Customer Reviews

Les Miserables [VHS]

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The original 1935 version is definetely the best here,and the 1952 version is okay, but more of a curiosity piece only, though it has its audience. The DVD transfer is excellent and the restoration process is super. I think that the Charles Laughton/Frederic March version is one of cinemas lost masterpieces and Laughtons performance was overlooked at the time because of "Mutiny on the Bounty" which was released in the same year. This DVD release will definetely enhance its reputation

Wonderful adaptation of this classic book! Michael Rennie gives a very good portrayal of the tortured then redeemed Jean Valjean and Robert Newton gives a wonderfully realistic portrayal of the zealous Inspector Javert! One aspect I thought added to the overall story, the fact that it was done in black and white; I thought it added to the overall grit of the story.

This IS the best film of ALL time! And I've been a movie addict for all my life. (about 40 yrs now). Ive seen many movies and have a long favorite list, but this is definately number one! Everything is perfect!
It has drama, romance, action, touching music and a great tearjerking ending! All performances could never be better! Fredric march & Charles Laughton (should have got Oscars, but who cares?) are at their best!
If you like great classics, this is it! I can go on & on & on...but will stop here! I am so glad it is on DVD now!

The element that should be regarded as the most important in a film adaptation of any novel is the DISTILLING of the author's main ideas, themes, and motifs into a tightly structured narrative; which is at once dramatically effective, develops smoothly, draws in it's characters strongly, action and dialogue are unified, and--as is always crucial in the cinema--visually arresting. In other words, a film--like a book--has to follow a definite, refined pattern that will bring it's ideas and themes to full realization and satisfaction. But, unlike the printed page, detail in the way of subplots, minor personages, or sociological ramblings must be sacrificed for the sake of unity, economy, and entertainment value. (Or as Hitch put it, "[F]or the sake of the human bladder.") Stories work best on the screen when told simply; with physical, verbal, audio, and visual CLUES serving to fill in the detail. So if you buy into the approach that a movie should not be just a book on film; or, more precisely, that a movie should be able to hold up on it's own, without the disclaimer that it was based on a classic novel, than this is immortality achieved. In summary, if you want a purer ESSENCE of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" than has ever been adapted for the screen, than this is the version for you! Unlike many older film adaptations of the classics, this one did not try to sell itself on star-power and prestige; nor did it, like most recent attempts, try to do so on budget, slickness, or box-office. In this brilliant evocation of Hugo's timeless story, screenwriter W.P. Lipscomb and director Richard Boleslawski pare down the mammoth novel into 1 hour and 49 minutes of riveting character study, high adventure, and sociological statement. The whole irony, incisiveness, warmth, humanity, and romantic heart are superbly conveyed in Lipscomb's intelligent and exciting script. Boleslawski (whose career was tragically short) augments the story with a high style, sympathetic handling of the characters, and careful approach to narrative. Photographer Gregg Toland (who was to later work on "Citizen Kane") stylishly illuminates and shadows the actors and sets. Above and beyond all, the lead performances of Frederic March as the pursued and persecuted Jean Valjean, and Charles Laughton as pursuer and persecutor Inspector Javert are nothing less than brilliant. In her review of the movie, all critic Pauline Kael could say about March were snipings about his high voice(!) and makeup. (Perhaps she wanted her idol Orson Welles [#@&*#!] in the role.) Apparently, she didn't realize that men with high(?) voices can have tragic lives too, and that the men who play them can achieve brilliance with them. Furthermore, she missed the fact that makeup (here actually rather discreet) does not make or break a performance. Indeed, Frederic March realized the character of Jean Valjean as no other actor has done before or since. His performance is of such vividness that you can see the complex inner conflicts his character suffers in his very eyes and body language; and is also one of refreshing honesty, humanity, and self-effacement. For any who have seen "Mutiny on the Bounty", you know just how marvelously Charles Laughton can play the scoundrel. Yet, here--in a sadly forgotten portrayal--his performance is far deeper, much more successfully fleshing out his character. One must see his opening and closing scenes to recognize the true depth of Javert's character, aspects which truly mould him as a tragic figure. These scenes, as all of his in the film, are played with a confident brilliance by Charles Laughton. It is one of the tragedies of Hollywood history that there was no Oscar category for his supporting role to qualify for in 1935. (In fact, incredibly, neither actor was nominated![though screenplay, photography, and the picture itself were]) For one to snub this movie for the sake of a handful of slightly quaint elements, such as the near lack of musical accompaniment, a couple of sentimental scenes and very minor personages, and Cozette's love interest (although I dare you to deny that he's more masculine than Leo DiCaprio!); I say, for one to reject this version based on these relatively unimportant elements only goes to prove their shallow outlook. I wonder, in another 60 years, which version is going to seem the least dated? With such a telling script, stylish direction and photography, two performances of brilliant immediacy, AND AN ENDING THAT IS NOT COMPROMISED, 1935's "Les Miserables" will still be the one against which all others will be compared!

Since this is the only way the Rennie version is available, it worth it's weight in gold - cinema gold. that is! The scene with the bishop's candle sticks is one of the most powerful in cinema history - thanks Victor (Hugo) and Michael (Rennie)!

Fredric March stars as Jean Valjean, a poor man sent to the galleys for stealing some bread for his sister and her child. After the hardships of his imprisonment, he is naturally a changed man, but he reforms himself and becomes a productive, highly respected citizen. In doing so, he violates the terms of his parole, and for that he has Charles Laughton, a police inspector, on his trail. Although the pursuit anchors the film, there is more going on here, as the dignity and rights of all men, rich or poor, convicts or not, is also a strong theme of Victor Hugo's novel and the film. March is excellent in his role, undergoing a number of physical transformations, while always conveying the honesty of the character underneath it all. Laughton is forceful as ever, this time as the inspector that is blinded by the law and cannot see the humanity behind the actions of others. The film has a number of chase sequences accompanied by music that will certainly remind viewers of a silent film. I don't know anything about the director, but I suspect he may have come from that era. The script weaves together the various elements of the story well, and viewers will come away from the film quite satisfied.

The 1935 version of Les Miserable is the best adaptation of all of the filmed versions. Charles Laughton is magnificent!!! This item is a great value because it has the 1935 version and the 1952 version so you can compare at least two versions back to back. The latest adaptation with Liam Neesom is the worst. I recommend to everyone who reads this review to purchase this item and as soon as it arrives, pop in the 1935 version and be prepared to be amazed( if you haven't already seen it). Next to the book it is perfect. A must see/own movie.

Although not 100% true to the book, this version of Victor Hugo's tale becomes a classic due to the casting of Frederic March and Charles Laughton. Watching this version, I literally can not imagine a better choice for Valjean and certainly for Javert. March makes a brilliant transition from a viscious ex-convict to the compassionate mayor, and Laughton just gives me chills. Because this film was made in the early 30's, the acting is EXTREMELY overdramatic and dialogue poorly delivered by the supporting cast. Also, the lack of technology prevented music and dialogue from existing simultaneously in the film (with the exception of one chase scene). This was a very expensive process back then. Overall, I believe this film will be cherished more by fans of the actors rather than by fans of the story. There have been more elaborate versions of Les Miserables since then. The best version I have seen is the one with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. I have not seen Depardieu's version.

(**P.S. For you nostalgia buffs out there: When Valjean leaves the Bishop's house, if that "Ave Maria" sounds familiar, you may remember that being used in Robert Donat's Count of Monte Christo made approximately the same time.)

I think the reviewer Bassett (bottom of the review list) got it right. This movie captures the ESSENCE of the book, which is about all one can expect of 104 minutes of cinema vs. an good-sized book. Although you might not know it from the typical stage adaption of this story these days, the story is about Legalism vs. Love - one of the classic themes of the Bible and Christianity. And in the end, at least in this fine film version, we see the death of The Law and the triumph of Grace. Ignore the technical shortcomings inherent in a 1935 film, and SAVOR this version for what it achieves - capturing the central theme of Hugo's novel. This is my most prized VHS in my collection, and I wish they would release a CD copy of it.

In France in the early 1800's. The poor are hungry. Petty-crimes are punished harshly and unjustly. Those released from prison are blacklisted making it difficult or impossible to get a job. An ex-prisoner, who has served his time for a petty-crime, jumps parole, because it is the only way he can get a job, though the penalty if caught is life pulling an oar on a ship as a galley-prisoner. A petty, policeman hunts the now-wanted man.

The 1935-version is best because it leaves you with something, with a moral. The 1952-version changes the story enough throughout the movie that it is interesting even if you have just watched the other. Each version does some things better than the other. However, only the 1935-version leaves you with uplifting thoughts. Both versions portray injustice that continues today.