Recensioni degli utenti

One of my favourite versions, second only to the 1934 adaptation.

Six hours in length, Depardieu as Valjean, Malkovich as Javert, rich in detail and emotionally engaging - what more can one ask?

As with the 1934 version, this treatment is very full and therefore retains the strength of the original. It contains a number of alterations to the original narrative, but remains faithful to the essence of the characters, though I found Valjean's obsessive behaviour toward Cosette somewhat exaggerated, and too little emphasis laid on his sense of duty, responsibility, and lack of self-esteem, as his motivation.

The direction is crisp, the script intelligent and engaging, and the acting convincing and moving.

Depardieu is an excellent Valjean, articulate and ultimately tragic, while Malkovich is entirely convincing and gives us an unusually "human" Javert. Christian Clavier is splendidly scheming, selfish and low, while Virginie Ledoyen is suitably appealing as Cosette.

This is a confident and intelligent production which is not afraid of its origins.

I've seen this version more times than I'd like to admit, and I have to say, that as an introduction to Les Miserables, this film is the most accurate guide you will find if you want to understand the book. Although the character of Eponine isn't as well developed as it should have been, this should not lower people's opinion of the mini-series because unlike other versions, It performs well AS A WHOLE. Gerard Depardieu played a wonderful, emotive Valjean and I found his portrayal to be deep and sincere. Virginie Ledoyen made the character of Cosette seem easily led, air-headed and a little bit stupid. WONDERFUL! It was a refreshing change to see a bit more thought put into Cosette than the usual Waif-Like heroine that is seen in other adaptations. John Malkovich is competent as Javert, but doesn't inject as much feeling into the role as I had expected. In this respect, Geoffrey Rush did a much better job in the 1998 version. The only thing I have found which I have enjoyed more than this mini-series, in regards to consistency with the original book, and character development is the musical, and that's probably because my school is performing it this year....all in all, I would recommend this to anybody who needs some guiding before wading through the book -I know I did!

I am American, so unfortunately have only seen the 3 hour English-language version. I am an avid fan of Victor Hugo, who I consider the greatest literary master of all time, and am particularly fond of "Les Miserables", a novel which literally changed my life. I hate the American versions of this story, which completely bastardize this great story, so imagine my delight at finally at long last seeing a version that actually retains the true spirit of the original. John Malcovitch is a wonderful Javert, although I also think Anthony Perkins did a fine job in the 1978 version. The entire cast, though, was uniformly superb, especially Charlotte Gainsburg as the pathetic Fantine, Virginie Ledoyen as both Cosette and narrator, and of course Gerard Depardieu was just perfect as Valjean. It was also a pleasant change to hear mostly French rather than British accents, giving the whole film an authenticity other English-language versions don't have. Please tell me that the complete 6-hour French-language version will be available on DVD soon. This is definately the version I recommend Americans to see.

seriously. Malcovitch's Javert is the creepiest, darkest, truest, most tantalizing Javerts ever on screen. and that's why it was so good. I agree on comments about Eponine's scarce appearance on screen and left-out death scene but.... does that really matter. Javert was the best character in the book, the rivalry and chase between him and Valjean is the key thing. I mean, if I ever dared to direct (a completely amateur version ) of Les Miserables, I would concentrate most effort on finding a perfect Javert. that's that. I sorta disliked some surroundings. even the war scenes and sets seemed just way too clean somehow. and especially Seine, oh come on, there should be bodies floating in it, garbage, dead rats and stuff, instead Javert seems to be walking into unused mud bath water. there was a lot more ugliness in the book's France. but I can still never forget this series.

I'll probably get hung for saying this, but this version, while good, is second to the 1998 version with Liam Neeson in my opinion. It moves along slowly (I too am American and didn't get to see the film in its entirety) and is somewhat confusing if you haven't read the novel from front to back. I was forever catching my family up on characters. It sticks VERY closely to the book, and in that is excellent.

I thought that the cast shone well except for Malcovich. He lacked the passionate determination I felt that Javert needed to make a convincing bad guy. Cosette's good looks and incredible costuming took her a long way... that young woman is very talented. The film is very pretty to look at, and handles Fantine's decent into prostitution admirably. (And in that event, is family-friendly.) It was great to see both familiar and unfamiliar faces and be introduced to a new film with such lovely splendor.

I enjoyed it, but probably wouldn't see it more than once. It is a good... great?... watch for the staunch book lovers. But for people looking for a film that carries you along, the 1998 version is better recommended.

This is the best adaptation of the novel, isn't perfect, but is far superior to the version I'll have previouly seen, with a nice cast. It could be perfect but have two failures 1) Miscast: Enrico Lo Verso is too old for being Marious, who was an ideal student, who suffered all the third and fourth book. He isn't naive. The seccond miscast is that Mrs Thenadier is too pretty, but it's irrelevant. 2) The seccond thing that I don't like it, is that in the last page Jean Veljean said to Cossette her mother name, in the miniseries, it's told in the middle.

In facts is an excellent mini, the best screenplay, nice script, superb cast, but with a big miscast in Loverso who isn't the naive, idealistic and insugure Marious.

Not a bad series-adaptation of a classic piece of literature at all, not as good as the 1934 and 1935 films(I remember Anthony Perkins' version being better as well) but better than those with Michael Rennie and Liam Neeson. On the most part, while far from perfect, it is actually good. There are parts where the direction is choppy and things look too clean and perfect, the relationship between Cosette and Marius could have been less bland and while Valjean and Cosette are very convincing father-daughter figures the love for each other did seem a little too strong and loving at times. There's also one miscast and one mixed bag. The miscast was Enrico Lo Verso as Marius, people have said he's too old and it is true but that he is very stiff and almost too creepy is more of a problem. John Malkovich's Javert was a mixed bag, he has the authority, upholding-the-law-attitude, determination and the cold-bloodedness but he can come across as too subdued, too stoic(some of his line delivery is rather monotonous) and with not enough of the tortured soul that Javert becomes later. On the other hand, it is beautifully shot and has lavish and mostly authentic costumes and sets. Jean-Claude Petit's scoring underlines the tension and poignancy of the drama with ease without over-emphasising them, while the scripting is literate and with the spirit of Victor Hugo's writing coming through and the story has the emotional power, pathos, hope and tension that it should. There are alterations and reduced screen-time for characters(Eponine), but you feel Fantine's tragic plight as well as Gavroche's death and the ending is both powerful and affecting, that there's the inclusion of Gillenormand- a character that has been neglected before- is an extra plus. The series is a good length, the book is mammoth so a long length is a good idea, and the pacing takes its time to develop like the storytelling in the book without being too stillborn. The rest of the cast are fine, especially Gerard Depardieu(despite having perhaps a too imposing a physique) as a Valjean where the nobility, magnetism, charisma and tragic grandeur is completely realised and in a way that we feel it too. And also Charlotte Gainsburg as one of the most moving Fantines you'll ever find. Virgine Ledoyen is a beautiful and loyal Cosette without being like a waif, spoiled brat or window-dressing. Asia Argento while underused is indeed an Eponine you feel pity and contempt for, and Christian Clavier is menacing and funny as Thernadier(Veronica Ferres matches him very well as his wife if too on the pretty side). Overall, has problems but on the most part it is good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

After seeing this many times over the years, without it ever losing it's potency, I can say this 'Millennium' or year 2000 adaptation, would have to be the best version of Les Misérables.

Depardieu and Malkovich bring an intensity and humanity to their roles which has never before been captured in any previous productions (or since for that matter - don't waste your time with the 2012 version). This is the definitive Les Misérables. The music, set design, supporting performances, and all the other elements come together, to create what will probably stand to be the best filmed version of this much loved novel ever made.

See it if you can in it's native French language with English subtitles for the best viewing experience...and if you like it spread the word about this fantastic adaptation, not many people know about it.

Vive La Revolution!

I'm not a big fan of costume drama's and the actor Gérard Depardieu. Normally that should have been enough reasons for me not to watch this series. On the other hand, the novel is a classic in literature and this time it isn't the tale of some rich princesses who have broken a finger nail and want to commit suicide because of that. This is about ordinary people and their efforts to survive and to make the best out of their miserable situations. Anyway, I decided to give this series a chance and I'm glad that I did, because it was a lot better than I ever expected.

It tells the story of Jean Valjean, a galley slave who was sent to prison for stealing food and who is now released after serving nineteen years in a labor camp. At first he's avoided by everybody, because he once was in jail, but than he meets Bishop Bienvenu, who gives him shelter for the night and something to eat without asking something in return. The bishop's compassion and humanity restore Jean Valjean's faith in the goodness of people and helps him to go back to an orderly life. He changes his name to Monsieur Madeleine and soon becomes a wealthy industrialist who's a popular citizen. He even becomes the mayor of the small provincial town where he lives. In the meantime he has also met one of his workers, Fantine, who was fired from his factory because she had a child. He saves Fantine's daughter out of the hands of a mean family and raises her like his own daughter. But not everybody believes he is such a good, loving and caring man. Javert is a police officer who has made of hunting Valjean like a wild animal his main occupation. He's convinced that every man who once was a criminal, will always be a criminal and he'll do anything to get him behind bars again...

This series should not only be seen by the people who once read the book or saw the musical. I haven't read the book and I didn't see the musical either, but I certainly could enjoy this series. I guess everybody who has at least a bit of interest the hardness of 19th-century life for the ordinary people will enjoy this. Another reason why you could enjoy it is because of the good and convincing acting by all the characters. As I already said before in this review, I'm not a fan of Depardieu, but it has to be said: He was very convincing in his role as Jean Valjean.

All in all this is an enjoyable, honest and serious series that is worth watching when you are interested in the story. Personally I liked what I saw and that's why I give this series a 7.5/10.

This is the best version adapted on screen,if you have read the book you will understand what I mean.All the other adaptations are very poor compared to this one.Depardieu and Malcovich's interpretations are for an Oscar

I see that some people are lamenting that there is a 4-hour edit which has lots of holes. I saw the 6-hour original french broadcast (4 x 1.5hrs). I have seen many versions of Les Mis, and as it goes this one is a very good rendering of the novel. It has a few notable merits. First, it is a French production so the language and filming locations give it a French authenticity. Second, it is as long as any version of Les Mis out there so it attempts to cover as much of the novel as you are likely to see on screen. Third, Depardieu's Valjean is as close as you would wold picture him in physicality and stature.

However, to contradict all that, despite its 6 hour length I think there were some parts that dragged where not a lot of the plot moved forward - it didn't used its 6 hours as well as it could. It features far less depth than the 6 hour BBC (2018) version for instance. And the BBC series is much better at keeping all the many characters threads together and weaving them together nicely. The 2000 version feels like a number of different storylines that don't come together or are interwoven as well as the BBC version. Also, though Depardieu does a great job and is very well cast as Valjean, there are some incredible actors who have played Valjean and Depardieu's rendering is not the greatest. You are not as invested in him by the end as you are in others.

Overall, a very good version which has French authenticity. But despite its length is not as well structured as others nor as in depth, and the production values are fairly low so it isn't that great to look at either. But some good performances make up for this.

I have read this novel several times and I was stunned that some of you found this a faithful version. I am referring to the miniseries that aired in the US with Depardieu and Malkovich. Maybe the French version - twice as long? - is more true to the novel, but the version we saw here was shockingly distorted.

Yes - all of the characters were there, but their roles were often twisted beyond recognition. One GLARING example: Eponine. If you have read the novel, you know that she is one of the most heroic characters, sacrificing herself for Marius. Did I miss something here? They turn her into one of the villains. Gavroche's role is also misrepresented. If they were going to take all that time, why not do it as Hugo wrote it? It is also very odd to make Cosette the narrator, as she is deliberately one of the weaker, more insipid characters in the novel. And Valjean was never in love with Cosette. He is genuinely an adoptive father.

Depardieu is beautifully cast as Valjean, but John Malkovich (I'm a fan, too) plays Javert as if he were simply mean - with none of the nuances of the tortured character that Geoffrey Rush portrays. The 1998 Bille August film is by far the superior interpretation, despite what he leaves out. And the musical theater version is the best of all, faithful to both the plot and spirit of Hugo's masterpiece.

the clash between Depardieu and Malkovich. this is the first level. then, the loyalty to the novel in a better manner because the series is inspired option for present the story. but this is the start point. because this Les Miserables gives the flavor and nuances of a period. this adaptation impose the right way to discover the details, the force and the rhythm of a magnificent masterpiece. all is rediscovered in new light. and Javert of John Malkovich is real closed by the figure of Vidoque. result - the film becomes a lesson with chance to be a form of experience. nothing original for the reader or for the public of old adaptation. only a delicate line who gives to the film a special status. short, a beautiful film. in many senses.

I did not enjoy this iteration of the story. I persevered through an hour or so of it, but really just felt Malchevich and Depardieu were miscast. Yes, Gerard is big so that fits with Valjean's strength. Yes, John shows no emotion do that for with Javert's character.v and both are awesome actors. Just not in this.

This is probably the closest version of the book, because: 4 parts, all written apart, every single line of the characters are shown. Probably Departieu and Malkovich were the magnets to get to see the movie. Other wise COOL! Cant say anything bad.

I haven't read the book, and most of my knowledge about Victor Hugo's classic stems from the musical, so I'm not an authority on which film adaptation is closest to the original story. I have heard that the six-hour French miniseries released in 2000 is the most thorough version. I wasn't able to get my hands on a subtitled version, unfortunately, so this review will be of the three-hour English version with the same cast, released on Fox Family in the same year.

Since I do know the musical like the back of my hand, I didn't find the scenes confusing. I could tell that there were chunks cut down or out, but it didn't bother me because I understood the reason for it. For those of you who don't know the musical extremely well, you might want to start out with another version. Everyone except John Malkovich speaks with a heavy accent, and often they're difficult to understand, so you might get lost if you don't already know the plot. Also, if you're particularly partial to Eponine's character, you might be disappointed that her big scene-you know what I mean-is cut out entirely.

I enjoyed watching this version because I love Gérard Depardieu and love seeing him tackle the classics. I would have liked to see the French version, not only to see twice as many scenes and to give Gérard twice as much screen time, but also to hear John Malkovich speak French. How fun would that be? His interpretation of Javert wasn't very menacing, but instead matter-of-fact mean, and Gérard's take on Valjean is subtle rather than overly emotional, so this version might be different than the ones you're used to. Charlotte Gainsbourg costars as Fantine, Virginie Ledoyen as Cosette, and Christian Clavier as Thenardier. You'll get to see Jeanne Moreau as one of the nuns and Guillaume Depardieu as young Valjean. His part was only five seconds in the English version, but I'm assuming the French version gave him more screen time.

This was an amazing adaptation, with a few things that were missing. I agree with the first review that Marius looked way too old, and the other is that in every adaptation of the book, they never give Eponine enough screen time. She wasn't even a character in the version with Claire Danes. Yes, she is a character in this version, but they don't show her death and proclamation of love for Marius. It's one of the most heart-wrenching scenes in the book, and I was disappointed that it's never shown in any of the movies. The musical got it right though.

I liked this version a lot though and wish they would air it again. Les Miserables is one favorite books and timeless story of love, forgiveness and revolution.