I miserabili

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'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 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.

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.

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