Reviews

I had seen the play and read the book, and became hooked on "Les Mis" for about a year. So when this movie came out, I was looking forward to seeing it.

However, I was disappointed in the changes that was made in this movie.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Marius was not the person who motivated the crowd into action. It was Enjolras.

Cosette did not meet Marius in a protest, but through Eponine.

And Eponine sacrificed herself because of her love of Marius. Where was that in this movie. In fact, where was Eponine--other than as a little girl playing with Azelma? She was an essential character, and she was reduced to a little girl in the background.

Also, when Fantine was sick, what was she doing with no pants on?

Javert did commit suicide, but it was not in front of Valjean. Besides, if Valjean would have witnessed it, he would have jumped into the water to save Javert--even to the threat to his freedom. In the play, Valjean did save Javert in another situation to the threat of his freedom.

And Valjean would NEVER hit Cosette, especially since he's been redeemed and he did take Cosette away from a life of abuse. He loved her. He knew that abusing her was wrong. So he would never have hit her--NO MATTER WHAT!

I know that movie adaptations do make changes from the book, and the play didn't exactly follow the book either, but the spirit and characterization of the play still matched the book. Not so in this adaptation.

I've read the user comments for Listen to Me, and a lot of people didn't like it on grounds of "This is not what a real life college debate team is like."

I liked the movie, but it was the side stories and the past of all the characters that drew me, and discovering what that struggle is was the reward of the film: one girl had been raped, one struggled with the shame and deprivation of poverty, one rich guy who's struggling with reclaiming HIS life after being ruled by an iron thumb of a father, one girl who is ashamed of her limp but finds love in a guy who does not care about her limp, etc.

To another user review: The rich guy did NOT die after attempting to rape the girl. (SPOILER COMING UP) He wanted to chat, and he made some gesture which made her freak out because she had been raped before. It was a misunderstanding. As he tried to clear up the misunderstanding, he was hit by a car and died.

I have seen this movie several times and may see it again. It's the side story. The human lives behind the debate team that interested me. I may one of those people another user talked about as being in the same class as The Breakfast Club or St. Elmo's Fire.

So maybe only those people who like movies like The Breakfast Club or St. Elmo's Fire will like this movie.

I first saw this movie back in April, and it really drew my attention.

I found the movie to be a taut thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time.

I didn't like Stu Shepard that much at the beginning, but after he entered the phone booth, I was hooked.

The movie also gave me a lot to think about in regards to forced confession, repentance, unconditional love (from Kelly), and sacrifice.

SPOILERS BELOW: Kiefer Sutherland's appearance at the end scared me. Just when I thought that everything was okay now. :-)

The only thing I didn't like were the prostitutes. I found the scene with the prostitutes and later with Leo to be annoying.

I was also a bit disappointed that this movie wasn't just about anyone answering a public payphone and therefore being trapped into being a hostage. Instead, Stu was targeted because he wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Other than that, I really liked this movie because of its entertainment value and because it really got me to think.

I just saw this movie on video, and the movie did draw me, but not the ending. I also saw this movie from a different point of view than how others have seen it. Many of the viewers here commented on how unrealistic Hart's War was in terms of life in a concentration camp. I saw the characterization of Hart.

SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

1. Why is Bruce Willis the star of this movie? The title of the movie is HART'S War, not McNamara's War.

Plus the movie followed Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell), not McNamara (Bruce Willis)

It is Thomas Hart we see at the beginning. It was Thomas Hart we see driving the jeep and getting captured. It was Thomas Hart we see interrogated and imprisoned, even huddling completely naked in a cold prison cell. It was Thomas Hart we see in the POW train, shivering from cold and horrified at seeing his friend die. It was Thomas Hart we follow in the march. It was Thomas Hart we see reacting to the camp (the hanging, the rats). It was Thomas Hart we see becoming a leader and eventual defender. It was Thomas Hart.

McNamara is just someone who shows up from time to time, and is secretly working behind the scenes to liberate his fellow American soldiers. We didn't follow McNamara as he was doing this. We followed Hart.

2. In the beginning, I saw a man who had a comfy job at what appears to be military headquarters. By taking on an assignment to transport an officer, he comes to experience for the first time the horrors of war. From there, he grows to be a leader of his unit and eventual attorney to another black soldier who was accused of the crime.

3. Hart seems to be ashamed to be a senator's son. When the soldier mentioned it in the jeep, Hart looked offended. I saw the shame again when he was talking about his family with the defendant. I wish they could explore this issue more (not necessarily in the jeep but later in the movie). Why be ashamed to be a senator's son?

4. Hart also seems to have been sheltered, that he hasn't really experienced the horrors of war until the jeep incident and eventual POW.

5. It was great to see Colin Farrell play a likable character for once. He was such a jerk in Phone Booth, in Minority Report, and a villain in Daredevil.