Very well executed

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

When it comes to all things France related, there aren't too many mainstream stories that have been told and retold again in American cinema. The French Revolution, parts of World War II and even fantasy stories like Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991) all take place in France. But from as it seems, the most popular of these French stories belong to Victor Hugo's novel of the same name Les Miserables. So far this book has had five major film adaptations; four of which were feature length movies, while another was a mini-series. The two latest adaptations were theatrically released while the second in line was a TV movie release. The difference in years between releases may be a long period (two decades), but the story wasn't drastically varied. The only noticeable change in presentation is having the knowledge of its production date. Knowing it was produced in the late 1970s gives it a much more dated viewing experience. Nonetheless, the story is worth the time to see. As the title would suggest, the plot to this movie is about Les Miserables or "the miserables", "the poor ones" etc. Living in France during 1796, a broke innocent woodcutter named Jean Valjean (Richard Jordan) steals a loaf of bread in order to feed his sister and her children. Not long after being caught by the authorities, Valjean is sent to Toulon to carry out his five-year sentence. In charge of the Toulon camp is the heavy handed Javert (Anthony Perkins), who ends up becoming acquainted with Valjean very quickly and their rivalry percolates into the next thirty years. With time passing before his eyes, Valjean becomes bitter against humanity but realizes his error when a bishop (Claude Dauphin) displays an act of kindness towards him. Determined to live every moment by caring for others, Valjean becomes utterly the opposite of what he once was. Headed by Glenn Jordan (a veteran TV Movie director) and written by John Gay, this film looks dated but still has a significant amount of storytelling.The development of Jean Valjean is intriguing enough to see play out when looking at his humble beginnings. Over time, Valjean becomes a grizzled man who finds himself being more of an early Hudini than a woodcutter. Even at an elderly age, somehow Valjean finds a way of getting around; that's impressive. Richard Jordan as Valjean doesn't disappoint either. Jordan is one those serious actors who always play his role like it were his own. Along his travels he adopts a widow's daughter named Cosette (Caroline Langrishe) and raises her as his own. Angela Pleasence, the daughter of Donald Pleasence, plays the widow. The part that Cosette plays as to her stepfather isn't as prominent, but she does bring about some compelling situations between Valjean and the ever-vigilant Javert. Speaking of which, Anthony Perkins as Javert is credible too. Although he stands like a giant mast, Perkins can be very intimidating as the lead inspector. He really makes things run like clockwork. By far the best chemistry is seen between Perkins and Jordan.The odd thing is the relationship that Javert and Valjean have reminisced to that of Batman and The Joker from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008). Except this time, the roles and personalities are switched. Valjean is the miscreant who makes Javert's world a chaos to deal with. Yet Valjean's ideals are more unpretentious than say The Joker's. Javert on the other hand resembles that of Batman, wanting order and will stop at nothing to catch Valjean. The parallels are undeniable. It is a little baffling though to see actors playing French characters and not sounding anywhere close to the accent. Saying monsieur doesn't make you entirely French. The other problem that arises is the forced love interest between Cosette and a rebel named Marius (Christopher Guard). All these two characters do is stare at each other once or twice and they both know they're in love. It's certain that most audiences will not buy into this notion and completely believe that. Rarely do individuals know each other are meant to be by just staring.When it comes to visuals, the scenery isn't always clear. However, since this took place way before CGI was implemented into film, all props were undoubtedly physical objects. That covers sets and various historical pieces of the time. A lot of the old structures look appropriate taking the setting into account. The cinematography was shot by Jean Tournier, a native Frenchman (gasp!). Like stated before, although there are some darker than normal scenes, the scenes do cover enough to have the viewer comprehend the surroundings of the main leads. That also means even without a widescreen view. The musical score composed by Allyn Ferguson is another memorable element. Sadly there was no official release of the music but the theme is quite endearing. Relying mostly on the strings, Ferguson's main theme to this adaptation consistently appears whenever Valjean is on screen pointing out that the story revolves around him. Surprisingly, that's all the music needed. It would've been nice to have other cues but it's fine anyway.The fact that the actors weren't directed to have a more authentic French accents and the main character's step daughter having a forced love interest are the only true crimes to this book adaptation. The actors, music, camera-work and especially the writing make this a special story to witness.

Les Miserables is a classic, rich, detailed, powerful and moving, but because of its mammoth length and the depth it goes in it's a difficult one to adapt. While there are things left out(the absence of Eponine is regrettable) along with the 1933/4 and 1935 films this is one of the best adaptations of the book. While it is not as lavish as the 1935 and 1998(the latter while not terrible being the adaptation that fared the weakest) films, the French scenery and settings are breath-taking in their detail and authenticity(you are literally drawn into Victor Hugo's world and what he's conveying) to watch and the costumes are accurate to period as well. The colour is lovely, love the contrasts of the colours associated with spring and those with autumn. And the film is very well-shot and directed. Hardly cheap-looking. The music is of the stirring and hauntingly-beautiful kind, and what is clever is how some of the characters have their own instrumental motifs like Valjean with the strings and Javert with the brass. Adapting such a huge story is a very daunting task, and one that was done successfully and admirably, it is a very literate script with attention to characterisation and the "brusque" dialogue that is characteristic of Victor Hugo. The spirit of Hugo's prose and storytelling are present, it is emotional, powerful and hopeful especially in the second half, and more importantly even with omitted subplots it's coherent. The film doesn't rush things, instead parts are developed deliberately with time to breathe and resonate. Les Miserables(1978) has some of the best characterisation of any adaptation of the book, especially with Valjean and Javert- the dynamic between them is very intensely done-, few other adaptations have conveyed the sense that the two are both polar opposites and mirror images, and that neither are what they seem to be. Cosette is slightly underwritten but it doesn't hurt the film too much. The acting is great, John Gielgud, Cyril Cusack and Ian Holm give solid contributions, Angela Pleasance is a very affecting Fantine, Christopher Guard is dashing as Marius and Caroline Langrishe is good as Cosette(the relationship between the two doesn't dominate things nor does it feel too shallow). But the best performances, helped by that they are the two most interesting characters and have the lion's share of what goes on in the story, come from Richard Jordan and especially Anthony Perkins. Jordan's Valjean is both brooding and sympathetic and he captures the nobility, struggles with his immorality and redemption and tragic grandeur just as brilliantly. Perkins performs Javert in a way that almost eclipses his iconic performance of Norman Bates in the Hitchcock masterpiece Psycho, he is ruthless, unforgiving and charismatic but he also has a vulnerable and sympathetic side that shows Javert as a conflicted man rather than your stereotypical villain. To conclude, a brilliantly done film and adaptation-wise while not entirely to the letter it is one of the better and faithful in spirit ones. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Les Miserables (1978) *** (out of 4) Made-for-TV version of Victor Hugo's classic tale about Jean Valjean (Richard Jordon) who is sentenced to prison after stealing a loaf of bread for his sister and starving children. From this point Valjean's life goes through various ups and downs as he manages to escape prison and become an important figure but every step of the way he has to deal with police inspector Javert (Anthony Perkins). Over the past year I've been trying to watch a new version of LES MISERABLES every few months and it's become clear that it would really be bad if a director got a hold of this story and didn't make a good film. I mean, the story itself is so great that it would be really hard to mess that up and as long as you got two good actors in the main roles then there's really no point in delivering a bad film. This 1978 version is yet another good telling of the story and a lot of the credit must go to both Jordon and Perkins. I found Jordon to be extremely good in the part as he managed to handle every bit of development that the character goes through. I really enjoyed him early on as he slowly became a monster due to being abused in prison. Jordon did a remarkably good job playing this almost monster but he was also believable as the character slowly gets broken and turns into a respectable man. Perkins, who will always be remembered for playing Norman Bates, also delivers a fine performance. Obviously, the actor had no problem playing troubled people and I enjoyed the darker, more intense way he played Javert. John Gielgud, Ian Holm and Cyril Cusack have good supporting roles. Another major plus about this version are the costumes, set design and of course the sets. You have no problem feeling as if you're really in the days that the story takes place. The one negative thing I have to say about the movie really isn't the movie's fault at all. Originally this played over two nights on television and the total running time minus the commercials would have been somewhere around 150-minutes. The movie played theatrically in certain parts of the world with a variety of running times but sadly most VHS, DVD and cable versions out there now just run 123-minutes. That is the version I had to watch and it's obvious that some important parts of the story have been edited down. Obviously, the best way to view this film would to be getting a hold of an uncut version but if you must see the film and this shorter version is all that's available, it's still recommended.

i first saw this in about 1999 and i thought i was brilliant. i have never read the novel and i haven't seen any other film adaptations but this one is good enough for me. i might watch some other film versions of this in the future just to see how they compare but i think this is really good.FIRST - it doesn't rush into things. it takes it's time to explain why valjean was placed in prison and leads us up to the events to follow TWO - all of the actors are very good, especially the leads, Richard Jordan is superb as Valjean and Anthony Perkins is excellent as Inspector Javert, a very tenacious character who has nothing on his mind but the apprehension of Vajean, so much so he even argues with officers above him to stay on his case.THREE - it's a good chase movie. Every now and then through the film Valjean's freedom is threatened and the viewer has the sense that he may be captured at any time. this effect tends to wear off on repeat viewings but when you see this for the first time it is very suspenseful. this film may be nearly two and a half hours but it isn't boring at all.FOUR - very realistic. i like the way this handles the time periods, not only can you watch the main story and enjoy it but you can get a sense of how things were in the late 18th and early 19th century. in today's terms there was nothing, no cars, no TV or radio, no computers and you get a sense that if you were living in that time period it would be very boring indeed.FIVE - this is so good you don't want it to end. this may sound weird to some but the first time i watched it and i saw the credits coming up i thought, 'is that it?' i didn't realise that it's two hour and 17 minute running time was up, i was so engrossed with it, i realise that javert was dead and so valjean's apprehension was no longer imminent, however, i just feel that it could have gone on a few more years and have him into a few other adventures, perhaps until his death almost.if you haven't seen this, then do so. this gets 10/10