Recently I bought the film Les miserables on DVD, because in my youth it had made a deep impression. The French release is rather expensive, but fortunately there is also a cheap Chinese version, with subtitles that can be switched off. This requires that you understand French. Joke to enliven this review: acupuncture fees in China are so cheap it is called pin money. Perhaps the outstanding quality of the film is illustrated best by the fact, that even today I recognized many of the scenes. And believe me, I am old, I can remember when everything was fields. I start doing jigsaw puzzles again. The film excels in its plot, in the gifted actor Jean Gabin, in the scenery and in the music. The narrative is so characteristic of the nineteenth century, with a clear division between good and bad. It is true that Jean Valjean (Jean Gabin) has a criminal past, but actually this derailment is caused by a crooked society. And when Valjean is converted by a priest, he remains an angel for the rest of his life. What kind of fun does a priest have? Nun. In addition all love is pure. When the adopted daughter of Valjean meets a young man, it is love at first sight. In addition the political situation is fascinating. We see how street battles put aside the remnants of the royal rule. So there is plenty of romance, and this is of coarse what made Les miserables so appealing to the adolescent that I was. And I suppose that the film may still be attractive to people in developing countries like China. For, as Confusius said: war does not determine who is right, war determines who is left. On the other hand, the contemporary postmodern Westerner may take offense at the lack of nuance and psychological depth. Not withstanding this flaw, the film remains highly recommendable. Don't forget to leave comments. I love it.

Jean-Paul Le Chanois,as anyone past infancy knows ,at least in France ,was the "Bête Noire" of the Nouvelle Vague .More than any other director,Godard and his clique were ruthless when they used to speak of him.Unlike Carné ,Duvivier,Clouzot and Grémillon- other victims of the Young Turks who were better than their persecutors anyway- ,he was never restored to favor even by the contemporary critics.Jean Tulard writes in the "Dictionnaire des Réalisateurs" ::" He represents the mediocrity of the fifties cinema (...)He made the worst of all "les Miserables" versions(..) " Objections to Le Chanois's version remained: the pictures are too clean,the characters (particularly Danielle Delorme's Fantine) seem well-fed .Bourvil is miscast as Thenardier:he is too gentle ,too nice to portray him successfully.Cosette is forgettable as a girlie,she is totally bland as Marius's love.How can a director be wrong with the famous scene of the doll,which every French schoolboy and every schoolgirl in my country know by heart? Such is the case here.Waterloo battle and the scenes on the barricades are not really exciting .(But Hossein's slow motions in the 1982 version starring Lino Ventura were not really an improvement on it.On the plus side,Gabin is a good Valjean -he does not equal Harry Baur in the Raymond Bernard version though- and Bernard Blier is the best Javert I've ever seen.The Valjean/Javert relationship would inspire lots and lots of screenplays,"the fugitive" for instance.Also worthwhile is Silvia Montfort's portrayal of Thenardier's daughter:she easily outclasses Beatrice Altariba's Cosette.People complain because there are scenes in the novel that were not filmed.Let's not forget that it's a mammoth novel:only a miniseries could do Hugo justice.And anyway it's better than the Liam Neeson version and its happy end.NB:When the movie was released in France it was divided into two parts (called "epoques" (=eras)) which was the word they used at the time and the audience was invited to come back and thus pay twice to see the whole.

This version of the famous novel of Victor Hugo I found very suitable in general, with good acting and a narration, which give a real idea of the book. As I said several times several films never coincide with their original written versions, but this time the director Jean-Paul Le Chanois made a good effort in having a material as much similar to the book. Jean Gabin, for me the best all-time French actor, plays a good role as Jean Valjean seconded efficiently by Bernard Blier as Javert and several other French and Italian actors/actresses. I am sure that not all should agree with the opinion given here by me, but it depends how you feel about Hugo wrote. Misery is shown not only materially but spiritually as a sign of decaying society.

Being a diehard Les Miserables fan, I first learned the musical and then read the book. The musical, though wonderful, was nothing in comparison to the book; there was just so much material in the book that it couldn't all be put in the musical. In this movie adaptation, however, much effort is made in accuracy to not only the plot of Victor Hugo's novel, but the atmosphere and characters. Scenes are filmed as near to where they actually took place in the book as possible, and characters reflect the Hugo's original intentions. The plot is concise enough to be understandable, but full enough to give the viewer a true sense of Hugo's message. Overall, it is a wonderful adaptation and an excellent film.