Filipe Neto This film is the cinematographic adaptation of the literary work with the same name, by Victor Hugo. The original work is so vast and detailed that any adaptation would never be able to do it justice, and so I was "a priori" open to a lot of cuts. The film didn't disappoint me: there are whole characters missing and moments when everyone who knows the book feels the flaws and the loose ends on the plot. I can even say that I disagree with some of the script's options. Despite this, comparing this version to that of 2012, which I saw first (which more directly adapts the Broadway musical than the novel), it's able to enter more easily into the Parisian gloomy atmosphere and the hopes surrounding the revolt. Without the background of the songs, without the colorful stage theater, this is a film that seeks to show things more faithfully to the novel.I will not discuss the plot in detail. If you want to know what happens in this movie just watch or read the book, which is well spread and translated. In addition, its a relatively familiar story. Let's talk about the actors' work. Liam Neeson was a good Jean Valjean, able to perfectly harmonize the bad side of his character with his desire to do good, remedy his own past and start from scratch. The character is quite noble in his intentions in spite of being considered a fugitive, and the actor managed that we understood this duality. He wasn't bad, it was the need that transformed him. On the other side of the board is Geoffrey Rush, probably the best Inspector Javert I've ever seen (and I really enjoyed the way Russell Crowe worked on this character in 2012!). Rush gave his Javert an absolutely cruel cold, worthy of a man unable to feel anything about his fellow man. Javert is the personification of blind and ruthless justice, while Crowe seemed more of an obsessed man, incapable of changing his irrational obedience to law. I hated, however, the work of Claire Danes as Cosette. She was a tremendous casting error, since she was never able to catch the soul of her character: an innocent young girl who discovers love but who is torn between this new feeling and the fidelity to the man that life taught her to call dad. Uma Thurman was pretty decent as Fantine but I prefer Anne Hathaway's version (2012), much more elegant and suffering. Despite this, I cannot help noticing that the importance of Thurman's character was severely affected by the cuts made in the script.The film is loaded with action and tension. From the arrival of Valjean to Paris to the events in the barricades, the whole film is a game of cat and mouse between police and fugitives in the midst of a France that is tearing itself to pieces, on the verge of another civil war and indecisive about his new Orleanist monarchy. The political framework of the time is important to understand the film and is a fundamental part of the script. However, the drama of a final climax is missing. Final events occur very suddenly and the film ends leaving the audience with a sense of "I want more". There are still some loose ends due to cuts made and this should have been corrected in some way (Javert's death, for example). I also missed Eponine, a female character who would have made love triangle with Cosette and Marius, putting their love to the test, in a way.Technically impeccable, the film has great scenarios and costumes. The sound effects, visual and special effects fulfill their role with gallantry without stealing the scene to what is happening at that moment. The cinematography is excellent and perfectly level with what we would expect.

ThatMOVIENut One of many versions of Victor Hugo's iconic epic, this late 90s version sees Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean, a 19th century convict who is given a chance for redemption, despite the persistence of the law-obsessed Inspector Javert (Geoffrey Rush), when he must raise the child of the lowly Fantine (Uma Thurman), Cosette (Claire Danes), amidst various changes and turmoils in France, culminating in the student revolt in Paris.While its ending will have Hugo purists boiling with rage, Bille August's adaptation still manages to be a very fine film in its own right. Its immediate strength is its all star cast's great performances, especially Rush and Neeson in the two central roles, playing off each other perfectly as the kind hearted Valjean and the ruthless Javert. Thurman, following 'Batman & Robin' and 'The Avengers', does make up for it here with a nuanced and kindly performance as Fantine, while Danes' Cosette, though a little more bitchy than other versions, still conveys that sense of goodness and hope that is so central to the character.Production-wise, it's exactly what you'd expect. August' direction is sweeping and large, enhanced by design work and location filming that does make you believe you are looking at early 19th century France, and in the midst of horrid prisons and bloody street battles during the revolution. Veteran master Basil Poleadours' score is also nicely varied, going from booming and romantic, to intimate and sombre as we journey with Valjean as he reclaims his life.Rafeal Yglesias (the same man behind the great screenplay for Peter Weir's 'Fearless') does a workman like job of adapting and condensing the notoriously thick book, mainly focusing on Valjean's journey here and dialing back on a lot of the socio-political commentary of Hugo's work. This is a double edged sword, as it does permit more than a handful of genuinely emotional moments that tug at the heart without being too sappy, and focuses the story more around Valjean and his quest for redemption, but it also means that most of the supporting cast are cut or severely reduced (the Thernadiers are on screen for a few moments, and Marius and Enjorlas get collapsed into one character, among a number of other changes) and again, a lot of the bigger ideas in 'Les Mis' are more in the background. And well, the ending is going to irk purists, which is all I'll say.But despite that, this more base take on 'Les Mis' still worked as an engaging period drama with really tight pacing and a good emotional undercurrent. It may not be definitive, but it is entertaining

Will McGonagle Often times people compare this movie to the book or the Broadway. If you are going to do that, you might as well not even watch it. This movie is a simplified rendition of the book and, besides the setting, characters, and basic plot, is nothing like the book or the Broadway. I recommend that you enjoy this movie for what it is and do not try to compare it to its other versions.This movie is one of the best movies ever made. It has all the best parts of a great movie. Action, love, redemption, suspense, a great music score, a despicable evil villain, a plot twist, sheer emotion, and it give an insight into the past and some of the social problems that existed. If this movie was an original work it probably would have been one of the best of all time, but since it varies from the book, which has a loyal following of its own, it has been overlooked.

Teri Cronin If it were not for this movie, I would have never been familiar with Victor Hugo or the Les Miserables novel. As I have difficulties reading lengthy books, it is wonderful to have such novels adapted into movies. I am aware that this particular movie does not do a proper job in telling the whole story. Apparently, the movie does a poor job in some of the characterizations and leaves out many important scenes. However, if like me, you have never read the book and do not prefer to watch musicals, this movie is quite satisfying. For those who like to watch movies that "transport" you to another period in time, the scenery and costumes do a good job in representing 19th century France. Both Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush do a great job as the main characters. The theme that stands out in Les Miserables is one of redemption- a concept that we all should be more familiar with.