Yar, you be here: Les Miserables > Customer Reviews

Les Miserables Customer Reviews (4 - 6 of 41 Reviews)

Never a Dull Moment
I regret to profess I've not read Victor Hugo's masterpiece but I'm inclined to believe that film adaptations of classic novels, no matter how close, would have a degree of license to produce dramatic content and twists that are necessary to hold the audience's attention. Films work by direct representations of their subjects, albeit in a selective manner; while books work by way of textual signs, leaving more room for imagination to the reader.

I watched this movie shortly after it was released on video in 1999 or 2000, and I watched it again recently, realizing that it is a dramatic masterwork that one can return to over and over again. I find the arch-nemesis casting of Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush to be perfect to the core and I possibly couldn't identify these roles with any other actors that could sparkle such on-screen chemistry when placed in similar antithetical casting. Rush's performance is probably even unsurpassed by his similarly bravado performance in Quills (1999).

Uma Thurman surprised me with her willingness to discard her damsel-like appearances in previous films to act as Fantine, appearing much like the modern "heroin chic" - though very much a role that gave her performance another breakthrough; audiences can surely sympathise with her plight. Claire Daines as the adolescent Corsette charms us with her ethereal beauty and rather commendable acting, while Hans Matheson as the dashing Marius is another youthful eye-candy that mesmerizes with his romantic advances and passionate candour.



Pleasantly Enjoyable
I have read many of the reviews posted before and I happen to disagree with most of them. I know that the movie might not be exactly as the book. Many expect to see every comma and period of the book in the movie, but things dont work like that. If they did that, the movie would be awfully long. I do admit that some things in the movie were not in the book: when Jean Valjean hits the bishop of Digne when stealing the silverware or when he hits Javert against the wall. But these things just make the movie a little more interesting.

Even if it is not exactly as the book, the movie is perfectly enjoyable if you didnt read the book and even if you did the read the book and are obsessed with Les Mis.

Honestly, for me, I think that some people are just overreacting all this. The movie is a masterpiece, very well directed, and has a great cast and acting.
It might be just a tiny bit diverted from the plot of the book, but it is totally worth watching. And this comes from someone who absolutely loves Les Mis and has read the book, the long version just in case.

Lacking Character
This is a well-acted version of the famous book by Victor Hugo. It is, at times, more faithful to the original story than other versions that I have viewed. However, though more faithful in many scenes, it just lacks some of the heart found in previous screenplays. I'm going to give this one away, and purchase the 1978 version starring Richard Jordan and Anthony Perkins. While the '78 is not 100% true to the book, I think it better portrays the character of the original story, especially in the scenes at the bishop's house. Neither film is true to text here, but Jean Valjean's change of heart - the reason for his conversion - is much more clear in the 1978 film portrayal. Another place where, while less accurate, the '78 version is preferred is in the introductory scenes. The Liam Neeson version is definitely the more true to story, yet the '78 version with Richard Jordan gives more of a sense of why a poor starving man who steals a piece of bread could become hardened to the point of needing to undergo a conversion of heart in the first place. Finally, the scenes at the end are, once again, 100% true to neither film but the Anthony Perkin's character (in the '78 film version) gives a much more compelling, dramatic conclusion, which leaves one pondering, much more deeply (in my opinion) the difference between the letter of the law and that which is right and just.

It seems to me that one of the critical flaws of this version (Liam Neeson) is that you never really develop a bond with his portrayal of Valjean. There's a coldness (and I think it's in the screenplay rather than in neeson's acting), if you will, that never allows me to really enter into his character. While the story remains excellent and the acting is good, I just could never embrace this version of the film.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Next Page