beglenrice Making a two-hour film out of a 500 page book is tough, sure. But this version stinks. I'm sure someone really thought (Claude Berri?) this would be good. The problem is the film scratches the surface of the world Zola created. An obvious example is the mine, Le Voreux itself, in the beginning is described as a kind of living, breathing, horrific thing that swallows humans by the cartload. The trepidation of Etienne in going down to work is described in the book with such detail that when you watch the film the reality of what horror it must have really been is reduced to a simple look of anxiety on Etienne's face while he comfortably waits to descend. There is no trace of the idea of Le Voreux being a monstrous man-swallower. Missing this thematic point has nothing to do with a film's running length. It's a classic movie rendering of a book, without flavor, without guts, without imagination. The casting is atrocious. Etienne is supposed to be twenty-one years old, this guy looks well into his thirties (he was 40 in 1992). It's an important factor. Gerard Depardieu is fat as Maheu, in the book these poor people were starving to death, skinny to the point of emaciation, yet here is Depardieu looking very well fed. Who said Depardieu was physically perfect for the role? Are you nuts? These people were starving to death. The way they portrayed the poor was so prettied up, the younger sister was hunchbacked by malnutrition in the book but here is a cute healthy looking girl of course, their hair is clean and clothes relatively tidy, they look like modern people dressed up. If they wanted to make it look real, these people would have looked like they were suffering physically, as Zola described them. Malnourished, with bad skin, teeth, etc. Berri or whomever didn't have the guts to really show what they must have looked like, it would have been too extreme. Yet the extremity is the book's central character in a way. Without that, this is garbage. Another example, in the mines, in the book, the characters would have to crawl on their hands and knees to get to the seam in places, in pitch-black darkness at points, and Etienne would have suffered all sorts of bruises and cuts, but in the movie they just stroll on up to the spot. The characters and setting in the movie do no justice to how the book describes things like the temperature, freezing cold one minute and dying of heat the next. There are many examples like this. I had to turn it off. The acting wasn't that good either, not necessarily their fault, when they're forced to generalize things that were compressed and not naturally developed in the film the way they were in the book. Look, of course it's difficult to adapt a book, especially a good book, but if you can't do it, just don't. You're embarrassing yourself. The contrast between the classes in this book and how it completely illuminates their difference make the story make sense. This movie unfortunately doesn't come close. Only stupid 21st/20th Century minds from the Civilized West could actually think the poor characters in the movie were shown realistically as impoverished. We have no idea. That's why you read the book. Make the movie if you have the courage to do it justice. Without showing the real conditions, the desperation of the people to strike doesn't make sense, they have to be willing to die, because they're dying already.

richard-1787 Reducing Zola's masterful but monstrously long novel to a movie is the problem that Claude Berri does not seem to have resolved. He sticks close to Zola's text, which means that we get lots of undeveloped snippets of what were very developed scenes in the novel. If you don't know the novel, this probably causes a certain sense of confusion. If you do know the novel, and it is well-known in France, you have the sense that you are just skimming the surface. I think that Berri would have done better to be less faithful to the novel, or at least less comprehensive in his adaptation of it.That said, there are most certainly good things in this movie. Miou Miou delivers, in my opinion, the movie's best performance. No, she is not at all the earth mother that Zola's la Meheude is. But she acts with her face, saying far more with a facial gesture than many words would have said. In a movie that skims over a lot of material, that makes for very effective acting. Depardieu is sometimes very good - physically he is perfect for the part of le Maheu - sometimes he seems to deliver the lines without thinking about them. The actor who plays Souvarine is very striking.The cinematography is nice, but does not convey a lot of what Zola emphasizes in the novel: the heat and lack of space in the mine tunnels, etc.A good movie if you haven't read the novel; a disappointing one if you have.

futures-1 "Germinal" (French, 1993): This EPIC story, adapted from Emile Zola's novel and put to film by Claude Berri (director of "Jean de Florette" and "Manon of the Spring"), is the gritty depiction of hard working coal miners in 1800's France, trying to eek out a living and better their lives by forming a labor union. Loaded with issues rising through the Industrial Age, Gerard Depardieu, Miou-Miou, Judith Henry, and Jean-Roger Milo deservedly star in a frighteningly bleak setting, with ominous musical scoring, and the relentless, black dust of coal. Comparisons to the wealthy mine owners lives, opulent and very isolated from their industry's realities, are blatant and clear. Zola wanted some economic and moral balance – even just a little – and set about depicting a situation that could not be denied.

adamflinter Tackling a book such as Germinal is a mammoth task - and one that I always thought was extremely difficult to transfer onto the big screen.There are two ways you can do it, keep it simple or explore everything and bore the audience to death. You can see here that the director has decided to keep the story as simple and straightforward as possible.This means there are a few gaping holes in the film, as it ignores some of the intricacies of the story and many of the sub-plots which punctuate the story and add to the feel of the book.In one sense he succeeds, as the tempo of the film is high and it rattles along at a fair pace, not reading like a 2 and a half hour story.But the major drawback of this tactic is that Germinal ends up looking like a simplistic noble workers versus the greedy bosses story, when the novel is anything but that.Scorn is poured on both sides with equal contempt by Zola, and plenty of sympathy is given to some of the "wealthy" protaganists in the book.Having said this, I do understand that in order to keep the film from turning into a 4 hour behemoth, you need to try and keep it as simple as possible.On the whole, however, it is pretty well acted and the art direction is utterly breathtaking. The villages, the pits, the landscapes, the mines are fabulously shot. You really can feel the poverty oozing from every inch of the screen.Gerard Depardieu (Maheu) and Renaud (Ettiene) put in some pretty convincing turns but feel that Jean-Roger Milo rather over-egged Chaval, turning him into some pseudo incredible hulk type character who is incapable of speaking normally. Judith Henry also seems a little to young and fresh faced to play Catherine.I think I let my interpretation of the book cloud my judgement, and as a result I was disappointed because I expected more from the film than I should have.Rating: 3 out of 5