Les misérables

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.

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.

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.

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.

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