Avaliações de usuários

With Michael Rennie as Valjean and Robert Newton - in a subdued and tense performance - as Javert, this version of Victor Hugo's great novel is involving, intelligent, touching, and passionate.

In comparison to the 1935 version with March and Laughton, this film stands up well, and looks good, with a literate script. Some characters from the novel are omitted for time constraints, but their absence is not missed.

A good and sturdy version then, not without flaws but carried forward by strong performances, particularly that of Newton, who fits the part of Javert extremely well.

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. ****

Watchable version of the oft-filmed Victor Hugo tale: made by the same studio (Fox), it emerges as a wholly inferior remake of the superb 1935 version – which I reviewed earlier this month. Despite Milestone’s involvement, this one displays more surface gloss than genuine style – with the script itself being much more prosaic. Still, there’s an intermittent evidence of talent throughout – for instance, in the rather effective final shot which frames the mirror image of the protagonists between the all-important candlesticks; also worth noting is the score by Alex North which, particularly at the climax, feels like a dry run for his Oscar-nominated work on SPARTACUS (1960).

Michael Rennie and Robert Newton are fine actors, but their performances here are no match for Fredric March and Charles Laughton in the earlier film; though Newton is remarkably restrained, his role has been somewhat diminished to accommodate the sappy romance involving Debra Paget and Cameron Mitchell! Besides, it’s compromised by the loss of two small but important scenes from the 1935 version which, in this case, robs the character of essential depth: a) when Javert is humiliated by his peers for his lowly background, and b) when he blackmails newly-appointed Mayor Jean Valjean, a former convict, in his office; unbelievably, it substitutes the first by having Javert’s own father serve a prison sentence on the galley to which he’s himself assigned!

Other conceptual flaws include: Edmund Gwenn’s pivotal role of the Bishop, which comes off as whimsical alongside Cedric Hardwicke’s haunting turn in the earlier film; Valjean is depicted as an illiterate who receives schooling from the intellectual played by Joseph Wiseman (his Method approach feels out of place in a 19th century French setting!); Javert’s conscience-stricken demise here is, disconcertingly, brought about by his brief conversation with James Robertson Justice (as Valjean’s right-hand man); missing from the narrative, though, is the poignant character of Eponine (whose role gave a plausible melancholia to the romantic angle in the 1935 film).

Ultimately, I wouldn’t call the 1952 LES MISERABLES unnecessary, considering that it’s made with undeniable professionalism and the fact that countless other film versions have followed it; perhaps, the late eminent critic Leslie Halliwell summed it best in his claim that it’s “lacking the spark of inspiration”.

Michael Rennie and Robert Newton have a go at playing the classic roles of Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert in another version of Les Miserables. The story was far better told on Broadway and in the 1935 film with Fredric March and Charles Laughton.

Not the fault of the actors, Michael Rennie is the restrained voice of civilized humanity in Jean Valjean, proof that a man can overcome a bad start in life and make a contribution to mankind's betterment. Holding the opposite view of course is Robert Newton as the ruthless Inspector Javert who in fact did have a bad upbringing, the child of a convict, but refuses to believe that anyone else can. His negative view of mankind doesn't bring anyone any love in their lives. This I've always felt is the key to Javert be he played by Charles Laughton or Robert Newton.

What I didn't like and was not in the March/Laughton version was the idea that the Valjean character had more than a fatherly interest in Cosette, the child of the doomed Fantine who Valjean adopts. Those are the major female roles in Les Miserables and are played here by Debra Paget and Sylvia Sidney respectively and well. I don't think it was necessary at all to have Paget's young suitor, revolutionary student Cameron Mitchell make that accusation.

It's not a bad film, but after March and Laughton this one seems like a local stock company production.

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.

This may not be the best version of LES MISERABLES, but it certainly can be recommended on the basis of a strong performance from Michael Rennie who easily gives the most interesting and sympathetic performance in the film. A considerably restrained Robert Newton is the hated Javert hunting him down. Newton, usually a superb villain, fails to make the sort of villainous impact Charles Laughton made in an earlier version of the story.

Unconvincing and simply there as window dressing is Debra Paget as Cosette. Likewise, Cameron Mitchell is stiff and lifeless as the young man who falls in love with her, which surprised me because he is a talented actor who made much better impressions in other films. He seems badly miscast here.

Much of the story has been altered in this version, but whenever the concentration is on the story of the haunted central character the film is lifted to another dimension. Rennie as the convict in the early sequences is especially good at conveying all the pain and humiliation his character feels.

Too bad that subplots take away from some of the story's strength, especially the one involving Sylvia Sydney's character which is probably among the weakest roles of her career. Her reunion scene with daughter Cosette is almost laughable.

A deeper, more penetrating exploration of Valjean and Javert would have given the film a stronger feel. Production-wise, Fox has given the film all the technical values it needed with some fine B&W photography and settings, but it all comes across as a superficial version of the original story.

This was the first version of Les Miserables that I saw. I have seen 3 versions since, including the excellent French version with Gerard Depardieu and John Malkovich, but none has the same sheer storytelling power of the 1952 version. Michael Rennie and Robert Newton are superb in their contrasting roles, and the support cast is excellent.

In early 19th century France, poor man Jean Valjean (Michael Rennie) is sentences to 10 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. He serves his time, but finds that his freedom is tenuous at best. An act of kindness enables him to start over anew, with an assumed name. Years later, he's become a respected man of the community, but relentless lawman Inspector Javert (Robert Newton) is determined to see Valjean prosecuted for parole violation. Valjean also struggles to raise his adopted daughter Cosette (Debra Paget), while the drumbeat of revolution beats outside their doors.

Like most versions, it omits many things in favor of an emphasis on others. The performances are good, except perhaps for Paget, but none of them will make me forget the superior versions. I rank the French-language 1934 take as the best, followed very closely by the 1935 Hollywood version with Fredric March. This one I would rank closely behind the 1998 adaptation that starred Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. I've also seen the 2012 musical version, which I didn't care for at all. As for this one, director Milestone does some interesting camera set-ups and intense close-ups, and the production design is very good.

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!

We follow the three stages of the life of French convicted thief Michael Rennie (Jean) in the late 1700s/early 1800s. He is a galley slave in the first stage where we encounter the very rigidly-minded Robert Newton (Javert) as a figure of authority on the ships.

The second stage deals with Rennie's release as he forges ahead with a successful business and becomes mayor of a small town. It is here that he first meets a street-walker Sylvia Sidney (Fantine) who has a seven-year-old daughter who he vows to take care of. However, he is living his life under an assumed name and has failed to report to the authorities each month as per his release conditions. He is a wanted man. Uh-oh! Newton turns up in his town as the chief of police and has suspicions.

The third stage is spent with Rennie on the run and Newton in pursuit as the seven-year-old girl is now Debra Paget (Cosette) with a lover of her own which complicates matters.

Rennie is ok but I found him a little weird. He's sort of a bit nasty and stupid at the beginning and then a bit pervy in his thoughts towards Paget. She calls him 'daddy' as he has been her guardian yet he desires her. This makes him unlikable. He also makes outstandingly stupid decisions throughout the course of the film which loses it marks. I cannot relate. Newton is the best character as the jobsworth who must obey the law, even at the expense of his own father. No room for humanity. He is what cranks up the tension levels in this film.

Edmund Gwenn (Courbet) plays a kind-hearted priest and gets the choice quote in the film. When Rennie is kneeling before him, and Gwenn is about to bless him, Rennie says that he is not a religious man. Without a moment's hesitation, Gwenn replies "Not many of us are" as he fixes Rennie's head in a downward prayer position. Ha ha.

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 is my favorite version of this story, and Michael Rennie is wonderful as Jean Valjean. Robert Newton is also at his crusty best as Javert, his relentless pursuer. I have never seen Rennie give a bad performance and this movie was one of his best, made right as his film career in the US was taking off. The supporting cast is also excellent, and the conflict that arises within Valjean as his feelings of fatherly love for Cosette become romantic feelings that he cannot act upon add to the tension of the film and make for a very complex performance from a gifted actor.

I heartily recommend this movie to anyone, and if you are a fan of Michael Rennie and/or of Robert Newton, you won't be disappointed in either of them. ENJOY!!

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.

There have been dozens of film adaptations of Victor Hugo's classic story, starting from the silent era. I've seen a few, and each version seems to have their own strengths and weaknesses. In the 1952 version, the strengths are the two leads playing Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert: Michael Rennie and Robert Newton. Michael puts his whole heart into this movie and tries as hard as he can to make it better, and of course, Bobbie is always a wonderfully menacing villain. Edmund Gwenn, in perfect typecasting, briefly plays the bishop in the beginning.

The weaknesses, I'm sorry to say, are quite large. Sylvia Sidney isn't bad as Fantine, but unfortunately, she has a very small part. The larger female lead is the role of Cosette. Debra Paget, who should never have been cast in a drama, let alone a period piece, plays Cosette. She could easily be the worst one in the movie, but her romantic scenes are paired with Cameron Mitchell as Marius. The character of Marius is supposed to be rather innocent, handsome, strong, hopeful, and above all, easy to root for. Cameron Mitchell is none of those things! I would have laughed at the idea that he was supposed to be trustworthy and sincere, but I was too busy cringing.

Everyone likes to put his own spin on things, so as you might expect, there are some slight differences to the plot in this one. As hard as Michael and Bobbie try to make their performances the only ones the audiences will remember, Cameron and Debra are overwhelmingly contemporary and miscast. This one isn't my favorite, but I've yet to see a perfect version. With so many characters, there are bound to be actors in every adaptation who threaten to ruin the rest of the movie.

The REAL reason to see this film is to watch Robert Newton as Javert. Javert was a gypsy born in prison who, by shear force of will on his part, has gotten himself into a position of power. He is inflexible and Spartan in his life style and expects as much or more of himself than he does his acquaintances, (he has no friends), and those he rules over.

The problem with the film is that Michael Rene is nothing like Hugo's massive peasant, Valjean. Jean Valjean was a stocky, broad-shouldered, barrel-chested man of only average height and a low center of gravity, Not the tall, slender, elegant Rene. AND, Rene was only an average actor. Deborah Paget couldn't act at all, she was there for pure decoration value.

See this film for Newton's Javert. He is superb.

It's a historical drama set in France from 1815 to 1832, presenting a truncated and revised version of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel. Jean Valjean (Michael Rennie) is serving a 10-year sentence in the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread. He's a large and physically imposing man who is finally released with a yellow passport that labels him an ex-convict. The yellow passport makes it hard for him to get work or even food and lodging until he encounters Bishop Courbet (Edmund Gwenn), who shows him respect even after Valjean steals silver from him.

After six years, under a different name, Valjean is the wealthy owner of a pottery manufacturing firm in company with Robert (James Robertson Justice). However, Police Official Etienne Javert (Robert Newton) is still looking for Valjean since he never showed up in Orleans where he was supposed to go after release. The film follows the ongoing search by Javert even as Valjean tries to protect a woman dismissed from his factory, Fantine (Sylvia Sidney), who falls ill and dies. Valjean takes over care of Fantine's daughter, Cosette (Debra Paget), and raises her. Later, in Paris, Marius (Cameron Mitchell), a law student connected with the republican rebels, falls in love with Cosette. However, Javert again recognizes Valjean, and they have a final confrontation.

This version of "Les Miserables" takes significant liberties with the story in order to make a coherent, shorter version. Michael Rennie does a nice enough job as Jean Valjean, but the film has a barebones feel about it. The characters are sharply delineated with minimal nuance. Victor Hugo is contorted into a Western-style plot.

This is the best version of Les Miserables that has been made to date. I have seen all but the french version and this surpasses them. Michael Rennie is EXCELLENT as Jean Valjean. Its even better than the play.

Les miserables (1952)

*** (out of 4)

Slick production of Victor Hugo's classic novel has Michael Rennie in the role of Jean Valjean and Robert Newton as the Inspector hounding him for decades. This is only the second version of the novel that I've seen (the 1935 being the first) so it's hard for me to compare various versions but it's interesting some of the changes made here. Of course we get small changes like the amount of money owed Valjean after he's released from jail but the final chase through the sewers is changed a bit and some of the overall attitudes towards the two leads are also changed. I think these type of changes always make for an interesting viewing experience when it comes to often filmed stories like this one, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and various others. While there's a lot to enjoy here I think the biggest issue is the performance of Rennie. He has proved that he could be great in certain roles but I found here pretty bland here and not the least bit interesting. His performance here will remind plenty of his one in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL but where that laid back approach worked for that classic, it really hurts this film. I never really bought him in the role and instead of seeing and feeling the character it felt more like I was watching an actor struggle with a part. Newton on the other hand is one I really enjoyed. He played the part with a nice coldness that comes through quite well but he also adds a stern, father-like touch that make the character stand out. Debra Paget, Cameron Mitchell and Elsa Lanchester round out the cast. The music score is an effective one and the cinematography is top-notch. Milestone handles the material quite well and he really makes a beautiful looking film with plenty of style and some really good looking shots. I think it would be fair to say that this is a handsome production but it's missing some of the heart and soul of the earlier version.