Written in 1862 by author Victor Hugo (who also penned "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame"), "Les Miserables" is a sweeping epic of more than a thousand pages, and in the years since it was first published it has been adapted many times for both the large and small screen. Yet it wasn't until the early 1980's when the story made it to the stage in the form of a musical (produced by Cameron Mackintosh in London, New York, and then everywhere) that the work became popularly well known. Featuring a stunning production design, great lyrics, a moving score, and the well-written story of a man having to endure another's lifelong pursuit of him, the musical -- if you have not seen it -- is an amazing spectacle.
Unfortunately, we can't say the same of the latest nonmusical adaption of Hugo's work. While it's a decent piece of film making, purists of the novel will hate the liberal adaption, while fans of the musical will surely miss the awe-inspiring songs and the tremendous title theme. I realize that licensing the rights to adapt the novel obviously don't include the music from the play, but the movie suffers from the lack of it, especially if you've had the good fortune of seeing the theatrical production.
While criticizing a movie for excluding the music from a separate play might not seem fair, there's a strong reason for bringing it up. Beyond the emotionally rousing score, the lyrics of most of the numbers contribute a great deal of essential plot information about the story concerning its past and present elements. Since Hugo's novel can't literally be adapted word for word and scene by scene (unless you want a movie a great deal longer than this film's nearly two and a half hour run time), this adaption suffers from a major case of incongruity. Sure, there's the underlying and continuous story of Javert pursuing Valjean, but each segment feels like an isolated chapter instead of part of a flowing plot.
This isn't to say that the segments aren't good -- it's just that they don't perfectly connect. Beyond that, and again noting the absence of the theatrical score, many of the scenes are boring. It's not that they're poorly done, however. After all, there's a great cast and the acting is quite good, Anna Asp's production design is first rate, as are Gabriella Pescucci's costumes and Jorgen Persson's camera work and Basil Poledouris' score is competent (but not as good as that found in the musical).
The problem is that very little of all of those accomplishments, or the direction by Bille August (an Oscar winner for "Pelle The Conqueror") or the screenplay adaption by Rafael Yglesias ("Fearless") are emotionally or viscerally rousing. Everyone goes through the paces and everything looks and feels right, but it's just never that exciting.
Part of that relates to the characters as written and the interpretation of them by the actors inhabiting them. While Oscar nominated Liam Neeson ("Schindler's List") and Oscar winner Geoffrey Rush ("Shine") are great actors and are quite believable in their roles, they're not exactly the most exciting of performers. While I'm not saying that Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford should have played the parts of Javert and Valjean (although it's an interesting prospect since they already played cat and mouse in "The Fugitive"), the problem is that there's little or no spark from these performers or their characters.
For a film that's essentially about a lifelong "chase," at least a little electricity and active tension is needed to make the story work, but unfortunately we're given the equivalent of a dull, forty watt bulb. Since there's little exciting conflict (in either the "action" scenes or the drama that bookends such moments), we never feel too worried about Valjean and thus aren't pulled into the story as effectively as we should be. Adding that to the incongruous "chapters," but recognizing that much of this is caused by trying to truncate a vast novel, director August never allows the film to build any momentum.
As played by Liam Neeson, however, the character of Valjean is likeable and we certainly see that he's a caring and compassionate fellow. With the physical size to suggest his strength and those sad eyes and melancholy face, Neeson nearly makes up for our lack of active interest in his plight. Geoffrey Rush, who shot to international fame in his award winning role as the gifted pianist in "Shine," also delivers a fine, but nearly one note character.
Potentially the ancestor of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Terminator" character or perhaps the Energizer bunny, Javert just keeps going and going with a grim, near malicious determination. Yet, he's not "evil" enough to bring out the boo's and hisses, nor does he have any redeeming qualities for one to be troubled about rooting for his success despite the harm it might bring to Valjean (like the Tommy Lee Jones character in "The Fugitive"). The rest of the performances are fine, with Uma Thurman ("Pulp Fiction"), looking properly grimy and sick, Claire Danes ("Romeo & Juliet") playing her standard, coy ingenue character, and Hans Matheson as the young patriot who steals her heart.
If you're not familiar with the story or have never seen the musical, this production might impress you, as well it should. Featuring some decent performances and great technical work, the film is good. It's just not great, and lacking the power and emotional thrust that the musical so effectively presented, the film comes off as a flatter and much weaker version of Hugo's work. We give "Les Miserables" a 6 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)