TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

marlene_rantz This version of Victor Hugo's classic novel was not as good as the 1935 version. Obviously, the two leading actors can not compare to Fredric March and Charles Laughton, but let me tell you, Michael Rennie and Robert Newton both gave excellent performances! Joseph Wiseman was excellent in a small role, as were James Robertson Justice, Edmund Gwenn, Cameron Mitchell, Debra Paget, and Sylvia Sidney! Once again, this version was not as good as the 1935 version, but all the actors did their very best, and I believe the result was a movie worth watching, and I highly recommend it! The excellent acting definitely lifted it up to almost the 1935 version!

dbdumonteil Lewis Milestone 's main merit here was to make a 105 min film out of a mammoth novel.This is the shortest version I know,and ,being French,I have seen plenty of them.This is the only version which does not feature the Thenardier family,which is a bit infuriating (like filming "David Copperfield" without the Murdstone brother and sister).For instance,the most famous scene in the whole novel,this scene every French pupil has studied once in his life where Cosette is given a doll by Valjean.Apart from being "shortened" the plot has undergone some changes :Fantine meets Cosette for instance ,and of course Valjean survives (like in the more recent version featuring Liam Neeson).Gavroche is given very little time and the scene of his death,another strong moment of the novel is not on the screen:but as Gavroche is Thenadier's son,it makes sense.Nevertheless,the story is well told and it is a wonder,considering the "adaptation" ,that the plot retains a certain coherence,focusing on the Valjean/Javert chase.Generally the actors shine in this part and Robert Newton is no exception.He gives the best performance in the movie.Debra Paget is the prettiest Cosette I know.Good support come s from Robertson Justice as Robert and Edmund Gwenn as Mgr Myriel the bishop(Courbet (?) in the movie).Sylvia Sidney ,an actress extraordinaire in Lang's movies,does not find one of her best parts with Fantine though.This is not a version I would recommend to someone who has read the book however.Like this?try these....French versions Raymond Bernard 1933: the best version and the best Valjean (Baur) Jean Paul Le Chanois 1958 :starring Jean Gabin as Valjean but ,like in Milestone's film,Bernard Blier's Javert steals the show.Robert Hossein 1982:Although praised by the critics at time of release (and spawning a musical which was played on every stage of the world),it's not an improvement on the 1933 version

MARIO GAUCI Watchable version of the oft-filmed Victor Hugo tale: made by the same studio (Fox), it emerges as a wholly inferior remake of the superb 1935 version – which I reviewed earlier this month. Despite Milestone’s involvement, this one displays more surface gloss than genuine style – with the script itself being much more prosaic. Still, there’s an intermittent evidence of talent throughout – for instance, in the rather effective final shot which frames the mirror image of the protagonists between the all-important candlesticks; also worth noting is the score by Alex North which, particularly at the climax, feels like a dry run for his Oscar-nominated work on SPARTACUS (1960).Michael Rennie and Robert Newton are fine actors, but their performances here are no match for Fredric March and Charles Laughton in the earlier film; though Newton is remarkably restrained, his role has been somewhat diminished to accommodate the sappy romance involving Debra Paget and Cameron Mitchell! Besides, it’s compromised by the loss of two small but important scenes from the 1935 version which, in this case, robs the character of essential depth: a) when Javert is humiliated by his peers for his lowly background, and b) when he blackmails newly-appointed Mayor Jean Valjean, a former convict, in his office; unbelievably, it substitutes the first by having Javert’s own father serve a prison sentence on the galley to which he’s himself assigned!Other conceptual flaws include: Edmund Gwenn’s pivotal role of the Bishop, which comes off as whimsical alongside Cedric Hardwicke’s haunting turn in the earlier film; Valjean is depicted as an illiterate who receives schooling from the intellectual played by Joseph Wiseman (his Method approach feels out of place in a 19th century French setting!); Javert’s conscience-stricken demise here is, disconcertingly, brought about by his brief conversation with James Robertson Justice (as Valjean’s right-hand man); missing from the narrative, though, is the poignant character of Eponine (whose role gave a plausible melancholia to the romantic angle in the 1935 film).Ultimately, I wouldn’t call the 1952 LES MISERABLES unnecessary, considering that it’s made with undeniable professionalism and the fact that countless other film versions have followed it; perhaps, the late eminent critic Leslie Halliwell summed it best in his claim that it’s “lacking the spark of inspiration”.

countryway_48864 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.