Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson)is a Frenchman who ends up being imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread. However, Valjean manages to escape from prison and goes on the run. Valjean does his best to set-up a new life for himself and turn his back on his old ways. The film follows Valjean and Javert in a 20 year cat-and-mouse battle and the impact that all of this has on both of their lives.
This is my first experience of "Les Miserables" so please bear with me while I try and explain what I felt were the pros and cons of this film;
PROS;
The cinematography was very good (cold and bleak) which is befitting as this reflects the general outlook for the majority of its citizens. The second thing that was also good were the set designs; clearly a lot of time, thought and effort had been spent on trying to capture the era and it succeeds in making the film look professional and authentic.
Some of the performances here were excellent (particularly Geoffrey Rush and Uma Thurman). Javert initially pursue Valjean out of a sense of duty, but as time progresses it becomes more of an obsession and he slowly begins to lose touch with reality - Rush takes us through this journey impeccably and he's the best person in this film by a country mile. Uma Thurman's performance helps bring out the tragedy within her character; she's a pathetic figure and does some 'questionable' things, but she does these questionable things for all the right reasons so her character is someone who people can identify with. Uma Thurman is someone who is a better actress than people give her credit for and when you look at her performance here compared to films such as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill (who are clearly mirror opposites to the character that she portrays here) then it's clear that she is a talented and diverse actress. Both Thurman and Rush definitely up this film a notch.
Given the fact that the film in its basic form has something of a 'cat and mouse' narrative to it then it certainly had enough going for it to hold my interest.
CONS;
The first half of the film is quite engaging, but for me it started to lose impetus in the second half (it neither has the intrigue or suspense that the first half offered and seemed to meander quite a lot). We're once again introduced to an unnecessary romantic subplot which just ground the picture down.
In all honesty I also had mixed feelings about our protagonist; on the one hand yes he's tried to turn his back on his former life and he has helped people along the way, but he also lied and deceived a lot of people as well. I suppose the good that he did outweighed the bad, but let's not pretend that he is in any way perfect.
I also felt that there were gaps in the narrative that could have been filled; Valjean escapes from prison and then the film skips by a further 9 years by which time he has become mayor of the town. OK what happened in those 9 years? In some ways the gaps and jumps in the film do make it difficult to get to grips with some of the characters and make it hard to care about them at times.
Liam Neeson is generally a good actor and I do like a lot of his films, but something just didn't click here when watching him in Les Miserables. When tough-talking or anything physical is required he's excellent, but he seemed to struggle a bit when any sort of emotion is required (maybe I'm biased and maybe the numerous action films I've seen Neeson in have clouded my judgement of him), but I standby my original assertion.
Like Valjean himself this film is good most of the time rather than all of the time.
This is my first experience of "Les Miserables" so please bear with me while I try and explain what I felt were the pros and cons of this film;
PROS;
The cinematography was very good (cold and bleak) which is befitting as this reflects the general outlook for the majority of its citizens. The second thing that was also good were the set designs; clearly a lot of time, thought and effort had been spent on trying to capture the era and it succeeds in making the film look professional and authentic.
Some of the performances here were excellent (particularly Geoffrey Rush and Uma Thurman). Javert initially pursue Valjean out of a sense of duty, but as time progresses it becomes more of an obsession and he slowly begins to lose touch with reality - Rush takes us through this journey impeccably and he's the best person in this film by a country mile. Uma Thurman's performance helps bring out the tragedy within her character; she's a pathetic figure and does some 'questionable' things, but she does these questionable things for all the right reasons so her character is someone who people can identify with. Uma Thurman is someone who is a better actress than people give her credit for and when you look at her performance here compared to films such as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill (who are clearly mirror opposites to the character that she portrays here) then it's clear that she is a talented and diverse actress. Both Thurman and Rush definitely up this film a notch.
Given the fact that the film in its basic form has something of a 'cat and mouse' narrative to it then it certainly had enough going for it to hold my interest.
CONS;
The first half of the film is quite engaging, but for me it started to lose impetus in the second half (it neither has the intrigue or suspense that the first half offered and seemed to meander quite a lot). We're once again introduced to an unnecessary romantic subplot which just ground the picture down.
In all honesty I also had mixed feelings about our protagonist; on the one hand yes he's tried to turn his back on his former life and he has helped people along the way, but he also lied and deceived a lot of people as well. I suppose the good that he did outweighed the bad, but let's not pretend that he is in any way perfect.
I also felt that there were gaps in the narrative that could have been filled; Valjean escapes from prison and then the film skips by a further 9 years by which time he has become mayor of the town. OK what happened in those 9 years? In some ways the gaps and jumps in the film do make it difficult to get to grips with some of the characters and make it hard to care about them at times.
Liam Neeson is generally a good actor and I do like a lot of his films, but something just didn't click here when watching him in Les Miserables. When tough-talking or anything physical is required he's excellent, but he seemed to struggle a bit when any sort of emotion is required (maybe I'm biased and maybe the numerous action films I've seen Neeson in have clouded my judgement of him), but I standby my original assertion.
Like Valjean himself this film is good most of the time rather than all of the time.