pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Neil Welch Having finally seen the musical last week, I got around to watching the 3 hour edit tonight with my wife (she's seen the musical three or four times now, and neither of us have read the book).This was good. It was reassuring to note that both this and the musical are similar enough that they must both be reasonable adaptations of the very long novel. Depardieu conveyed Valjean's power very well, and Malkovich gave us Javert's single mindedness, although it wasn't obvious how fundamentally Valjean's action in freeing him had undermined everything he held at his core. Christian Clavier's Thenardier was vile, and Virginie Ledoyen's Cosette had much more to her than in the musical, where she is such a cipher that she must be a fairly thankless role to play.The period feel is good, but I must confess to encountering some difficulty in negotiating the French accents of some of the principals.

Daniel Crowley After hearing several rave reviews of this movie, I was anxious to get my hands on a copy. When I finally did, I must say my reaction was two-fold. Overall, I was impressed with this film and it is the best version of the story I have seen yet. The film its self is beautiful. The costumes and scenery are authentic and lovely, the music fits the mood, and the script was well written. I must admit I have to question some of the casting decisions. While I admire John Malkovich, I found his Javert a bit subdued. He acts like he has just taken a Valium and is sleep walking through his part. The actor playing Marius is wrong on so many levels. His appearance and acting are a bit on the creepy side. The female characters fare a little better. The usually forgotten character of Eponine is returned and played by Asia Argento. Argento plays the part true to Hugo's description. I felt both pity and contempt for her. The real jewel of this film however lies in Charlotte Gainsbourg's Fantine. Her portrayal as a soft spoken, fragile waif who is destroyed by the world around nearly moved me to tears ( I am rarely moved enough to cry). Depardieu's Valjean was credible; he was not my favorite Valjean, but he did fine. Unfortunately for me, the only adaptation that I was able to get my hands on was the very edited English language version. Some of the scenes they choose to leave out were important to the plot. I was especially angry at the fact that they left out the death of Eponine. Without her heroic death, the audience is left thinking Eponine was a villain, rather than a product of her environment, but good none-the-less. Also missing is Enjorlas's death which is another tragic moment in the novel. The way I see it, this film could have been the definitive version to me if only the English adaptation could have been about an hour longer and tied up some of the loose ends. The French version of this same film is unedited (and unsubtitled, alas), so I think I would suggest that one before this version.

CarmelaG I have read this novel several times and I was stunned that some of you found this a faithful version. I am referring to the miniseries that aired in the US with Depardieu and Malkovich. Maybe the French version - twice as long? - is more true to the novel, but the version we saw here was shockingly distorted.Yes - all of the characters were there, but their roles were often twisted beyond recognition. One GLARING example: Eponine. If you have read the novel, you know that she is one of the most heroic characters, sacrificing herself for Marius. Did I miss something here? They turn her into one of the villains. Gavroche's role is also misrepresented. If they were going to take all that time, why not do it as Hugo wrote it? It is also very odd to make Cosette the narrator, as she is deliberately one of the weaker, more insipid characters in the novel. And Valjean was never in love with Cosette. He is genuinely an adoptive father.Depardieu is beautifully cast as Valjean, but John Malkovich (I'm a fan, too) plays Javert as if he were simply mean - with none of the nuances of the tortured character that Geoffrey Rush portrays. The 1998 Bille August film is by far the superior interpretation, despite what he leaves out. And the musical theater version is the best of all, faithful to both the plot and spirit of Hugo's masterpiece.

KatharineFanatic I'll probably get hung for saying this, but this version, while good, is second to the 1998 version with Liam Neeson in my opinion. It moves along slowly (I too am American and didn't get to see the film in its entirety) and is somewhat confusing if you haven't read the novel from front to back. I was forever catching my family up on characters. It sticks VERY closely to the book, and in that is excellent.I thought that the cast shone well except for Malcovich. He lacked the passionate determination I felt that Javert needed to make a convincing bad guy. Cosette's good looks and incredible costuming took her a long way... that young woman is very talented. The film is very pretty to look at, and handles Fantine's decent into prostitution admirably. (And in that event, is family-friendly.) It was great to see both familiar and unfamiliar faces and be introduced to a new film with such lovely splendor.I enjoyed it, but probably wouldn't see it more than once. It is a good... great?... watch for the staunch book lovers. But for people looking for a film that carries you along, the 1998 version is better recommended.