I understand that move such big story to movie is not simple task, but why again bend everything to such big cliché? The characters were flat, they bring me no emotion, someone was killed? And what, who was it actually?If you want know the strong story, watch the 4part France mini series with Gérard Depardieu. Do you want some simple movie for evening? This is good enough.And really notice that the movie is from end of the 18th century, there were no Afro-Americans with freedom, you can have you correctness, but it change nothing about history. We should display it and then we can learn from it. Not to try to lie.

I didn't know much about Les Mis, having never seen it at the theatre. But when I heard the rave reviews being given for the new, all-singing cinema release starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe and Anne Hathaway, I really wanted to see it. Seeing the cinema release would be my chance to find out why Les Mis had always been so well-loved. But somehow we didn't get to see this new film and in the meantime my husband rented the non-singing version of Les Mis, starring Liam Nesson, from Lovefilm. I was enthralled. It was fantastic! So well acted. So memorable. Moving. Believable and insightful. Strangely enough, the school where I was temporarily working were also doing a performance of Les Mis - a singing version of course, and I spoke to the stage director and he said to see the school version and you wouldn't need to see the latest film. He was kind of, right. The school's actors and singers were brilliant. Great singing. Great heart. And not having heard the songs in the Liam Neeson film version, it was lovely to say, aha, that's where those songs I've heard people singing on Talent Shows comes from and fits in. Eventually, we rented the Hugh Jackman version and all I can say is, it didn't hold a candle to the Liam Neeson one or even the school-play! Not good singing or acting (except I could feel passion and enthusiasm in Russell Crowe's performance beyond his singing capabilities). But Hugh Jackman? He is not Jean Valjean. Not good acting, singing or stage presence. I could not believe in him as a convict or as a good upright mayor of the town. I watched it through to the end. My husband slept. Now I can justify thinking of Liam Neeson as THE Jean Valjean and Geoffrey Rush as THE Javert. 10 out of 10. Excellent. The best I've seen out of three different renditions. This one is the one I will always remember. See this classic for yourself, if you haven't already.

I have seen different film versions of this novel plus of course the famous play and read part of the book until I could no more. Sorry but M. Hugo's literature is not for everyone.Now, the original story of Jean Valjean has, as you know, a tragic ending. Poor Valjean dies in sadness because his son-in-law finds he is a convict and execrates him - somewhat exaggerated in my humble opinion for Valjean was notorious for his kindness and loved by his adopted daughter - not your typical criminal.Literally M. Hugo could have granted Valjean a happier ending, which would have been nice for readers, that is considering this has to be among the longest novels ever written. So hundreds of pages of tragic events plus plenty of philosophy -which takes up a whole good deal of the novel- could have perfectly been avoided to provide the reader with a more pleasant reminder. Precisely, what they do in this movie is avoid - literally omit- the tragic finale. Once Valjean is free of Javert's threat, the movie is over and you conclude -or at least assume- that there is a happy ending to a lifelong struggle.Acting is impeccable, Liam Neeson makes a great Valjean and Geofrey Rush's interpretation of Javert is stunning. You feel he's the real deal, an obsessed, cruel man who cannot withstand that his antagonist saved him from death or shame in more than one occasion.No doubts, one of my favorite movies of all times.

Bille August's adaptation of the classic tale of redemption, revenge and romance is not a faithful adaptation of the book. Characters are reduced to bit parts, or are eliminated entirely, whilst the ending is removed. But this does not stop it from being an excellent film. Dramatically shot and convincingly acted, this is one for the ages.The ever reliable Liam Neeson provides the film's soul as the repentant convict Jean Valjean, believable as both a former criminal and a saintly figure, touching with his female costars and smouldering when confronting his nemesis, the ever watchful Javert. The Javert of this film is colder and crueller than the professional of Hugo's book, but in the hands of Geoffrey Rush, he still garners sympathy as his duty -bound world falls apart. Uma Thurman provides pathos in her brief role as Fantine, as does Claire Danes, whose relationship with Valjean provides the true emotional heart of the film. Also notable is Peter Vaughan as the Bishop of Digne, the man who sets Valjean on the path to redemption.So if you are looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere. But if you seek a moving, dramatic and entertaining film, you cant wrong with this version.