Les Misérables (1978)

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I'm not an expert - I haven't read the book and don't expect to - but I have seen several of the filmed versions, and this is by far my least favourite. Having said that, I loved Antony Perkins' Javert: his tightly buttoned implacability was perfect. And I liked Caroline Langrishe's rather underwritten Cosette.But there was a lot I didn't like very much. The whole thing seemed terribly bright, colourful and clean and maybe, in those days, your life actually was bright colourful and clean - if you had money, that is. But the whole point of Hugo's writing was social commentary, and I didn't see very much of the disadvantaged underclass in this movie. I also didn't like Valjean meandering off at the end.But most of all, I didn't like Valjean. I'm not a Richard Jordan fan at the best of times - I always got the feeling that he thought he was rather better than I thought he was. Notwithstanding his increasingly grey (but no less unconvincing) wigs and sticky-on beards as he got older, he was far too lightweight an actor to play a character like Valjean.I was delighted and surprised to spot my late friend Michael Sheard in a small role.

I saw this television version of the Victor Hugo classic when I was a teen. I was so impressed by it that I then read the book. Years later, I saw the play (second row, center) and have seen several other movie versions--including the very long French version from the 1930s. So, it can be said that I am a HUGE fan of this story. Now, decades later, I wanted to finally re-watch my first experience with "Les Miserables" to see if it was as good as I remembered it.The made for TV movie stars Richard Jordan as Jean Valjean and Anthony Perkins as the incredibly dogged Inspector Javert. Originally, the film was a two-part mini-series but somehow over the years it has been spliced town to about two hours--which is a real shame. The cuts are not terrible but tend to make the film a bit more episodic than it should be--especially since "Les Miserables" was a very lengthy novel. I won't discuss the plot, as most out there are familiar with the story and others have already discussed it in their reviews. Overall, the film is quite good--with exquisite music and acting. My only complaints are minor. There were some changes in the original story (I am a purist and always want stories to stick to the book)--such as having Valjean being an escaped prisoner instead of being a parolee who 'jumped parole' (a minor difference) as well as a few missing subplots. But for a made for TV film, it's exquisite--such as the adaptations of the Dumas novels starring Richard Chamberlain or "The Scarlet Pimpernel" with Anthony Andrews. It's a darn shame that American television isn't making films like this any more. With the abundance of reality TV programming and other mind-rot, we are a poorer society as a result. Well worth seeing--but try to read the book, it is magnificent.

i first saw this in about 1999 and i thought i was brilliant. i have never read the novel and i haven't seen any other film adaptations but this one is good enough for me. i might watch some other film versions of this in the future just to see how they compare but i think this is really good.FIRST - it doesn't rush into things. it takes it's time to explain why valjean was placed in prison and leads us up to the events to follow TWO - all of the actors are very good, especially the leads, Richard Jordan is superb as Valjean and Anthony Perkins is excellent as Inspector Javert, a very tenacious character who has nothing on his mind but the apprehension of Vajean, so much so he even argues with officers above him to stay on his case.THREE - it's a good chase movie. Every now and then through the film Valjean's freedom is threatened and the viewer has the sense that he may be captured at any time. this effect tends to wear off on repeat viewings but when you see this for the first time it is very suspenseful. this film may be nearly two and a half hours but it isn't boring at all.FOUR - very realistic. i like the way this handles the time periods, not only can you watch the main story and enjoy it but you can get a sense of how things were in the late 18th and early 19th century. in today's terms there was nothing, no cars, no TV or radio, no computers and you get a sense that if you were living in that time period it would be very boring indeed.FIVE - this is so good you don't want it to end. this may sound weird to some but the first time i watched it and i saw the credits coming up i thought, 'is that it?' i didn't realise that it's two hour and 17 minute running time was up, i was so engrossed with it, i realise that javert was dead and so valjean's apprehension was no longer imminent, however, i just feel that it could have gone on a few more years and have him into a few other adventures, perhaps until his death almost.if you haven't seen this, then do so. this gets 10/10

This is my favorite version of all the movies. Very good! Anthony Perkins is wonderful as the obsessed policeman and Richard Jordan seems as thought this part were written just for him. This version focuses more on Jean Valjean than his daughter which I personally liked. This version covers most of what the musical just blows through. The Version with Liam Nieson focuses more on the relationship with Jean Valjean and his daughter Cosette. This is a movie worth watching over and over again, however, you need to give it your full attention or you won't like it. It is sad in parts but shows what can happen to a person who is determined to succeed. A great rags to riches story.