Opiniones de usuarios

Another reviewer of this version of Les Miserables said this was the Cliff's Notes version of the Victor Hugo classic. I'd be hard pressed to disagree, but bear in mind that another reviewer said the novel itself is over 1300 pages. That would be a daunting task for any film maker. Les Miserables whether done in English, French or Sanskrit lends itself to a mini-series.

Nevertheless this version that stars Fredric March and Charles Laughton is a good encapsulation of the mammoth story about a paroled prisoner trying to escape his past and the relentless police official who's made it a life's obsession to track him down.

This is the third and final film that March and Laughton co-starred in and they did all three of their films for different studios, Sign of the Cross for Paramount, The Barretts of Wimpole Street for MGM and Les Miserables for the newly formed 20th Century Fox. I'd be hard pressed to pick one that is the best because all three have something different to offer.

I think what Victor Hugo does is make a great case for situational ethics in this story. March as Jean Valjean the prisoner is jailed for 10 years on a minor charge and thereafter subject to a strict parole system. He misses a check in and he's a fugitive.

But March is shown kindness by a warm and understanding bishop played by Cedric Hardwicke and changes his life around. But he has to move several times because of the relentless Inspector Javert.

Charles Laughton in his career played many a deformed soul and none more than Inspector Javert. He's a convict's son himself and to repudiate his humble origins becomes a policeman, but one with a rigid code that shows no understanding of times and conditions for a crime and makes no attempt at all to temper his rigid code with a drop or two of mercy.

Had Javert chosen the ministry, he'd have made a great hellfire and damnation preacher, getting all the words right but missing the music of love, redemption and forgiveness. And Valjean who is of equally humble origins is a redeemed soul, a conception Javert can't understand. But he also knows that Valjean even through out the trials Javert puts him through is one at peace with himself and there's no small amount of jealousy in Laughton's portrayal.

In a great acting duo, I give the decision by a few points to March, mainly because of his dual portrayal. At one point March hears from Laughton that Jean Valjean has been arrested and is on trial. After a lot of soul searching he goes to the neighboring town and gets a half wit off who is also played by Fredric March. Because of that Les Miserables has become one of my favorite Fredric March pictures.

March never got another shot at a thespian duel so to speak with another screen icon until Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy. His three films with Charles Laughton are deserved classics all. This is as good a version as you'll ever get of Les Miserables for a single motion picture.

Jean Valjean (Frederick March) steals a loaf of bread to feed his sister's children and is sent to prison for ten years. Prison degrades him and he completes his term a broken and, possibly insane, man. While in prison, one of the guards, Javert (Charles Laughton), takes note of Val jean's remarkable strength. Javert is more obviously unstable - he is obsessed with the rigid enforcement of the law, in denial of his past (his parents were criminals. Confused, depressed, and very fearful, Valjean ventures into his parole with questionable intentions. But he is soon taken in by a very kindly Bishop who bends the truth in order to protect Jean from himself and the police. Explaining himself, the priest tells Jean that 'Life is to give, not to take'. This single act, and the priest's words, set Valjean upon a path of service and honor which requires him to reinvent himself. In Act 2, we meet him in the person of Mssr. Madeline, a successful and well-loved businessman who is being asked to run for mayor in the small town he has done so much for. Complicating matters, Javert has been appointed to head the local constabulary.

Through all three parts of this epic story, Valjean is pursued by his former captor, whether by circumstance or obsessive intent. This is the central conflict of the story, but the depth and elements of the conflict truly hinge upon a non-participant third-party. Valjean/Madeline meets Cosette, a good-hearted but more-or-less orphan child whose plight reminds him of his sister's children and deeply touches his heart. He reunites Cosette and her mother, giving them both a good home for the mother's final weeks. After she passes, he essentially adopts Cosette. The love that develops between Cosette and Jean, that of a father and daughter, saves them both. Perhaps this love will eventually save the incorrigible and obsessed Javert.

Les Miserables is written with extremely powerful characterization, from a deeply Catholic/Christian perspective, though it is not an evangelical work. Although none of the characters are stereotypes, archetypes, or caricatures, the central conflict is not one of men, but rather one of faith. Javert perfectly represents faith in the laws of men, the Bishop reflects the laws of his god, and Valjean must resolve the inevitable conflicts between the two both internally and externally. The ethics of Les Miserables is, in contrast to the opinion of one popular review, far from 'situational.' It would be much better described as 'subtle', complex, and very carefully considered. The simple message is that law is no substitute for justice.

Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is probably my favorite novel of all time. While leaving whole episodes of this massive tome out, the unfortunately short-lived Richard Boleslawski's 1935 film captures more than just the essence and spirit of the book and is not a Reader's Digest condensation or a "Cliff Notes" version. The W.P. Lipscomb script is perfectly economical and Boleslawski wisely relied on Gregg Tolland's spectacular camera work to tell more of the story than the dialog. Despite the difficulty of distilling a 1000+ page, relatively dense French novel into a film of slightly over 1.5 hours, the director made the camera responsible for conveying a great deal of information about the story and the characters . The casting is also quite perfect. March and Laughton are tremendous in what may be the apex of their collaborative efforts. I was also impressed by the performances in a few of the minor roles - Cedric Hardwicke (the Bishop) and Frances Drake (Eponine) especially.

All considered, this film should appeal to those who appreciate mature, intelligent, morality plays spiced up with a bit of adventure, and those who are looking for a good film version of the classic novel.

Although you would not think so from reading some of the reviews here, the 1935 film version of "Les Miserables" is excellent and one of the best film versions of the novel, especially considering its 108 minute length. It is too much to ask a film that lasts a little less than two hours to pack in all the important incidents in a book that consists of more than 1,000 pages. No film has ever been able to do that, and three-hour American films, except for a couple of D.W. Griffith features, were virtually unheard of before 1936 (the year that "The Great Ziegfeld" was released).

Fredric March gives one of his finest performances as Jean Valjean---far better than Michael Rennie's pallid one in the 1952 remake-- and his voice reminds one not of Jimmy Stewart, but of John Barrymore, an actor to whom March was often compared to in his early days. Although he seems to be on the verge of overemoting once or twice, he can also be quite subtle and sardonic (just watch him in the scenes in which he implies that Javert has no idea of how to temper justice with mercy, or his performance in the scene in which he first meets Cosette at the inn). March, now virtually forgotten by today's younger generation, was easily one of the best actors of the twentieth century, whether on stage or screen, It is a pity that he never felt inclined to act in a Shakespeare play or film, a decision he himself came to regret.

Charles Laughton is equally as good as the vicious, single-minded, and in this version at least, neurotic Inspector Javert. Laughton's small touches, far from making his performance seem hammy, vividly illustrate the personality of a man so ashamed of his own parentage that he cannot bear to talk about it without seeming to be about to break into tears. If it had not been for his brilliant Captain Bligh in "Mutiny on the Bounty", released the same year as "Les Miserables", Laughton would almost certainly have been nominated for his performance as Javert.

John Beal and Rochelle Hudson are adequate as the lovers, although Beal is hardly anyone's idea of a sexy, dashing young man. Hudson's performance is infinitely preferable to the awful one given by the beautiful Debra Paget (best remembered as Joshua's love interest in "The Ten Commandments") in the 1952 remake of "Les Miserables". Eponine in this version is not portrayed as a prostitute, probably because of the censorship restrictions of that time, and Gavroche is completely eliminated from this version. Cedric Hardwicke, in a very small role, is fine if a little too syrupy, as the bishop who aids Valjean after he is released from prison.

The legendary Gregg Toland's photography is excellent, and the scenes in which Valjean serves in the galleys are frighteningly realistic for a major Hollywood film of this era (the scene in which March is beaten and begins screaming in pain is profoundly disturbing, and it recurrs later on in a nightmare).

The 1935 "Les Miserables" easily eclipses all later versions in English, and still stands as one of the best Hollywood versions of a literary masterpiece.

Victor Hugo's novel "Les Misérables" is the kind of elaborate and insightful classic that can never be equaled in a movie. But this 1935 version is a good adaptation, with two excellent stars, believable settings, and a decent script that concentrates on a selection of the more important portions of the novel. While hardly the towering achievement that Hugo's work was, it serves pretty well as an introduction to the two main characters and the basic themes behind their confrontations.

Fredric March and Charles Laughton work very well as the leads. March seems well-cast as Jean Valjean. He's a character that's very hard to do justice to, but March does about as well as anyone could in bringing out some of the thoughts and anxieties inside him. As Javert, Laughton is a less obvious choice for the role, but he shows enough restraint to do a good job in communicating the inspector's intransigent devotion to a narrow set of beliefs. While you could hardly expect the complexity of the novel, the scenes with the two of them work well in bringing out the basic contrasts in their personalities and perspectives.

The other characters are pushed more into the background, and many of their stories are only partially developed. Accordingly, they are portrayed by a solid but generally unremarkable supporting cast. The screenplay focuses on Valjean and Javert, with the other characters usually coming into play only insofar as they relate to the stories of the other two. No doubt that is a disappointment to those who admire the interesting lives and well-developed personalities that Hugo wrote for them, but it seems hardly avoidable in a regular-length film feature.

For an attempt to convey the central characters and themes of the story, this works pretty well, and it is a classic worth seeing. Those familiar with the novel should at least be able to appreciate March and Laughton for bringing their characters to life, and those who have not read the novel should find it a worthwhile introduction to the story.

This 1935 version of "Les Miserables" is perhaps the finest film ever produced during Hollywood's golden age. Highlighted by superb acting from three of the greatest English-speaking actors ever to appear on film (March, Laughton and Hardwicke), a superb script and outstanding production values, this 20h Century Fox production has more than stood the test of time. Now released on DVD, it is available for modern audiences to view and compare to other filmed and staged versions of this classic Victor Hugo tale. Even now, 73 years after it was filmed, it never fails to move the viewer with its extraordinarily powerful narrative. A not-to-be-missed film from Hollywood's Golden Age!

Jean Valjean (March) is a convicted thief on the run from a merciless police officer (Laughton). The thief has managed to build himself a new life, which the officer threatens to bring tumbling down. Then the French Revolution occurs. The movie is beautifully filmed on old-fashioned Hollywood stage sets. March, a great actor, unfortunately at times seems as if he is in a silent movie, which this film was only a few years away from. Laughton is at his most sadistic as Inspector Javert. Most of the rest of the cast acts in a a very dated manner. Fortunately, the focus is almost completely on March and Laughton, whose constant cat and mouse game still works its magic today. For film buffs. All others can watch one of the more recent film adaptations.

Les Miserables, with its rich and powerful narrative and mostly compelling characters, is deservedly a classic. It is also not an easy book to adapt, because of how rich in detail it is and its mammoth length. This 1935 film is one of the best and most accessible of Les Miserables(which has been adapted several times with mixed results). Adpaptation-wise, it is not word for word-we are looking at a very long film or mini-series, which was literally unheard of around that time, that way- and condensed(some might say it guillotines the text, but that seems to me too harsh and violent a word to use), but it does do a great job still and the spirit of the book still remains. It does deserve to be judged on its own merits, as do most adaptations, and on that front Les Miserables(1935) succeeds brilliantly. It is a very lavish and authentic production, of all the film adaptations it is one of the best-looking. Alfred Newman's score has that stirring and haunting touch, it has his distinctive style yet it fits the tone of the film ideally. The script is very literate and thoughtful and the story still is powerful, I am in complete agreement that there is the sense also that Valjean doesn't find goodness to be easy despite his nobility. The climax is ironic and hugely emotional, apparently Charles Laughton himself said that it was "the finest thing I have ever been able to accomplish on the screen", some could argue that but with others(including myself) it is very easy to see why. It is skilfully directed and paced in a way that doesn't feel as though it's rushing through the narrative nor that it plods. The chase in the sewers is thrilling. The performances are very good, Frances Eldridge is a moving Fantine, John Beal is likable as Marius, Frances Drake's Eponine is loyal and empathetic and while Cosette is one of the least well-developed characters of the book Rochelle Hudson is charming and sympathetic, careful not to let her delicate looks overshadow her acting(easy to do and a lot of Cosettes have fallen into that trap). The leads are the ones that dominate. Fredric March is very well cast as Valjean, bringing out his nobility and character conflict, that he's handsome too is a bonus. Even more impressive is Charles Laughton, who is effortlessly obsessive and menacingly commanding but he does manage to reign in and not resort to hamminess too much, Javert's conflict has been more convincing elsewhere but there is still the realisation that he can't get what he's been pursuing for so long without going against what's he's stood for(and the realisation also that he cannot accept that Valjean has really changed after thinking him an immoral man for so long) and it still convinces. In conclusion, brilliant film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This Victor Hugo classic is brought to the big screen by two of the finest actors of the period; Frederic March and Charles Laughton. Sir Cedric Hartwicke also contributes to the cast. March plays the harried victim of a flawed legal system, and Laughton plays the relentless policeman who hounds March mercilessly. Still a very effective film.

Of course, this is my opinion. Great films are not easily defined, but this has everything in it: strong characterization, great story, great acting, and great scriptwriting. This is also a successful abbreviated adaptation of a very long novel. I first saw it when I was 11 years old back in December of 1979. It stuck in my mind for five years, but I didn't know what the name of the film was or what book it was based on until I accidentally saw the 1978 remake of it on t.v. late one night in 1984. The 1978 version was a good film, but not nearly as good as the 1935 version. I then borrowed the Victor Hugo novel from the library and read it, but it was not until the spring of 1986 that I was able to tape a late night version of this excellent film. Frederic March was the best Jean Valjean. He portrayed both sides of the tortured protagonist (desperate peasant and selfless businessman) with a spirit and passion unequaled by later Valjeans. Charles Laughton was equally superb as the obsessed antagonist, Inspector Javert. One could not help but feel pity for him in the final moments of the film. The best scenes in the film, however, were the ones with Sir Cedric Hardwicke as Bishop Bienvenue. Hardwicke is so credible in his brief scenes that we actually believe he is the kind bishop rather than an actor playing a part. Hardwicke is aided by the brilliant writing of the scriptwriter, W.P. Lipscomb, whose writing here matches Hugo's himself. If there is any movie you should watch before you die, this is the one to see.

There are a couple of gorgeous scenes in this film. Valjean's awakening is an absolutely transcendent moment. But overall, everything is way too rushed and compressed for my taste. The story rarely has any opportunity to breathe. If this version has anything going for it, it's Fredric March's exceptionally intelligent performance as Jean Valjean.

One huge turnoff for me is something that I frequently encounter whenever I watch period flicks from the 1930s and 40s. Apart from Fredric March, the actors all deliver their lines in a highly stylized accent which completely takes me out of the story. I didn't buy any of them as 19th century French people..... there wasn't a moment when I wasn't aware that I was watching a Hollywood production from 1935. Charles Laughton has this posh voice which is so completely wrong for a character like Javert, for a character with the kind of upbringing that he's had. The guy is supposed to have been born in a jail and raised by gypsies, and Laughton talks like someone in a Noel Coward play. However, he is so present emotionally that I can overlook it to a certain extent. The kid who plays young Cosette is godawful. She is so earnest and fakey and sounds like she came from somewhere in Nebraska.

Directed by Richard Boleslawski. Starring Fredric March, Charles Laughton, Rochelle Hudson, John Beal, Marilyn Knowlden, Cedric Hardwicke, Florence Eldridge, Frances Drake.

Notable adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel scrupulously creates the world and story of Jean Valjean (March), making numerous successful and fitting changes to the source material for a far less cluttered journey. Still suffers from stuffy sectionalization, reducing Fantine's (Eldridge) purpose to little more than an extended cameo, but in excising much of the fat and combining interests for the sake of clear storytelling, the filmmakers keep it all moving at a mostly steady clip. Only the middling love story in the final act stumbles, primarily because Hudson (as grown-up Cosette) is such a bore. March is rock solid as Valjean; Laughton superb as obsessed inspector Javert (even if the disparity in appearance can be distracting). That's John Carradine in a bit part as student protester Enjorlas.

78/100

Advantages here: Charles Laughton's Javert, Gregg Toland's cinematography, um, um.........

This film was made by 20th Century as a remake of the French version of two years earlier. The French version totals five hours in all, which allows a more grownup script, a better sense of pace, a fuller exploration of the characters and a more authentic flavor all around.

There is something vaguely infantile about this version and Fredric March has about as much European savor as corn-on-the-cob. Charles Laughton unbalances the film with his famous portrayal of the obsessed cop Javert, and the film becomes about his agony, not Jean Valjean's, which is wrong.

The Raymond Bernard film from 1933 is available now in a two-DVD set, and is the closest you can get on film to the experience of actually reading the book, which is long and spacious and worth it. Certain individual scenes are done better in other versions, but the Bernard film is the best overall.

In my opinion, this version is far from being the best adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic and marvelous novel; these are my reasons: The Thernardiers, indispensable characters in the story, are relegated in the film to mere incidental figures. Their little son Gavroche does not even appear. Their daughter Eponine appears, but she has nothing to do with them, she is only a friend of Marius, in love with him. Fauchelevent also appears as an incidental character, when Jean Valejan saves him from dying; he does not appear when Valjean and Cosette arrive to the Petit-Picpus convent. The film does not end as the original story. Much better versions are the French ones directed in 1934 by Raymond Bernard, starring Harry Baur as Jean Valjean, and the 1982 directed by Robert Hossein, starring Lino Ventura as Jean Valjean.

To begin with, I doubt that most people realize that Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is not a two hundred to four hundred page novel. It is a thirteen hundred page novel (in English translation as well as the original French). This actually puts it into the same category as those other classic that most people never read: "The Bible" (both testaments together), "Don Quixote", "War and Peace", "Clarissa Harlowe", "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", "The Count of Monte Cristo". Everyone knows stories or chunks of most of these books (except for Richardson's "Clarissa", which is not popular these days due to it's epistolary style). Few read them to get an idea of their full impact. It is sobering to realize that humongous novels by Dickens and Thackeray and George Eliott, like "Bleak House, "Pendennis", or "Middlemarch", are shorter (roughly 800 pages each) than these seven earlier titles that I mention. That means one is more likely to be willing to read "Middlemarch" (a thoughtful but difficult study of provincial life in 1832 England), than "The Count of Monte Cristo" (with it's fast paced and exciting tale of power, greed, and revenge in post-Napoleonic France.

In it's full range, "Les Miserables" was a probing attack on the greed and social evil rampant in France from 1815 to 1832 (the beginning of the so-called "July " or Orleans Monarchy. However I warn you that if you read it you will find it annoying after awhile. You will remain sympathetic towards Valjean, protecting little Cosette who he raises as his daughter, and saving Marius (although he would as soon Cosette never saw Marius again). And you will also dislike Javert, his adversary - the perfect police official. But you will find Hugo expounding questionable views on criminals. Not all the poor are criminals, but after reading Hugo one gets the impression that if they aren't they are fools. For all the defects of Louis Phillippe's July Monarchy, it gave France prosperity and peace for nearly two decades. But to Hugo it was a criminal throwback to the barbarism of the Bourbons - France did not need monarchs, it was a republic and a democracy. For most of his life Hugo attacked "royalism" in all its guises in France, culminating in his years in exile in opposition to the Second Empire of Napoleon III (1851 - 1870 - the period that Hugo wrote "Les Misearbles" in). Oddly enough he never really attacks the first Napoleon. Read the chapters on the Battle of Waterloo in "Les Miserables" and it is almost a regrettable valentine to the little Corsican. Interestingly enough, when the Paris Commune burned much private property in 1871 (before being put down by French troops assisted by German troops), Hugo suddenly ceased being so admiring about the lowest level of the poor - after all they burned some of his property too.

Trimmed of much of it's literary weight it makes a dandy little over-the-years thriller, and it has been filmed many times. The best one I remember was a French version from 1956 with Jean Gabin as Valjean (and actually he was physically closer to the poor ex convict than March was). But it was three and a half hours long, so I suspect that this one will have to do. It keeps the main threads of the story together, and performances by March, Laughton, Florence Eldritch (as Fantine), and others are excellent. Even Leonid Kinski as one of March's former convict friends gives a chilling little moment just by saying "Hello Jean" in a courtroom. So watch it, the best normal length movie version. And then put aside a month for reading the original novel (and then plan similar time schemes for those other unread classics I just listed - It will occupy you for about a year and a half or so).

As attested by its Oscar nominations, this movie is one for the ages. Adapting the classic novel in a splendid fashion and giving life to the characters in beautiful acting.

The cinematography and messages conveyed are well crafted and you are very immersed in the story.

Overall, a fantastic film that should be experienced by any lover of movies!

I thought I had seen them all, but then as a surprise this one appeared with the blatant curiosity of Charles Laughton as Javert. Of course you couldn't miss such an opportunity, no matter what it purported.

Of course, it was worth seeing especially for Charles Laughton, who is an unusually nasty police here, a police of the very worst sort, all formality and no humanity, but he makes it amazingly convincing - there actually are such policemen. Frederic March is not bad as Jean Valjean, and for once, perhaps the only time in the cinema, you are able to see Jean Valjean as a young and handsome man - even his sister is with him in the introduction scene.

Cedric Hardwicke as the bishop, perhaps the most important character in the whole novel, doesn't have to make any effort into his part, it is all written and can't be made any worse by anyone, and he actually adds some humor to it, lacking in Victor Hugo.

The question has been raised what Victor Hugo would have thought. This film was made only a year after the great French masterpiece of five hours by Raymond Bernard, the best and truest film on "Les Miserables", although even that fools around with Hugo a bit, but this American version is unfortunately the worst. The character of Jean Valjean is missing, as Frederic March thoroughly overdoes it, while the very strength in the character lies in his absolute self control, which is spoilt here, compensated somewhat by Laughton's all too true performance. Worst is the child Cosette, who preludes Shirley Temple. John Beal as Marius is a positive surprise, while the important part of Gavroche is missing altogether.

Still it's an exciting film, it must be the most abbreviated version of "Les Miserables" ever made, and you pardon its gross coarseness and vulgarization of the novel since it's still after all the same novel, perhaps the greatest ever written. Victor Hugo would not have liked this film version much, especially not after the great French version the year before, but he would have tolerated it.

This is perhaps the best screen adaptation of the Hugo novel about crime and punishment. March is terrific as Valjean, a man subjected to ten years of imprisonment for stealing a loaf of bread. As Javert, a letter-of-the-law police inspector singularly obsessed with returning Valjean to prison for missing parole, Laughton is better than in the same year's "Mutiny on the Bounty." Hardwicke is effective in a small but pivotal role while Hudson and Beal make attractive lovers. Boleslawski, who died at age 47 only two years after directing this film, generally keeps the film from turning melodramatic and benefits from Toland's fine cinematography.

I thought this was an excellent early version of Victor Hugo's classic. The actor who plays Valjean does an excellent job as does British actor Charles Laughton who plays Javert who chases him for years. I love the film even though it might be dated but it's still faithful to the classic novel. The actresses who play Cosette and Fantine do an excellent job even though they are supporting parts. The film's quality is still excellent even though it was done over seventy years ago in the early stages of talking movies. I still think it's a classic movie and of the novel's best. This film version does not have the music but it still contains the same message of Victor Hugo's novel. Valjean is beautifully played as is Javert in this film.

As a movie about injustice, it is worth a watch.

If you are looking for a strict interpretation of the book into film, this is not it. It fails the capture the redeeming arc of Jean Valjean, his suffering, his inner battles, and his journey of becoming a good man. On that notion, it completely skips over the trials of Fantine and all that she had to endure in her downfall from grace. The Thenardier's are completely overlooked with Eponine simply being a secretary. I understand that you can't capture the book in one movie that is close to 2 hours long but nevertheless my opinion is this movie missed the mark on capturing the essence of the book and the various forms of suffering that was endured.

My favourite of all of the "Les Miserables" movies. The performance of Charles Laughton...fantastic! All of the acting is really good.

Les Misérables (1935) : Brief Review -

A staggering tale of Humanity vs Law is dragged down by familiar human errors in the distinguished version of Victor Hugo's novel. Hugo's popular novel of the same name has been adapted 8-9 times into movies, but this version by Richard Boleslawski had many differences. I haven't read the original novel (not even interested, frankly), but I have read about the changes. The film is set in the early 19th century in France, where an ex-convict who fails to report for parole is relentlessly pursued over a 20 year period by an obsessive policeman. Without wasting any time, I shall now come directly to the mistakes. The screenwriting looked very problematic to me. Valjean, who was once a kind man with a heart for the poor, suddenly turns his heart into stone when Cosette tells him about Marius. Ok, so he was like a father, right? But the way he asks Cosette if she has anything for him in her heart.. yuck.. was he trying to be her partner/lover or what? That obsession on his face was like she was his girlfriend. Cosette, on the other hand, chooses Marius first and then, reluctantly, Valjean again. Then again, she asks him to be with her when he brings Marius to her. What was that? A basic human error. OK, so Valjean brings Marius home from that riot, but what's next? Were Marius and Cosette gonna be happy afterwards? I mean, at the same place as Valjean was trying to leave (with Javert)? There are some more faults which I shall not reveal, but I repeat, it's a script full of basic errors. Richard Boleslawski does fine in Valjean's role while Charles Laughton shines as the cruel and strict Javert. Boleslawski had a good topic like humanity against the law but couldn't use it properly. Overall, it's still a watchable film for the performances and the legacy of the novel, but don't expect too much.

RATING - 6/10*

By - #samthebestest.