Yar, you be here: Les Miserables > Customer Reviews

Les Miserables Customer Reviews (25 - 27 of 41 Reviews)

Excellent acting, but poor characterization
I rented this video due to Blockbuster's regrettable lack of copies of the Les Mis musical. I doubted I would like it- I had heard negative things from other hardcore fans of the book and musical- but I was starting to suffer from Les Mis withdrawal symptoms. (laughs) Ah, vive le republique.

(cracks knuckles) Right then, straight to the point. This movie started off extremely well, true to the novel and musical, and I considered the slight changes (i.e., the Bishop and Javert's nearly identical wounds) to be beneficial to the plot. The acting was remarkable, the scene in which Fantine is tormented by noblemen being especially well done.

Looking back on it now, I don't think having Fantine and Valjean fall in love served to do anything but weaken the storyline- it also destroys the message Victor Hugo explained expressly in the book, that Cosette was the first person Jean Valjean truly loved. I was willing to overlook this, however- as I said, there was far more strengthened segments than weakened ones. I DID enjoy watching the rooftop conversation between Young Cosette and Valjean- very true to both their characters.

And so I sat back and watched and I thought, this isn't so bad. I was almost ready to forgive them their unmerciful cutting-out of Enjolras and Eponine, especially for the fan service given to Grantaire fans for his five-second debut.

Watching the last half... I began to second-guess myself.

I DEEPLY despised the way that Valjean, Cosette, and their relationship were characterized. Cosette, especially, was not only untrue to her character in the book and musical, but was also quite frankly irritating, loud and painfully stupid. As well, when Valjean struck Cosette, it struck me as fitting in poorly with both the characters and the situation- something the producer probably threw in for shock value.

Marius, on the other hand, was acted so well that he rivalled Javert's remarkably well done character. Marius' actor was excellent and so was his characterization, though I certainly think they would have done better to leave Enjolras as the chief revolutionary and Marius as his follower. The love scenes between Marius and Cosette were sweet and believable, and I enjoyed the alternate capture of Javert involving the two. It was amusing as well as well thought out.

The last scene, however, took the rating down an entire star. At first I thought it was gorgeously acted, tense but still relaxed in its pace, and I admired its creativity in finding a way around the seemingly inevitable Javert monologue. I was struck by the emotional power of that last scene, indeed... until the very, VERY end. Jean Valjean's sudden, inappropriate and utterly out-of-character smile nearly ruined the movie. It was a weak ending to the ending, and so dragged down the entire tale.

Just to note, I LOVE whoever it was played Javert. The totally new interpretation of him was refreshing and very well done, and both the way he was acted and the way the other actors behaved around him was very thought-provoking and, indeed, occaisionally amusing ("If you do not allow him to report, I believe the inspector may burst into tears"). As well, the little bit of light shed on his past made him an entirely different character to me, for some odd and strange reason.

To conclude; I would certainly recommend this movie (if only to see Javert in all his glory) but please, don't leave your Les Mis experience there. Read the book or watch the musical, and you'll be left far more moved- or at the very, very least, stop the movie before the end, BEFORE Valjean smiles!

Great movie, but.....
Great movie, but the book was better...The movie is about the ex-convict, Jean Valjean, trying to help Fantine, a poor woman trying to make enough money to pay the Thenardiers to take care of her child Cosette, and later raising Cosette as his own, while also being persued by the persistant Inspector Javert.

What happens in the movie basically happens in the book as well, but the book also has much more going on. The book has an intricate connection between many of the characters that the movie doesn't have, and also focuses on much more than Jean Valjean, whom the movie mostly focuses on.

I would suggest reading the book first, and then watching the movie.

Great movie - poor adaptation
As a film in itself, this version of Hugo's classic is excellent, but as an adaptation of the novel, it leaves a lot to be desired. Jean Valjean's character is distorted, and he is not the man whom Hugo, in my opinion, intended to portray. The satisfaction displayed by Liam Neeson after Javert's suicide is inappropriate, since Valjean neither witnesses nor delights in his adversary's death in the original text.

However, Geoffrey Rush is the ideal personification of Hugo's pursuer figure, and is highly dislikeable, although perhaps slightly less admirable in his duties than Hugo had intended.

On the whole, this film manages to convey most of the events, characters, themes, and politics of the novel quite well. There are of course discrepancies whose imporatnce varies greatly. For example, the ending of the film in no way corresponds to that of the book - indeed, where are the last chapters of the novel?

I would recommend that, if anyone is intending to buy the video of the film, they should also buy the book, which truly is a work of art. Hugo's characters deserve to be fully understood.

Previous Page

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

Next Page