GamerTab That was an excellent one.

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

dbdumonteil Raymond Bernard was certainly the most underrated director of the thirties ;his name is almost never mentioned along the usual suspects :Renoir,Carné,Duvivier,Pagnol,Christian-Jaque,Grémillon,et al;he nevertheless produced two classics in this golden era: his gigantic "Les Miserables" and his work about WW1 slaughter, "Les Croix De Bois "which compares favorably with Gance's "J'Accuse" or Kubrik's "paths of glory".People interested in his Hugo adaptation (and they are numerous) should try and watch other works : a prolific director,he made forgettable movies (like everybody else) but "Cavalcade d'Amour " (1939) which tells three love stories in the same place but at different times;"Un Ami Viendra Ce Soir" a curious movie about the French Resistance - which might have inspired De Broca for his highly praised "Le Roi De Coeur ";"Le Jugement De Dieu" , a brilliant melodrama in the Middle Ages poorly remade later as a sketch of "Les Amours Célèbres with B. Bardot and A.Delon;a black comedy " Le Septième Ciel" ,all these movies worth seeking out;there's also a silent version of "Le Miracle Des Loups "(1924),later remade by André Hunebelle in the sixties.Forgive me for this long introduction,but it's really a pity this director should be ignored even in his native country (among the many comments,how many come from French users?).In the thirties ,it was a titanic task,actually an equivalent of Gance's "Napoleon" of the twenties;it's the only French thirties work which features three parts :at the time,in Paris, it was possible to see the whole in one day,for the theaters did not show the same film;later on,with the staggering exception of "Les Enfants Du Paris" ,the two-part movies (such as "Le Comte De Monte Cristo" and Le Chanois's much inferior own "Miserables" ) were released several months apart.The male cast is close to perfect:Harry Baur is considered one of best French actors of all time ,the extraordinary lead of Duvivier's first talkie "David Golder "and was made to portray Valjean ;his restrained but highly intense acting works wonders in the scene with bishop Myriel and in all his scenes with Javert played by the always reliable Charles Vanel ,the only French actor enjoying 2 movies in the IMDb top 250- 'Le Salaire De La Peur " and "Les Diaboliques" - by the way!matching them all along the way is Charles Dullin - a great stage actor whose portraying of Molière's Harpagon has remained memorable-as Thénardier ,with his face ravaged by greed;Jean Servais the French audience mainly remembers for his later parts and often forgets there was a time when he was young,and he is a very good Marius.On the other hand,the female parts are more uneven ;Florelle as Fantine is deeply moving ,the destitution's child who endures the unwed mother's fate;the great Marguerite Moreno shines as La Thénardier ,the actress was as convincing as a shrew as she was as a Grande dame;Pagnol's Orane Demazis is less talented as Eponine although she fortunately forgets her Provençal accent and has a good final scene (the part was intended for Arletty ) ;as for the forgotten actress who plays Cosette,she is totally bland (the part was intended for Danielle Darrieux)Although Waterloo is not included -represented here by a painting and some Thénardier's lines- there are imposing scenes on the barricades ,and the death of Gavroche ("this little soul had flown away") is really moving,with a young actor with more screen presence than his sister;more intimate scenes such as these with bishop Myriel go straight to the heart ;and "the tempest in the skull" shows Bernard's virtuosity ,here in a league with Abel Gance .Neither Le Chanois's nor Hossein's versions ,let alone American effort starring Liam Neeson can hold a candle to Bernard's Magnum Opus.

zetes Generally considered the best, most complete version of Victor Hugo's novel ever produced, I think I'm finally convinced that I just don't like this story all that much. Oh, don't get me wrong, it has its share of remarkable moments, and, all in all, it's quite a good film. The thing I've noticed with the various adaptations I've seen of it is that I'm with it up until Cosette grows up, then I kind of check out. Almost all the best parts of the story happen in the first half. This version is divided into three feature length films. The first one is by far the best, covering up to the point Fantine dies and Jean Valjean escapes to go rescue Cosette. This hits all the most important themes, particularly the horrible way society treats the destitute. The second section, entitled "The Thenardiers," after the innkeepers who have enslaved Cosette, is great at the start. Charles Dullin is amazing as Thenardier, and Gaby Triquet is so damned adorable as the child Cosette. Cosette as a teenager is fairly uninteresting, and her love interest, Marius, is a completely dull character. The third part covers the revolution portion of the novel, and, frankly, outside of Gavroche (wonderfully played by Emile Genevois), I just don't care about any of it. Jean Valjean is almost superfluous until the final act (the finale here is definitely quite moving). Harry Baur is an amazing Jean Valjean (he also plays Champmathieu, the man wrongly accused of being Valjean in the first part). Charles Vanel is fine as Javert, but the character is kind of dull in this version. Bernard's direction is frequently outstanding and the cinematography is excellent.

Jonathan Russell I came across this by accident, broadcast over 3 nights on TV - I recorded it, and watched the whole thing without being able to leave the sofa. It is the best movie I've ever seen.4½ hours long, subtitled black-and-white Victor Hugo epic doesn't sound appealing, or only to 'art house' fans, but not so ... if you ever get a chance to see it, do!The acting is tremendous, as is the cinematography. Certain visual moments are forever imprinted on my mind, such as the moment when a helping hand comes out of nowhere to help the collapsed Cosette, or the moment when a nun, sworn to always tell the truth, lies to protect the protagonist, Jean Valjean.It is a superb retelling, and remains the best version of this classic novel. What makes it even more poignant is how themes in the movie were reflected in the real lives of the actors. Harry Baur, who plays the lead - a man falsely imprisoned and whom is relentless pursued through the film - lost his life a few years later at the hand of the Gestapo for being suspected of aiding the resistance, and Gaby Triquet (the young Cosette) was shamed and blacklisted for having an affair with a German soldier and never worked again.I've seen a few 1930s features, and while enjoying them, would not expect others to sit through them. Not this! It is everything a good movie is about - superbly crafted, mesmerising to watch, and leaves you seeing the world slightly differently afterwards. I've never seen better.

zolaaar Hugo's novel is my bible. I remember, while I was reading the books in the course of over one year (in small portions mostly, but not rarely I had to sacrifice an entire night), one of the three volumes has been always in a striking distance to me: near my pillow, riding pillion, on my school desk or in my backpack on trips and sleep-overs. Simply put, the story was my home for that one year, Jean Valjean one of my closest friends and Cosette my own child. That's now about 10 years ago and I still return to it every once in a while, pick randomly chapters to read and still am drawn to Hugo's uniquely beautiful and powerful language (i.e. the chapter where he describes the battle of Waterloo is probably the single best piece of literature I've ever read). So, although, I love the book so much, I never dared to touch any screen adaptation, and there are plenty out there, because I did not want to ruin my imaginations of Les misérables I had in my mind for more than 10 years now. I finally did last week and what can I say? Actually, I don't want to spout too much, to run into danger to talk things to death, but it's an amazing, amazing experience when you see those pictures that were engraved in your head for a long time, now alive, in front of your eyes instead of behind. Of course, a book is, I guess, always more stimulating than its adaptation (are there actually any examples to disprove?), and Bernard's is no exception. In fact, this one is as close to the essence of literature as the medium can get. Everything that can be great about movies comes together here, and in the end, Les misérables is the first film I immediately felt home (which is mostly due to the previous history I have with the story), and when a filmmaker achieves exactly this with his very own methods, like a writer does with his/hers, the outcome is nothing less than, yes, cinematic perfection.