Customer Reviews

Les Miserables

5 star:		(129)
4 star:		(57)
3 star:		(23)
2 star:		(28)
1 star:		(32)

 

 

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!

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.

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...

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.

It should be obvious to anyone that the task of adapting a 1400 page book of the complexity of Les Miserables into a two hour movie is going to be tough. Of course things were left out!!

If you take the film on its own merit, without making comparisons it can be tremendously moving. I found the story to be deeply touching--it's not just about an ex-convict trying to make a better life for himself and for others. But the way he managed to forgive, over and over, as he had been forgiven by the Bishop, is amazing! I admit that I wanted him to shoot the inspector when he had the chance, in the alley and I groaned when he let him go. I groaned some more when he let Cossette stay one more evening to meet her beloved, instead of just grabbing her and carrying her to safety. The power of his forgiveness and intense self-sacrificial love was amazing. And I loved the ending!

I found Liam Neeson to be superlative as ValJean. His strength and tenderness touched me deeply. Jeffrey Rush as ValJean's nemesis, is very good at embodying rigid legalist righteousness. These two mirror one another in a perfect way! Uma Thurman is good as the beautiful, pathetic woman whom ValJean befriends. I found Claire Daines a little disappointing as Cossette. Her lapses into an American accent seemed jarring and her behavior seemed at times too "modern" and trivial for the story. She seemed more like some girl you'd see shopping at the Mall, than a girl raised in a strict French convent with an adoring "father." I found "Marius" less than impressive, too. This did weaken the last portion of the film that focused on their romance. It did seem improbable that such a deep love would have formed in such a short time, but I guess that's how it is in times of war...!

However the power of the story and the performance of Neeson make up for the flaws. See it---you'll want to be a better person!

There were too many flaws in this movie to name, so I'll stick with the two that stuck out to me the most: the absence of both Enjolras and Eponine. Though not main characters, they are central ones, crucial to both the plot and the theme of Les Miserables: Eponine was the main symbol of the misery that the social system inflicted on the poor; Enjolras was the idealistic leader willing to sacrifice everything in order to end that misery for all. These two are perhaps the most tragic figures in the book and musical, for they gave up everything--their own lives--out of unrequited love (Eponine for Marius, Enjolras for France and her people), and this selfless love, personified in the characters of Enjolras and Eponine as well as Valjean and Fantine, is one of the basic underlying themes of the story. Plotwise, Enjolras and Eponine are vital characters; Eponine, despite her feelings for Marius, brings Marius and Cosette together; and Enjolras is the one who makes the barricade--and thus Valjean's rescue of both Marius and Javert, acts which confirm his saintly nobility--possible. It was out of character for Marius to be the leader, for he did not have the unyielding idealism and self-sacrificing nature of Enjolras. The students wouldn't have followed someone more dedicated to a girl and his own feelings than to them and their cause. (And by the way, what happened to the Friends of the ABC?) Indeed, the entire movie is filled with faulty characterization: Valjean and Fantine were not in love, Valjean would not slap Cosette and would not have revealed his past to her so soon, and he definitely would not smile after watching Javert die. It would be extremely difficult for a film to do Les Miserables justice, but the three-and-a-half hour musical certainly does so, remaining true to the intent of the novel. Considering the talented acting this movie had, I expected better. But even great acting can't save a movie whose plot is faulty, ambiguous, and unfaithful to the original work. Taking artistic license is one thing, but destroying the story is another--and this movie is much closer to the latter than it is to the former.

I can't judge this movie fairly. I have read the book and watched the musical, both live and on DVD. So, naturally, I will be making subconscious comparisons, even though we all know that movies generally undertake their own artistic direction.

For one, although some people have claimed the storyline to be jumpy, I thought it was rather smooth-flowing, possibly because I already know the story beforehand. Although changes were made to the original story, for example, Valjean admitting to Cosette that he is a convict when he only did so before he died in the end, and Cosette remembering that Valjean is not her father when it was originally intended for her to believe that he was her real father, these changes were probably made to accommodate the short play time (2 hours is barely enough to fit in a 1484-pages story).

Liam Neeson portrayed Valjean to be exactly the way Hugo would have intended Valjean to be. In the beginning, he was a hard, animalistic beast of a man. But Neeson is able to morph into the gentle Mayor with ease, and that highlights Valjean's transformation. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as Javert. Never was there anyone more suited to play the cold, sadistic inspector. Uma Thurman is surprisingly convincing as Fantine. I had begun to stereotype her as the sort of action-thriller-sci-fi flick girl but this proved me wrong. Watch this movie for these three actors alone, for they bring class to your living room.

What I didn't like about the movie was the lack of development on the revolution. Hugo was a revolutionary. He wanted Les Mis to ignite the people's spirits. The revolution was a crucial scene, and the death of the revolutionaries a touching one. Through this movie, I can barely recognize which ones are Enjolras, Courfeyrac, Feuilly etc and yet the character names appear on the credit roll in the end.

The change of the ending (with Valjean walking free) did not leave much of an impact on me compared with the original ending. I loved the last page of Hugo's novel, where Cosette read Valjean's letter. Valjean had a tragic life. He was one of the Les Miserables, the underdogs, the wretched. For me, they had distorted the true message of Les Mis by changing the ending of the wonderful classic.

What can I say about this film? Liam Neeson as Valjean. Good choice, actor wise. He wasnt quite the right build, but a good performance. Geoffrey Rush as Javert. Perfect choice. Couldnt have had a more perfect Javert if they tried. Uma Thurman as Fantine. Brilliant. She was the best thing about this movie. She ranks up there with Ruthie Henshall as the best ever Fantines. Claire Danes. Okay I guess. She's a bit too teeny for the part, but she can really turn on the tears when she needs to. Sylvie Koblizkova as Eponine. She was great. Her performance moved me like no other. In fact, if you look really closely in the background of the Thenardiers Inn when Valjean goes to get Cossette, you can see her playing with Azelma. That's it. Was she in love with Marius? No. Does she take him to Cossette? No. Does she take Marius's bullet? No. Did she have lines? No. How about we remake Star Wars and get rid of Han Solo. Yes, I know what your thinking. That's insane.

This was a terrible movie. For many reasons. They messed up the characters. Valjean would NEVER NEVER hit Cossette. NEVER. She was his life. Valjean doesnt bea up Javert. Valjean doesnt hit the Bishop. The man hits NO-ONE! Cossette would NEVER disobey her father! They seemed to find it neccessary to turn Cossette into a modern day teenager. She wasnt. She doesnt run away to see MArius, he sneaks into her garden. And since when did Marius have time to do any of the planning required for the revolution? That's where Enjolras was needed. They didnt cut Enjolras out of the film, they just didnt introduce him. THey ddint introduce any of Marius's friends.

They barricade was huge. About 2 feet high. It was about 10 feet+ in the book. The most the films barricade would have done was stub the enemys toes.

The film ended over 100 pages before the end of teh book. One of the most brilliant endings in literature was cut out completely. (SPOILER) and when Javert kills himself, Valjean is nowhere near him.

Where was Thenardiers gang? Where was the attack on the Rue Plumet? Why did Fantine have ratty black hair? And Valjean DID know how to read! He taught himself in prison! duh!

The film was beautifully filmed. When Javert hits the water....woah. But apart from that, this film ruined the greatest story of all time, removed one of the best characters ever (Eponine) and messed up one of the best romances ever. When Valjean hit Cossette, I'm sure I heard Victor Hugo turn in his grave.

See this if you havent read, or have no respect for the book. Next time Hollywood wants to butcher a classic, they could at least have the courtesy to change the title.

Had anyone associated with this movie read Victor Hugo's soul-moving book, they would have known that Jean Valjean could not possibly have backhanded Cosette while screaming accusations in her face, nor could he have repeatedly smashed Javert's head against a rock wall. Such thoughts and impulses had been removed from his spirit, and he absolutely adored Cosette. The bishop, so near to God in the book, was played here with a ecclesiastical and superior manner. Without looking into the souls of the characters, which this movie did not do, their actions cannot be explained. Read the unabridged book, then watch the French version with Gerard Depardieu. If you read the book, you will not miss the lack of subtitles. Another version worth watching is the 1978 version with Anthony Perkins as Javert. Anthony Perkins was BORN to play Javert; his interpretation brings the book to life. To my sorrow, the movie is chopped apart and has the most appalling Disneyland ending. As a postscript, stumbling across the 10th Anniversary London concert, sold on DVD and CD as "The Dream Cast in Concert," brought me to my knees in tears and praise, caused me to buy and read the "New Unabridged Paperback" which I am now rereading, and ultimately to purchase tickets to fly to London to see the musical at Her Majesty's Theatre. I confess to having fallen completely in love with this story!

I guess first things first. I have read the book, and it is beautifully written (by a man who knew all but nothing about writing, too). However, making a film that precisely follows it would be undesirable on many different levels. Victor Hugo goes off on a detailed history of the French Revolution rather abruptly towards the middle of the book, and to make a long story short, much of the book is just that... abrupt. By the time you get back to "actuality" you've forgotten what you read before. Beautiful writing, but it would make a horrid movie.

What they have done here is taken that and removed all the abruptness and detours. They singled out the actual plot of the story itself, and turned it into a film that -as a film in and of itself- is magnificent. Also, those who enjoy good music will be in heaven... I could watch the movie just to listen to it alone. The acting is well-done, with little strain. The story flows. It's moving. The filmography is appealing. And it makes you think.

While it doesn't imitate the book as closely as some fans may wish, I give it five stars for being a terrific MOVIE that still captures the essence of Victor Hugo's writing.