Les misérables

the clash between Depardieu and Malkovich. this is the first level. then, the loyalty to the novel in a better manner because the series is inspired option for present the story. but this is the start point. because this Les Miserables gives the flavor and nuances of a period. this adaptation impose the right way to discover the details, the force and the rhythm of a magnificent masterpiece. all is rediscovered in new light. and Javert of John Malkovich is real closed by the figure of Vidoque. result - the film becomes a lesson with chance to be a form of experience. nothing original for the reader or for the public of old adaptation. only a delicate line who gives to the film a special status. short, a beautiful film. in many senses.

This is the best adaptation of the novel, isn't perfect, but is far superior to the version I'll have previouly seen, with a nice cast. It could be perfect but have two failures 1) Miscast: Enrico Lo Verso is too old for being Marious, who was an ideal student, who suffered all the third and fourth book. He isn't naive. The seccond miscast is that Mrs Thenadier is too pretty, but it's irrelevant. 2) The seccond thing that I don't like it, is that in the last page Jean Veljean said to Cossette her mother name, in the miniseries, it's told in the middle.

In facts is an excellent mini, the best screenplay, nice script, superb cast, but with a big miscast in Loverso who isn't the naive, idealistic and insugure Marious.

This is probably the closest version of the book, because: 4 parts, all written apart, every single line of the characters are shown. Probably Departieu and Malkovich were the magnets to get to see the movie. Other wise COOL! Cant say anything bad.

One of my favourite versions, second only to the 1934 adaptation.

Six hours in length, Depardieu as Valjean, Malkovich as Javert, rich in detail and emotionally engaging - what more can one ask?

As with the 1934 version, this treatment is very full and therefore retains the strength of the original. It contains a number of alterations to the original narrative, but remains faithful to the essence of the characters, though I found Valjean's obsessive behaviour toward Cosette somewhat exaggerated, and too little emphasis laid on his sense of duty, responsibility, and lack of self-esteem, as his motivation.

The direction is crisp, the script intelligent and engaging, and the acting convincing and moving.

Depardieu is an excellent Valjean, articulate and ultimately tragic, while Malkovich is entirely convincing and gives us an unusually "human" Javert. Christian Clavier is splendidly scheming, selfish and low, while Virginie Ledoyen is suitably appealing as Cosette.

This is a confident and intelligent production which is not afraid of its origins.

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.