Wonderful character development!

disgusting, overrated, pointless

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

Blistering performances.

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.

Forget the book. As far as STORY goes, Liam Neeson's version takes the cake!1998 version was so much better than the 2012 version. The 2012 version was so pushed and in your face like damn it cry already. If you have good acting and good direction you don't need that extra push because it can happen naturally. And more than 50% of the singing in the 2012 version sucked. They chose certain Broadway actors but some weren't and their singing hurt my ears. And if you are going to do a musical don't talk during some of the most beautiful singing parts that was just dumb on their part. The acting was so much more powerful in the 1998 version and they didn't have to sing what was on their mind for you to understand what they were going through. I love the Broadway/concert version too but out of the film adaptations 1998 version is far better than the 2012. Oh and the "boy who gets shot" in the story, it really shocked me in the original when the boy got shot by the troops; I gasped, totally saddened. But the boy in the 2012 adaptation... oh my HECK was he annoying - all his singing & mannerisms were just undeniable irritating! Instead I was like "Thank You!" when he was shot.But I talk in full detail about the films compared in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NiJT9mQzokThe 1998 version is the best! Watch it and enjoy it!8/10PS: And the ending made absolutely NO friggin' sense whatsoever! I thought this "Free France Heaven" where everyone who died is a live was just laugh-out-loud ridiculous!

With no doubt this movie is an utopia. Never ever in my life I have been so mesmerized by a movie in the way this one did to me. This is the movie of my life, a masterpiece, a perfect movie that warms your hearth and changes you as a person if you allow it. In a good manner. This movie also made me read the books. I love this story so much that I will build myself with patience and even go to see the new musical, for which I don't have the high expectations everyone has right now but I'm not going to criticize either. I will go for the story. For the wonderful story of Jean Valijean and Javert. I don't care about the differences. There are always going to be differences, between a movie and a book, but that doesn't matter. The message matters. The message that carries what we all should do more in our life: be a better person than others, be able to forgive and give up hating. This is what really matters and a true "Les miserables" fan will notice and follow that. As for the cast I have no words. Liam Neeson IS Jean Valijean! He's the perfect Jean Valijean that the world will have on screen, no matter what some others say. Geoffrey Rush IS the one and only Javert. He IS and WILL always be the one and only person that could portray the fanatic, perfectionist and twisted Javert. He is the only person by now that could pull all this emotions together and give this perfect performance. If the Academy Awards wouldn't have been so blind at the edition and toss around the Oscars with no sense as they did and would have notice more carefully the wonderful performance of those two the Oscars would have been now at their rightfully owners. But I don't care. For me and for others as well they are the best from that year. Not "Elizabeth", NOT "Shakespeare in love", THIS! Uma Thurman and Claire Danes are the most talented (especially Danes) Fantine and Cosette. Claire Danes will always be Cosette for me. She was the most sweet person in the movie. With the most beautiful eyes as well. The score was perfect especially at the Revolution scene. Very powerful.Watch it people. If you care about good movies watch it as soon as you read this! Otherwise you live in vain.10* PERFECTION!