Les Miserables

As a movie standing on its own I'd say its watchable but beyond that I am not able to muster any positive feelings.

As a great fan of the book (and the musical that came years after this movie version) I am horrified by the major changes that were made to the story. To completely cut out the characters of Eponine and Enjorlas, and a little less so, the Thenardiers alone is something horrible.

Also, it seemed to focus more on Marius and Cosette's relationship than Valjean.

Overall, I would not recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the book or the Les Miserables fandom in general. If you really want to watch a movie version I would suggest the 1934 one.

However if you have no previous experience with Les Mis then you may enjoy it more than I did.

In reaction to the reviewer qualifying this the best version he has seen I feel obliged to point that Victor Hugo is not respected here ; Cosette had a peaceful childhood and appears with Hollywood pretty dresses, and Gavroche,the kid from the miserables (people in misery starving) which becomes an emblem dying during the revolutionary barricades against the oppressive crush from fortunate class and bourgeoisie, is reduced here to deliver a letter ! Try reach the director Raymond Bernard trilogy, with Harry Baur as Jean Valjean. You will discover reality, not "let's not hurt audience" casting or look. Another more faithful version is the one with Jean Gabin, but with so clean miserables ! No, the trilogy by Raymond Bernard, shown from decades on French TV, recently restored by Cinematheque Francaise, seems to be the Victor Hugo book alive. No concession, misery is there, corrupted houses, characters alive rather than actors on parade. This trilogy is beyond art, it is life, as Victor Hugo described it.

i liked this version of Victor Hugo's classic novel,Starring Michael Rennie as Jean Valjean and Robert Newton as Javert.however i prefer the 1935 version starring Frederic March as Valjean and Charles Laughton as Javert.this may just be personal preference but i think March and Laughton were more suited for their roles than Rennie and Newton were.i found this version a bit slower,and not quite as compelling,though it still has its moments.the theme of redemption is of course front and centre,but it is not as well developed or explored here,and has less of an impact.the ending though similar to the 1935 version is not as powerful.still,a very good film.for me,Les miserables (1952)is an 8/10

This version of Victor Hugo's classic novel was not as good as the 1935 version. Obviously, the two leading actors can not compare to Fredric March and Charles Laughton, but let me tell you, Michael Rennie and Robert Newton both gave excellent performances! Joseph Wiseman was excellent in a small role, as were James Robertson Justice, Edmund Gwenn, Cameron Mitchell, Debra Paget, and Sylvia Sidney! Once again, this version was not as good as the 1935 version, but all the actors did their very best, and I believe the result was a movie worth watching, and I highly recommend it! The excellent acting definitely lifted it up to almost the 1935 version!

Once you have seen the Black and White film "Les Miserables" with Michael Rennie as Jean Valjean and Robert Newton as Etienne Javert all others fall short by comparison. It's true, there are several versions, both American and French, but each lack the total depth of the 1952 film. Some are too long, (the French Version is three hours) some are mismatched actors, like the one with Anthony Perkins and Ian Holm, and some have forgotten the spirit of the book itself. This particular version which includes actor Edmund Gwenn is, in my opinion superb! This film encompasses the essence of Victor Hugos book. Like a fine wine which has aged well, this vintage is a true masterpiece. Enjoy. ****