Micitype Pretty Good

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

TheLittleSongbird The book is a mammoth and hugely detailed one, so it is inevitable that things would be missed out and that it wouldn't be word for word, Victor Hugo's writing is far too rich for that. Even if the details are missing or changed around the spirit of the source material is welcome(though I try not to be a "purist, I have always believed in judging things on their own merits), something that the second half of this film doesn't really do. It is not an awful film, there are a lot of impressive things but it didn't entirely work and fares the weakest film version of Les Miserables.It is very beautifully shot and the costumes, settings and scenery are authentic(at least it doesn't look too clean) and very easy on the eye, so it is a very well-made film. Basil Poledouris' music score is as stirring and hauntingly beautiful as is characteristic of him and his other scores like Conan the Barbarian and Hunt for Red October. Billie August at least directs with style and pace without being too flashy or dull, though it's the kind that gets the job done admirably but passion-wise rather lukewarm. There are three excellent performances as well.Liam Neeson commands the screen as he always does and gives a real nobility and dignity to Valjean, with an effort in the first half to make him compassionate, the second half doesn't allow for him to go into as much depth as it could and should but Neeson, the great and conscientious actor he is, gives it his all. Geoffrey Rush's Javert is ruthlessly cold and authoritative, yet there is signs of a tortured soul too which stops Javert from being too one-dimensional. On paper, Uma Thurman seemed all wrong, on film she is a deeply moving Fantine(even perfectly fitting the role physically) and of the adaptations her Fantine is one of the better developed ones. Peter Vaughn is appropriately kindly as the Bishop,and young Cosette is adorable. The first half was excellent to me, fidelity to the book is strong, Fantine's plight is very tragic and poignant and Valjean and young Cosette's escape from Javert and to the Convent does have a tension to it.Unfortunately the second half doesn't maintain that promise, the production values, music and Neeson and Rush's performances are still top drawer, but Claire Danes, the characterisation and the ending are off. Claire Danes I found terrible as Cosette, she is both a spoiled brat/rich girl and completely bland(it's like her Juliet from Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet again) and her pouting is annoying. Hans Mattheson fares a little better but not much, he has the looks but he is stiff and tries too hard, also coming across as a rather wimpy leader for the barricade. The ending has no emotional impact whatsoever and is very abrupt, if you have not read the book or seen the musical you will be asking why Javert committed suicide, in fact this is the sort of adaptation that evokes more questions than answers. Most of the lines in the script are true to period and don't resort to cheesiness or awkwardness, but characterisation is very thin here, with perhaps the exception of Fantine and her chemistry with Valjean.You never really see why Javert is pursuing Valjean in the first place and why he continues to do so(those familiar with the source material will do but others won't, did the script-writers think that everybody knows the book or something?). Cosette and Marius' relationship is very shallow and seems to be focused on too much(if Eponine was intact there definitely would have been much more depth), Javert has moments where what he does contradicts what he stands for(especially at the end) and Valjean has moments like at the end and when he's hitting people around where he doesn't seem to have changed or still show signs of being immoral(or better put, finding that goodness doesn't come easy to him) which renders Javert's suicide meaningless somewhat. In the end, because of the lack of depth it is the case of not caring for the characters or not getting to know them. The story is powerful, tense and poignant in the first half but feels underdeveloped and without any true passion in the second half, the barricade just doesn't have the impact.Overall, not a bad film because the first half is strong and those who people would have seen the film for in the first place likewise, but the second half made it a disappointing one. On its own, while under-characterised and with a bad ending, it is relatively decent but adaptation-wise there's much better like the 1934 film. 5/10 Bethany Cox

talentgirl I didn't know much about Les Mis, having never seen it at the theatre. But when I heard the rave reviews being given for the new, all-singing cinema release starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe and Anne Hathaway, I really wanted to see it. Seeing the cinema release would be my chance to find out why Les Mis had always been so well-loved. But somehow we didn't get to see this new film and in the meantime my husband rented the non-singing version of Les Mis, starring Liam Nesson, from Lovefilm. I was enthralled. It was fantastic! So well acted. So memorable. Moving. Believable and insightful. Strangely enough, the school where I was temporarily working were also doing a performance of Les Mis - a singing version of course, and I spoke to the stage director and he said to see the school version and you wouldn't need to see the latest film. He was kind of, right. The school's actors and singers were brilliant. Great singing. Great heart. And not having heard the songs in the Liam Neeson film version, it was lovely to say, aha, that's where those songs I've heard people singing on Talent Shows comes from and fits in. Eventually, we rented the Hugh Jackman version and all I can say is, it didn't hold a candle to the Liam Neeson one or even the school-play! Not good singing or acting (except I could feel passion and enthusiasm in Russell Crowe's performance beyond his singing capabilities). But Hugh Jackman? He is not Jean Valjean. Not good acting, singing or stage presence. I could not believe in him as a convict or as a good upright mayor of the town. I watched it through to the end. My husband slept. Now I can justify thinking of Liam Neeson as THE Jean Valjean and Geoffrey Rush as THE Javert. 10 out of 10. Excellent. The best I've seen out of three different renditions. This one is the one I will always remember. See this classic for yourself, if you haven't already.

bashfulbadger Les Misérables. I guess it would be clichéd to say that that's exactly what we were after sitting through this turgid hammy mess of a movie.Why are French characters being played by American, Australian and Irish actors all talking in rather poor English accents? If you're going to go to the bother of putting on an accent, why not make it a French one? It's one of the mysteries of Les Mis. It's like they've all been badly dubbed. Reminded me of one of those French kids' shows like Belle and Sebastian and The Flashing Blade that used to be on TV on Saturday mornings. Except as a kid watching those I didn't understand the concept of dubbing so just thought these were people whose mouth movements didn't match what they said for some reason. Actually perhaps that's the very effect they were going for with the film. Hmm, interesting choice.And the script reads as though it's been badly translated; the actors seem to have been directed to overact, perhaps with the instruction 'Act as if you are hysterical French people' – see Uma Thurman's ultimate sickbed scene. I found myself unable to care about any of the characters or get particularly involved in their stories, all in all making this an absolutely abysmal version of the Hugo classic.

Teri Cronin If it were not for this movie, I would have never been familiar with Victor Hugo or the Les Miserables novel. As I have difficulties reading lengthy books, it is wonderful to have such novels adapted into movies. I am aware that this particular movie does not do a proper job in telling the whole story. Apparently, the movie does a poor job in some of the characterizations and leaves out many important scenes. However, if like me, you have never read the book and do not prefer to watch musicals, this movie is quite satisfying. For those who like to watch movies that "transport" you to another period in time, the scenery and costumes do a good job in representing 19th century France. Both Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush do a great job as the main characters. The theme that stands out in Les Miserables is one of redemption- a concept that we all should be more familiar with.