Les Misérables (1998)

This is an under-appreciated movie, it's sad that more people didn't see it.Of the four movie versions of Les Misérables I've seen (also the 1935, 1952, and 2012 movies) this one is the best, although the 1935 version with Fredric March, Charles Laughton and Sir Cedric Hardwicke was also excellent. Liam Neeson was convincing as Jean Valjean (even more suited for the role than one of the all-time best actors, Fredric March, and much better than Hugh Jackman) and Geoffrey Rush was very good as Javert (better for the role than Russell Crowe, though not quite so impeccable as Charles Laughton). Uma Thurman and Claire Danes performed perfectly.The cinematography and locations were more enjoyable than in the other versions.

Les Miserables (1998): Dir: Bille August / Cast: Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman, Claire Danes, Hans Matheson: Based on the French classic about life without forgiveness. Liam Neeson plays a convict who escapes custody but upon his attempt to rob an Inn he is surprised when the owner responds, "You were suppose to take the candlesticks too." He served a brutal prison sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. He becomes mayor under a different name and takes pity on a prostitute played by Uma Thurman. Her untimely death puts him in charge of her daughter. As she grows older he finds it difficult to shield her from the outside world especially when she finds romance with a guy leading a revolution. Compelling premise leading to the conclusion that some people cannot find forgiveness. Directed by Bille August who made Pelle the Conqueror. Strong performance by Neeson who lives to right wrongs particularly his own. Geoffrey Rush as a cop who will not accept failure is one note and cardboard with a foolish concluding decision. Thurman is appealing as a prostitute rescued by Neeson's need to prevail goodness but her dismiss is a tad sudden and awkward. Claire Danes as her daughter is effective and predictable, and so is Hans Matheson as her current suitor whom she actually likes. Theme indicates that an act of forgiveness goes a long way. Score: 8 / 10

Often times people compare this movie to the book or the Broadway. If you are going to do that, you might as well not even watch it. This movie is a simplified rendition of the book and, besides the setting, characters, and basic plot, is nothing like the book or the Broadway. I recommend that you enjoy this movie for what it is and do not try to compare it to its other versions.This movie is one of the best movies ever made. It has all the best parts of a great movie. Action, love, redemption, suspense, a great music score, a despicable evil villain, a plot twist, sheer emotion, and it give an insight into the past and some of the social problems that existed. If this movie was an original work it probably would have been one of the best of all time, but since it varies from the book, which has a loyal following of its own, it has been overlooked.

No, it doesn't have singing. What Billie August's Les Miserables does have, about the decades long 'chase' between ex-convict Jean Valjean and super-cop Javert,is really strong acting across the board, and what one might call 'handsomely mounted' production style, so it can be gritty, but it almost has the feel of a film from the 40's or 50's, only a little more modern. What I mean to say is I respect this on its own level, not quite like the 2012 film, though they each have their own merits and faults. But especially here, I loved Rush as Javert, a man who is so beholden to the ideal of the law that it buries him, ultimately. I could go on comparing the 2012 and 1998 films, and I want to try to avert it, except to say that I just preferred the story here, how it was told simply, no frills (and no romantic-love triangle just plain romantic interest between Marius and Cosette, the latter being more of a character than in the musical far as I could tell). For people like Valjean and Fantine, they each work their own ways in musical/dramatic film, so on that point it's not totally fair to compare. But I love Neeson as Valjean, and I love Thurman (albeit without a Dream to Dream) as Fatine. And I was blown away by the ending, with the closure coming for both characters within the same locale. While the film may ultimately be TOO handsomely mounted in a way, or maybe the music is not super imaginative here, the story shone through here, and I could see the actors doing so much, under August's direction (and this is a guy who's done Ingmar Bergman so the man knows his character one-on-one drama), to elevate the melodrama into something potent and, for me, true. When Valjean and Javert have their face-offs, across the board they are convincing, tension-filled, but illuminating the moral dilemmas that both characters come across in the course of events. And there's plenty of subtlety to go around too. So, to recommend it would depend: do you want to see a, yes, condensed adaptation of the big-epic Hugo book, with big Hollywood stars and lots of money poured into sets and extras and squalor and... Oh, that's out now in theaters as well? It's a tough call, and you'll have to come to both modern versions both your own way. For me, I'd be interested to see any version of this compelling tale, but at the end of the day, I go for August's professionally drawn, classically shot but deeply felt direction, because, overall, for the medium of film it works.