Who payed the critics

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I guess this is about the most filmed of Hugo's novels and it's understandable. It probes the distinction between "the law" and "justice," which aren't always concordant.The story must be fairly familiar. ("The Fugitive" was a shameless rip off.) The tattered, exhausted, starving, bitter, soulless Jean Valjean (Rennie), just out of prison for having stolen a loaf of bread, is taken in by a kindly Bishop, who cares for him and gives him a bed. In return, Valjean gets up early, steals all the silverware and makes off with it. He's caught by the police but the Bishop lies and claims the silver was a gift. It's one of the things I like about the story -- and about many of Dickens' tales too. The poor lead wretched lives but they're hardly all heroes. These stories probe the distinction between "adult stories" and "propaganda." Sent away with the silver and the Bishop's blessings, Valjean gets himself cleaned up and becomes part owner, then full owner, of a pottery shop that prospers under his management. He becomes so well known that he's elected mayor. But in doing so he breaks his parole and, if he's caught, will spend the rest of his life in prison. The likelihood of that's happening increases when the mentally rigid Inspector Javert (Newton) is assigned as head of the district's police force. The son of a convict himself, Newton was one of Rennie's guards in the prison galleys and considers him suspect. His suspicions are confirmed when Rennie sacrifices himself in order to save a confused old man who was mistaken for him.Thereafter, the story gets more complicated -- it's based on an almost endless novel, more than 1400 pages divided into more than 300 chapters.Rennie's adopted daughter, Cosette (Paget), takes up with a young revolutionary (Mitchell), and conflicts ensure. This plot thread probes the difference between "romantic love" and "familial love" because, for all we know, the young Debra Paget being the dish she is, she may be Lolita to Rennie's Humbert Humbert. That's what Mitchell thinks, anyway. For some reason I never cared much for Mitchell as an actor, or for his sympathetic but hot-headed character, Marius. They were rebelling against the captains of industry and the robber barons who were making fortunes at the expense of everyone else, just as in much of the rest of the industrialized world, okay, but violence tends to beget violence. Besides, I can't remember a single powerful performance from Cameron Mitchell. He may have been a nice guy in real life, loved his dog, collected pressed roses. Let's see. I think I've covered the Cameron Mitchell business. Ah, but the strawberries. The strawberries! That's where I had them! You should see me "do" Humphrey Bogart. My son tells me it's terrific, although I have to beat him into saying it.In the end, it's hard to compare the various filmed versions of "Les Miserables." For one thing, I haven't seen that many of them. For another, the main theme of pursuit by a single-minded neurotic aside, there are so many plot threads to be followed with varying degrees of detail, that each version is almost like a different movie. The most "realistic" version that I've seen is unquestionably the rendition starring Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean and Uma Thurman as Cosette's prostitute mother who dies of tuberculosis. When Thurman coughs, she spits up blood. And Geoffrey Rush as Javert was superb. The version with Frederick March, like the one under discussion, is given the broad Hollywood treatment and is nice and taut, but tastes differ.

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.

Hollywood strikes again...Michael Rennie starts an Jean Valjean a convict who escapes captivity and then sets about redeeming his life. Once he thinks he has his life in order he is found by Javert a policeman who will stop at nothing to uphold the law.Miscast (I think only the supporting roles seem right) and horribly abbreviated this film plays like a greatest hits version of the story with everything geared to getting to the next key bit. The result is all of the characters seem like cardboard cut outs rather than real people. Its not bad but there are so many other better, versions of the story I think its a waste of time and effort to see this one.Watching the the film on Turner Classic Movies tonight I was struck by the horrible thought that once I got through the film I would never have to see it again. Personally I would rather watch the version by Raymond Bernard again or almost any of the other version of the story.

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.