the audience applauded

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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.

I understand that move such big story to movie is not simple task, but why again bend everything to such big cliché? The characters were flat, they bring me no emotion, someone was killed? And what, who was it actually?If you want know the strong story, watch the 4part France mini series with Gérard Depardieu. Do you want some simple movie for evening? This is good enough.And really notice that the movie is from end of the 18th century, there were no Afro-Americans with freedom, you can have you correctness, but it change nothing about history. We should display it and then we can learn from it. Not to try to lie.

again,Les Miserables was a huge book, and it is very hard to adapt, and i get it, things have to be changed, but, 30 minutes wouldn't have hurt it,and with that i mean, it would have been more emotive show Jean Valjean's death, not just end it with Javert's suicide.Well, at the end this movie it's a great movie that, if it is not close to the story events, at the end it is to the novel's atmosphere.The characters are played really well, Geoffrey Rush Kills it as Javert, playing him perfectly, Liam Neeson was Great as Valjean, Claire Danes did a great addition to Cosette's Character, making her stronger.The script is well articulated, The photography is beautiful and the acting is terrific.this is one of the best adaptations of Victor Hugo's Novel.

Bille August's adaptation of the classic tale of redemption, revenge and romance is not a faithful adaptation of the book. Characters are reduced to bit parts, or are eliminated entirely, whilst the ending is removed. But this does not stop it from being an excellent film. Dramatically shot and convincingly acted, this is one for the ages.The ever reliable Liam Neeson provides the film's soul as the repentant convict Jean Valjean, believable as both a former criminal and a saintly figure, touching with his female costars and smouldering when confronting his nemesis, the ever watchful Javert. The Javert of this film is colder and crueller than the professional of Hugo's book, but in the hands of Geoffrey Rush, he still garners sympathy as his duty -bound world falls apart. Uma Thurman provides pathos in her brief role as Fantine, as does Claire Danes, whose relationship with Valjean provides the true emotional heart of the film. Also notable is Peter Vaughan as the Bishop of Digne, the man who sets Valjean on the path to redemption.So if you are looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere. But if you seek a moving, dramatic and entertaining film, you cant wrong with this version.