Micitype Pretty Good

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

TheLittleSongbird Les Miserables, with its rich and powerful narrative and mostly compelling characters, is deservedly a classic. It is also not an easy book to adapt, because of how rich in detail it is and its mammoth length. This 1935 film is one of the best and most accessible of Les Miserables(which has been adapted several times with mixed results). Adpaptation-wise, it is not word for word-we are looking at a very long film or mini-series, which was literally unheard of around that time, that way- and condensed(some might say it guillotines the text, but that seems to me too harsh and violent a word to use), but it does do a great job still and the spirit of the book still remains. It does deserve to be judged on its own merits, as do most adaptations, and on that front Les Miserables(1935) succeeds brilliantly. It is a very lavish and authentic production, of all the film adaptations it is one of the best-looking. Alfred Newman's score has that stirring and haunting touch, it has his distinctive style yet it fits the tone of the film ideally. The script is very literate and thoughtful and the story still is powerful, I am in complete agreement that there is the sense also that Valjean doesn't find goodness to be easy despite his nobility. The climax is ironic and hugely emotional, apparently Charles Laughton himself said that it was "the finest thing I have ever been able to accomplish on the screen", some could argue that but with others(including myself) it is very easy to see why. It is skilfully directed and paced in a way that doesn't feel as though it's rushing through the narrative nor that it plods. The chase in the sewers is thrilling. The performances are very good, Frances Eldridge is a moving Fantine, John Beal is likable as Marius, Frances Drake's Eponine is loyal and empathetic and while Cosette is one of the least well-developed characters of the book Rochelle Hudson is charming and sympathetic, careful not to let her delicate looks overshadow her acting(easy to do and a lot of Cosettes have fallen into that trap). The leads are the ones that dominate. Fredric March is very well cast as Valjean, bringing out his nobility and character conflict, that he's handsome too is a bonus. Even more impressive is Charles Laughton, who is effortlessly obsessive and menacingly commanding but he does manage to reign in and not resort to hamminess too much, Javert's conflict has been more convincing elsewhere but there is still the realisation that he can't get what he's been pursuing for so long without going against what's he's stood for(and the realisation also that he cannot accept that Valjean has really changed after thinking him an immoral man for so long) and it still convinces. In conclusion, brilliant film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

ctomvelu1 Jean Valjean (March) is a convicted thief on the run from a merciless police officer (Laughton). The thief has managed to build himself a new life, which the officer threatens to bring tumbling down. Then the French Revolution occurs. The movie is beautifully filmed on old-fashioned Hollywood stage sets. March, a great actor, unfortunately at times seems as if he is in a silent movie, which this film was only a few years away from. Laughton is at his most sadistic as Inspector Javert. Most of the rest of the cast acts in a a very dated manner. Fortunately, the focus is almost completely on March and Laughton, whose constant cat and mouse game still works its magic today. For film buffs. All others can watch one of the more recent film adaptations.

MARIO GAUCI Like Jean Renoir's THE TESTAMENT OF DR. CORDELIER (1959), which I watched the previous day, this was another film I'd been pining for since childhood; naturally, I pre-ordered both titles as soon as they were available.Actually, of the myriad film versions of the Victor Hugo classic, this is only the second I've checked out (the other one had been the 1978 TV adaptation featuring Richard Jordan and Anthony Perkins); still, I should soon be able to further rectify this situation and catch at least three more – the 1934 5-hour French film by Raymond Bernard (upcoming on Criterion's Eclipse line), the 1952 Fox production which accompanies on DVD the film under review, and the 3-hour color version with Jean Gabin (which I recorded off Italian TV some 3 years ago but have never managed to find an appropriate time-slot to fit it in my hectic film-viewing schedule). Incidentally, my uncle – who occasionally dabbles in stage and TV work as writer/director/ actor/composer – had adapted Hugo's work for the theater some years ago; besides, my father had once attended a performance of the acclaimed musical version while on holiday in London.The 1930s saw many Hollywood studios striving for respectability by embarking on prestige productions based on famous literary sources (the stars of LES MISERABLES themselves, Fredric March and Charles Laughton, also appeared in ANNA KARENINA and MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY respectively – both made by MGM – in the same year alone!). Fox's contribution was this superb film (produced by Darryl F. Zanuck, an active purveyor of social-conscience themes – of which the Hugo novel is the obvious prototype), which certainly emerges as a sterling example of great storytelling and fine craftsmanship that Hollywood was capable of during its Golden Age: script, cinematography, music and sets are all equally impressive, as are the sprawling crowd scenes (the film was, in fact, nominated for Assistant Direction – actually, one of only four awards given in this category – credited to Eric Stacey). Its three other nominations were for Best Cinematography (by the legendary Gregg Toland), Best Editing (Barbara McLean) and Best Picture (eventually losing to the afore-mentioned BOUNTY).March is a constantly underrated actor (even the two reviews I've come across for this film praise Laughton's contribution over his thoughtful and sturdy portrayal), perhaps because his style tends towards theatricality, but he's always been a favorite of mine; here, we see him personify Jean Valjean through the various stages of his life – and even gets to play the look-alike convict (with a welcome touch of humor) who, at one point, is mistaken for him! Laughton's Javert has been accused of hamminess (of all people, by director Lewis Milestone, who helmed the 1952 remake) but his interpretation of the role is actually very subtle and altogether memorable: compelling in his tenacity, yet also made pitiable by his inflexible adherence to the letter of the Law; the 1930s were Laughton's peak period, and many of his performances from around this time involved complex characterizations (a variety of tyrants, the painter Rembrandt and Quasimodo – another Victor Hugo creation). Incidentally, this is the third time these two acting giants have appeared together (or, if you like, played against one another) following THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932) and THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET (1934) – and it's easily the best of them: the Valjean/Javert confrontation is one of the most famous in the annals of literature and, by extension, cinema (it may actually have inspired the similarly long-running Ben-Hur/Messala feud in General Lew Wallace's equally popular epic, not to mention the more recent Leonardo di Caprio/Daniel Day-Lewis showdown in GANGS OF NEW YORK [2002] – since it also occurs during a period of turmoil and whose outcome is, to say the least, unexpected).The supporting cast is led by Cedric Hardwicke in a brief but pivotal role – indeed, his presence permeates the entire film – as the priest who, apart from sheltering Valjean when no one else would, passes on to him his simple philosophy in life (which places charity to one's fellow-man above all); Rochelle Hudson and John Beal supply the romantic interest (though Valjean gradually starts to feel affection for the girl himself – while Beal is loved by Frances Drake); the latter gives a touching performance, especially in the scene where she bonds with March over their common predicament; John Carradine appears in a small role as a student radical; whereas Florence Eldridge, March's real-life wife, plays the ill-fated Cosette (the Hudson character's mother).By the way, the print utilized for the DVD transfer is nowhere near as bad as the screenshots accompanying DVD Beaver's otherwise enthusiastic appraisal would seem to imply; for such an old – and rare – film, I thought it was perfectly acceptable when viewed on a normal-sized TV screen (where any resultant deficiencies are never distracting in a way that would hamper one's enjoyment of the main feature)!While a necessarily telescoped adaptation of Hugo's massive novel, this had always been considered the screen's best rendition of it – but the 1934 French film is, clearly, much more thorough and could, therefore, justifiably lay claim to being the definitive version (anticipation over its DVD release in July has certainly garnered it a lot of momentum lately!); another cinematic stab at this enduring classic story I'd love to watch is the 1947 Italian version – which was directed by Riccardo Freda, starred Gino Cervi, and is also notable for marking the debut appearance of Marcello Mastroianni!Normally, I would have followed this with a viewing of the remake so as to make an immediate comparison – but I have such an assortment of DVDs to choose from (the other titles in the Renoir set, various Mario Bava and Riccardo Freda films, just as many by Jess Franco, Volume Two of the W.C. FIELDS COLLECTION, etc.) that I opted to alternate them!

bkoganbing Another reviewer of this version of Les Miserables said this was the Cliff's Notes version of the Victor Hugo classic. I'd be hard pressed to disagree, but bear in mind that another reviewer said the novel itself is over 1300 pages. That would be a daunting task for any film maker. Les Miserables whether done in English, French or Sanskrit lends itself to a mini-series.Nevertheless this version that stars Fredric March and Charles Laughton is a good encapsulation of the mammoth story about a paroled prisoner trying to escape his past and the relentless police official who's made it a life's obsession to track him down.This is the third and final film that March and Laughton co-starred in and they did all three of their films for different studios, Sign of the Cross for Paramount, The Barretts of Wimpole Street for MGM and Les Miserables for the newly formed 20th Century Fox. I'd be hard pressed to pick one that is the best because all three have something different to offer.I think what Victor Hugo does is make a great case for situational ethics in this story. March as Jean Valjean the prisoner is jailed for 10 years on a minor charge and thereafter subject to a strict parole system. He misses a check in and he's a fugitive. But March is shown kindness by a warm and understanding bishop played by Cedric Hardwicke and changes his life around. But he has to move several times because of the relentless Inspector Javert.Charles Laughton in his career played many a deformed soul and none more than Inspector Javert. He's a convict's son himself and to repudiate his humble origins becomes a policeman, but one with a rigid code that shows no understanding of times and conditions for a crime and makes no attempt at all to temper his rigid code with a drop or two of mercy.Had Javert chosen the ministry, he'd have made a great hellfire and damnation preacher, getting all the words right but missing the music of love, redemption and forgiveness. And Valjean who is of equally humble origins is a redeemed soul, a conception Javert can't understand. But he also knows that Valjean even through out the trials Javert puts him through is one at peace with himself and there's no small amount of jealousy in Laughton's portrayal.In a great acting duo, I give the decision by a few points to March, mainly because of his dual portrayal. At one point March hears from Laughton that Jean Valjean has been arrested and is on trial. After a lot of soul searching he goes to the neighboring town and gets a half wit off who is also played by Fredric March. Because of that Les Miserables has become one of my favorite Fredric March pictures.March never got another shot at a thespian duel so to speak with another screen icon until Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy. His three films with Charles Laughton are deserved classics all. This is as good a version as you'll ever get of Les Miserables for a single motion picture.