source: Les Misérables

I should admit that I've never read Victor Hugo's novel, so I can't comment on how Bille August's movie compares. But I thought that it was a good movie. An obvious point is that protagonist Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson) stole the bread in the first place because he was starving, as were pretty much all French peasants; what other choice did he have? OK, so there have been so many movie versions of "Les Miserables" that why did we need another one? Well, any way that they can get the story across is important. Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman and Claire Danes all make the most of their roles. So I recommend this one. Worth seeing.

what you expect from an adaptation of Les Miserables ? maybe, a new version of Jean Valjean and Javert. this film represents an inspired answer to expectation. because Liam Neeson offers o his Valjean a special form of brave kindness , vulnerable, generous, touching, honest, far by the status of demonstration. Geoffrey Rush is little more than Javert. he is the Law. the law as expression of instinct of a man who has in it its life sense. the cinematography is great. the soul of the novel is present in each scene. only problem could be the accuracy. the small detail to be more the film of Bill August and not the most loyal adaptation to Victor Hugo. but this sin is, in fact, a virtue. because it gives the chance to transform the original images in a seductive story who preserves the flavor of text. result - a wise interpretation of the masterpiece in new nuances,expression of interesting art who could be compared with other adaptation of Les Mserables.

This movie was totally captivating from the start. The novel was good, the movie was excellent and I have to say, it has one of the best endings I've ever seen. Liam Neeson was just superb as Valjean and his expressions throughout the whole movie were outstanding. Geoffrey Rush was perfectly cast and he did an equally good job. Uma Thurman and Claire Danes suited their roles and acted well. The story is just amazing and the movie was superbly directed. It is definitely on my list of favourite movies and is highly recommended.

This version is a classic example of movie makers who take a classic story and a classic film and turn their version into something that's "important." This always results in giving us a movie that is nothing like the original story. The narrative in this version jumps all over the place. This is a lot of real "serious" acting taking place (or so the actors would like to think so!). There's also a lot of real serious sounding music. And please, do we need so many ultra-extreme facial closeups of the actors?. Does the director think we are watching this movie on our smartphones? No we are watching this either on a huge movie screen or on our large widescreen HD TV's!

I had never seen Les Miserables before, or even heard of anything to do with it before I went to see the movie. When I came out, I got this trembling feeling, you know, the excited kind, where you just smile, and say, "Well, how good was that!?" It is just a sensational story, and even after 200 years it still feels fresh. Naturally I would give this film 5 stars. All the actors were brilliant, and Claire Danes is her usual beautiful self, although at times I felt she pouted a little too much. Neeson should get an Oscar Nomination but won't because this film received pretty average reviews in the media so it's a pity. Rush, is also great, and Thurman's first scene where she explains to her employer about her daughter is a triumph. This is the best movie I saw this year, actually a tie to Good Will Hunting. P.S. - What annoys me most is there was so much talent is this film that went to waste, because nobody went to see it.

Riveting, surprisingly well done version of the classic tale. Visually striking. Forget the Titanic or the comets hitting the Earth, this was the best movie of 1998.

Didn't like it... don't recommend it to anyone who is interested in Hugo at all except as a comedy because the entire plot is a joke. Don't waste your time... see one of the French adaptations instead or go see the musical. This was crap.

I first saw this movie in my freshman History class. I thought 'Hey another movie no work I can just write notes.' After the first 5 minutes my eyes were glued to the TV. The story line was extraordinary and every actor or actress was cast perfectly in their roles. No wooden acting in this adaptation. I could go on and on about the acting and I will starting with Liam Neeson. This was the first movie except for Star Wars I have seen him in. So my expectations were lower. But after seeing this movie I was certainly proved wrong. He shows his character's transition through the movie quite perfectly. Then there is Geffory Rush as a perfect hate filled villain. Every move calculated to perfection.Next Uma Thurman, I already was a HUGE fan of hers so I had high hopes for her. In the end I wanted her part to be even bigger but that wouldn't have fitten in. Then there was Clare Danes A wonderful rising talent and a natural for Corzette. But thats enough from me you go see the movie!

I am one of the few people who haven't read the book nor seen the stage production of this movie so can't do any comparison. However, on the evidence of the movie, I'd have to say it's a gem of a story. Everything about it was fabulous. Liam Neeson is truly one of the best actors of his generation. Geoffrey Rush was great too. Can't say that much about the others although Uma Thurman has caught my eye. It is very difficult to pull off a period movie convincingly but this one's an exception. Loved it, want to see it again. And now for the book......and the musical....