Les Miserables

Rating:
Summary: A lot missing but a beautiful movie none the less.
Review: Where is Coloniel Pontmercy, Epipone, Thenardier in the sewer,or as Marius' neighbor, & what about the promenades in the park. There are several more points to be made from the book. However if you don't like books it is still a wonderful tearjerker. So much self sacrifice, the true meaning of love.

Rating:
Summary: Writers give Les Miserables bad name.
Review: The story of this film is great, and it has been made into a great musical, and now it has been made into a TERRIBLE MOVIE! The acting by Geoffrey Rush and Liam Nesson is totally bad, If the academy had awards for worst actor and supporting actor they would both deserve them. The writers of this waste of time have given Les Miserables, a classic story, a bad name. This is probably the worst film of 1998. It is over long and still not finished. I urge people who have seen the great musical to not see this film if they want to to have mostly good thoughts of the name Les Miserables. This should be one of the worst films you¹ll ever see. It is a waste of movie technology and ink. The writers bring shame to Victor Hugo, the author. If I could I'd give it NO STARS, but don't think that I think the story isn't great, because it is, and I definitely recommend the great musical, it was just made into a bad movie. A TERRIBLE MOVIE!

Rating:
Summary: Should have won an Oscar
Review: When I first saw this movie, I thought wow, this is the Oscar winner. It was so well done, that I was hooked on Les. Mis. from that point on. I have seen other versions and all are good, but this one was the best. It followed the book very well, with the acters and actresses given their all. One could actully see in their eyes the intense feelings the perfomers had for their roles. Yes, this is indeed a well acted, well staged, and well done porduction.

Rating:
Summary: Long and boring
Review: THE BROADWAY PREFORMANCE IS MUCH,MUCH BETTER! Bille August did all he could to make "Les Miserables" a good movie, but, alas, the director did not achieve this. Neeson and Rush played pretty well as Valjean and Javert, but they could not pull off the magic of the Broadway show. The movie was long, boring,and a disgrace to the show! IF YOU LIKED THE MOVIE,YOU'LL LOVE THE BROADWAY PLAY!

Rating:
Summary: A Very Memorable Film
Review: Superb acting all round! Liam Neeson was very convincing as Valjean, the tortured soul. Uma Thurman also gave a memorable performance as Fantine, whom Valjean fell in love with. Even the relatively unknown actor, Hans Matheson (as Marius, the student revolutionary leader) was very good. I haven't read the book, but I intend to pick it up soon because after watching the movie, the storyline really appealed to me. It's sad, beautiful, meaningful, exciting, dramatic and the cinematography and costumes were absolutely beautiful and enchanting. The story makes you think about life and people and what people are capable of doing and feeling. Victor Hugo is a splendid writer to have been able to weave such a wonderful story. Now I know why this is a timeless classic. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Highly recommended. I'm waiting eagerly for the video release.

Rating:
Summary: Best movie of all time!!!
Review: I must tell you, this is absolutely the best movie of all time. Liam Neeson (Schindler's List) is great as Jean Valjean, but Geoffrey Rush (Shine) is the most amazing talent ever. His potrayal of Javert is perfect!!! Everybody should see it.

Rating:
Summary: AMAZING
Review: I LIVED IN NEW JERSEY FOR 25 YEARS AND NEVER WENT TO SEE THE ON BROAWAY PERFORMANCE OF LES MIS. CAN IMAGINE??? WHAT A WASTE OF 25 YEARS.

Rating:
Summary: This movie took too many liberties with the original novel.
Review: I was extremely disappointed in this movie. It was not faithful in its retelling of the original novel and left out major characters and large portions of the story (the entire second half of it to be exact) Even the characters that were left in the story were not depicted in a manner close to Hugo's writing. However, I felt the actors did a wonderful job with the lines they were given. Anything with Liam Nissan is worth seeing. I don't understand why characters who were supposed to be French spoke with English accents, but after all the holes in the plot I guess I should have expected it.

Rating:
Summary: 1935's "Les Miserables" still remains unbettered!
Review: It may seem ridiculous to review a movie that you haven't seen; but actually, I'm not reviewing this one at all. I'm writing this to direct the people who were disappointed with this allegedly lukewarm adaptation to the version that still trumps all others, Darryl Zanuck's 1935 triumph "Les Miserables". Three things above all, make this the one to see: 1.) Frederic March and Charles Laughton can act rings around Neeson and Rush; 2.) You get more for your money--1 hr and 49 mins. of impeccably distilled Hugo, rather than 2-and-a-half hours of Hollywood rigmarole; 3.) The shattering ending is filmed full power, instead of the infuriatingly compromised denouement seen here (if the other reviews here do not lie!). Please take a moment and see my review for the 1935 masterpiece! (Warning: Amazon's 1935 recording apparently is dubbed by foreign actors and subtitled back into english. [God knows why!] Demand the geniune article!)

Rating:
Summary: never seen better
Review: its just amazing how the director caught the classic details and collected them from words in a book to living souls on a screen