary: mercy over justice; forgivness over revenge; love over hate
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: This is not Les Miserables
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Book, Great Movie
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A Terrible Adaptation
Review: 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 Misérables.
Rating:
Summary: Les Miserables
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Forget the book if you can and give this movie a chance.
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: A grate movie a must see
Review: I loved this movie. It was the very first time I saw it and it was grate. I say this is a must see.
|
