User reviews

Since many years ago I've been a fan of Victor Hugo's novel, Les Miserables, and I can say this is one of the best and most faithful film adaptations of the story. Harry Baur is great as Jean Valjean, and all the cast in general is excellent. There is only one thing I may object about the film: the omission of the episode of Jean Valjean and Cosette in the Petit-Picpus convent and consequently the omission of the gardener Fauchelevent. This film is far much better than the one which is consider the classic version of Les Miserables, the one directed in 1935 by Richard Boleslawski, starring Frederich March as Valjean and Charles Laughton as Javert. Raymond Bernard's version of Les Miserables is only comparable to other two French film versions of the novel: the 1982 directed by Robert Hossein, starring Lino Ventura and the 2000 TV version, directed by Joseé Dayan, starring Gerard Depardieu.

Generally considered the best, most complete version of Victor Hugo's novel ever produced, I think I'm finally convinced that I just don't like this story all that much. Oh, don't get me wrong, it has its share of remarkable moments, and, all in all, it's quite a good film. The thing I've noticed with the various adaptations I've seen of it is that I'm with it up until Cosette grows up, then I kind of check out. Almost all the best parts of the story happen in the first half. This version is divided into three feature length films. The first one is by far the best, covering up to the point Fantine dies and Jean Valjean escapes to go rescue Cosette. This hits all the most important themes, particularly the horrible way society treats the destitute. The second section, entitled "The Thenardiers," after the innkeepers who have enslaved Cosette, is great at the start. Charles Dullin is amazing as Thenardier, and Gaby Triquet is so damned adorable as the child Cosette. Cosette as a teenager is fairly uninteresting, and her love interest, Marius, is a completely dull character. The third part covers the revolution portion of the novel, and, frankly, outside of Gavroche (wonderfully played by Emile Genevois), I just don't care about any of it. Jean Valjean is almost superfluous until the final act (the finale here is definitely quite moving). Harry Baur is an amazing Jean Valjean (he also plays Champmathieu, the man wrongly accused of being Valjean in the first part). Charles Vanel is fine as Javert, but the character is kind of dull in this version. Bernard's direction is frequently outstanding and the cinematography is excellent.

This version of "Les Miserables" is very much the best I've ever seen.

I've read the book, and the author Victor Hugo has a certain kind of great, rolling oceanic rhythm, where he starts to set up a scene, appears to wander around adding elements, then slowly brings people and events to a staggering, shuddering climax two- or three hundred pages later. And he manages it several times in the one book. It's a remarkable technique, and no other film version of Les Mis that I've seen manages to capture that feeling of majestic, gigantic tension and release the way this one does.

Now, I've only seen the three-hour version of the Depardieu/Dayan version, not the original six-hour, which I've never been able to track down in a version with English subtitles.

But I've seen just about every other version, and they all have a disjointed sense of pace and continuity that comes from jamming a huge novel into a Cuisinart and filming the pages that survive.

For overall achievement, this one takes the prize. Individual scenes have been done more effectively in other versions, but for capturing the feeling of actually having read the book, this movie is the best.

Other versions have gone deeper into the dirt and filth of Old Paris; much of this film was shot on backlot streets where even the dirt is clean, like a Sam Goldwyn picture. Director Raymond Bernard is also a little too fond of tilting the camera for dramatic effect, but you get used to it quickly, and some of the German Expressionist lighting is very effective.

This is the only version I've seen that shows the actual revolution Hugo describes with sympathy and patience, and the character of Marius gains terrifically from it. By contrast, the attitude towards revolution is nervous and dismissive in the 1935 March/Boleslawski version, as Hollywood was run by Republicans in those days, and Marius inevitably comes off like a twerp. Not here.

Also, the class distinctions among the characters are etched far more clearly than in other adaptations. Today's egalitarian impulses usually tend to bland out such niceties, but our contemporary demands for comfort with these interactions are ignored in this movie from 1933.

Harry Baur as Valjean is a dramatic giant, a stocky, massive bunch of nerve endings. He is from the same school as Emil Jannings, but fortunately never plumbs the depths of Jannings' abysmal, moist self-pity. It should also be noted that Baur is better here than in Abel Gance's film about Beethoven. Some of the actors surrounding him in Les Mis are a bit obvious, but OTOH this has the best Gavroche, period.

Charles Vanel is the only Inspector Javert you are likely to see who was not affected by Charles Laughton's remarkable portrayal of the character, as that was not to be filmed until two years afterward. Laughton's Javert was so intense that it unbalanced that picture, so that the film wound up being about his agony, not Jean Valjean's, which is wrong.

Charles Vanel's Javert appears to be offhand, methodical, restrained, banal; unlike Laughton, he has no speech about why he does what he does, and he gets very few closeups. There is next to no exploration of his interior life, if any, and his death is handled very differently from what we have come to expect.

Past the initial surprise, I think that is one point of the film, that Javert is not a flamboyant, obsessive madman. Vanel's Javert is not a twitchy rogue cop like Anthony Perkins or a reptilian boogeyman like John Malkovich; this film is not a Homeric one-on-one duel to the death like "The Fugitive." Here, Javert symbolizes a government of anonymous and casual brutality. He is a willing cog in a machine that metes out rigid punishment and has no mechanism for tempering justice with mercy. This approach will definitely provoke you to thought, which you can't say about most movies.

Anyway, forget the star-studded comic book adaptations that are the norm for this title, and curl up with a good book. This one is on two DVDs, takes around five hours to watch, and you'll never regret it.

I got my first glimpse of the 1934 version while watching the 1995 adaptation with Jean-Paul Belmondo. The clips to which we are treated there intrigued me and after considerable rooting around the internet I managed to obtain a copy on video (to the best of my knowledge it has never been released in Britain). I was not disappointed. This is quite the fullest and most satisfying cinematic version of Hugo's extraordinary tale yet produced. Some may find the running time of around four and a half hours quite daunting, but I found that I hardly noticed the time pass. The reasons for its success are manifold. Firstly the detail and therefore the strength of the original are largely retained. Characters are properly fleshed out, and just as in the original we feel we share the characters' lives and get to know and care about them. The depth and number of characters are not sacrificed to considerations of time and commerce. Although some of the photography appears dated by modern standards, Raymond Bernard's literate script and direction are stimulating and advance the narrative at a steady pace (despite the impression created by the running time). He is masterful in the creation of atmosphere in both intimate and crowd scenes. For example the film is quite spectacular in its depiction of the 1832 uprising, yet it is deeply moving in the scenes involving Valjean and the Bishop. The music (by Arthur Honegger) has great dignity and is entirely apt to the tenor of the film and the themes it embraces. However, if the real strength of the piece is in the depth and conviction of its characters, their cinematic success is due in no short measure to the quality of the acting. Fantine (Josseline Gael) is perhaps a little melodramatic for modern tastes, and Javert (Charles Vanel) lacks a truly tragic quality, but all told the performances are faithful to the original and convincing, and none more so than Harry Baur as Valjean. His immense physical presence and slow, controlled delivery, combined with his ability to express his inner feelings with little more than a look or a moment's hesitation command our respect and sympathy, making him the perfect incarnation of the tormented but determined Valjean. It wreaks sincerity and a genuine desire to transfer not just the story, but the spirit of the original onto the big screen.

TFO (la Télévision Française en Ontario), the French Ontario TV channel has started showing the complete version of this 5 hours and 15 minutes piece (3 x 1 hour and 47 minutes) in three parts, on three consecutive Sundays, starting yesterday. This is a major event as this film is almost never shown, is not available on DVD and is usually cut down, when shown at all, to three hours. It is an amazing accomplishment for 1934 because of the following elements: the mobility of the camera, the sound effects, the music by Arthur Honegger, the witty, almost literary, visual ellipses, the interpretation of Baur and Vanel, the editing and eerie expressionistic camera angles, and the production values in general (sets and costumes cannot be topped). The only drawback of the TV showing is that the film is cropped vertically (the old "tops of the heads are missing" syndrome), which comes from cropping a 1.30:1 narrow ratio early-talkie film onto a 1.37:1 TV screen without pillar-boxing. It's still worth the watch. Needless to say: This is long overdue on DVD!

Historical note: The creepy night scene where Cosette is sent, despite her fears, to fetch water a long way from home at the request of her heartless keepers, is a direct inspiration for Walt Disney's Snow White's panicky flight through the forest scene of three years later (1937).

May 2008 update: As most of you probably know, the whole film is now available on DVD from Criterion's Eclipse series in Region 1.

Hugo's novel is my bible. I remember, while I was reading the books in the course of over one year (in small portions mostly, but not rarely I had to sacrifice an entire night), one of the three volumes has been always in a striking distance to me: near my pillow, riding pillion, on my school desk or in my backpack on trips and sleep-overs. Simply put, the story was my home for that one year, Jean Valjean one of my closest friends and Cosette my own child. That's now about 10 years ago and I still return to it every once in a while, pick randomly chapters to read and still am drawn to Hugo's uniquely beautiful and powerful language (i.e. the chapter where he describes the battle of Waterloo is probably the single best piece of literature I've ever read). So, although, I love the book so much, I never dared to touch any screen adaptation, and there are plenty out there, because I did not want to ruin my imaginations of Les misérables I had in my mind for more than 10 years now. I finally did last week and what can I say? Actually, I don't want to spout too much, to run into danger to talk things to death, but it's an amazing, amazing experience when you see those pictures that were engraved in your head for a long time, now alive, in front of your eyes instead of behind. Of course, a book is, I guess, always more stimulating than its adaptation (are there actually any examples to disprove?), and Bernard's is no exception. In fact, this one is as close to the essence of literature as the medium can get. Everything that can be great about movies comes together here, and in the end, Les misérables is the first film I immediately felt home (which is mostly due to the previous history I have with the story), and when a filmmaker achieves exactly this with his very own methods, like a writer does with his/hers, the outcome is nothing less than, yes, cinematic perfection.

This film is, beyond any comparison, the most perfect version of Victor Hugo's timeless classic - BAR NONE! I've only seen this version once at a UCLA French film retrospective, but I was absolutely floored. If you ever get a chance to see this movie, do not miss it! Harry Baur's performance as Jean Valjean is magnificent. I'd love to see this one again. I wish it was available in any form DVD, VHS ... anything.

So far, I have not read the book, and have only listened to a few bits from the musical, and I am usually not too fond of foreign films. I saw that this was on TCM not too long ago and I decided to give a watch. It took me two days, because I was doing other things, and here is my overall impression: One of the Best Films Ever! The story is about convict, Jean Valjean(played by Harry Baur, who gives an incredible performance), has a changed experience because of a bishop who took him in(Henry Krauss), and saved him from going into forced labor for life. Valjean uses silver the bishop gives him, so he could have a new start in life. Along the way, Inspector Javert(Charles Vanel) tracks him down throughout the years, and while Valjean escapes and changes his identity. The story's main themes in my opinion, are redemption, humanity, and the revaluation of good and evil. Valjean is an escaped convict, but he shows love and compassion for his fellow man, and even takes in a dying woman's child as his own. He even offers Javert to arrest him after he has found Cosette(the dying woman, Fantine's child). While Javert, a police inspector, is at the wrong side of ethics, as he lacks the compassion Valjean has. The film runs over four hours, the longest film I have ever seen, and its worth it. You need the running time to be long so you can discover the full depth of the story. The film also contains themes of revolution which are present, but it does not begin until much later on in the film. Overall, one of my 10 favorite films, and is one you should get your hands on.

I came across this by accident, broadcast over 3 nights on TV - I recorded it, and watched the whole thing without being able to leave the sofa. It is the best movie I've ever seen.

4½ hours long, subtitled black-and-white Victor Hugo epic doesn't sound appealing, or only to 'art house' fans, but not so ... if you ever get a chance to see it, do!

The acting is tremendous, as is the cinematography. Certain visual moments are forever imprinted on my mind, such as the moment when a helping hand comes out of nowhere to help the collapsed Cosette, or the moment when a nun, sworn to always tell the truth, lies to protect the protagonist, Jean Valjean.

It is a superb retelling, and remains the best version of this classic novel. What makes it even more poignant is how themes in the movie were reflected in the real lives of the actors. Harry Baur, who plays the lead - a man falsely imprisoned and whom is relentless pursued through the film - lost his life a few years later at the hand of the Gestapo for being suspected of aiding the resistance, and Gaby Triquet (the young Cosette) was shamed and blacklisted for having an affair with a German soldier and never worked again.

I've seen a few 1930s features, and while enjoying them, would not expect others to sit through them. Not this! It is everything a good movie is about - superbly crafted, mesmerising to watch, and leaves you seeing the world slightly differently afterwards. I've never seen better.

I am a huge fan of those lavish Hollywood productions of the same period and genre and its strict codes of plot, camera angles and montage, where even the poor have to look glamorous. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939), Marie Antoinette (1938), A Tale of Two Cities (1935) and 20th Century Pictures' own version of Les Misérables (1935) come to mind. But this is something different. Starting with the fantastic soundtrack by Arthur Honneger and the expressionist camera and lighting, you enter another world. Of course it helps the authenticity by being a French film with French actors. Here you can see the real French working classes, the homeless and the criminals. By the way, the English subtitles of the Eclipse DVD are good and idiomatic. Also, this monumental and epic film (DVD version 281 min, and a 315 min version seems to exist) has none of the poor production values one is accustomed to with such films from Europe of the 30s. It makes you wonder what might have been possible at, say, MGM if Stroheim or Welles had been given free reign. Let's be glad to have both visions as created in very different studios on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is still the best of the many versions. It is very good story the Victor Hugo based on some true events, which makes it a little more interesting. The cinematography is excellent. They have nice moody film noir lighting along with good daylight scenes. Many different types of camera scenes such as high and low angles, tilt shots, tracking etc., all without being gratuitous. My only complaint is it's a bit too long. Particularly the end including the fight scenes and the final dancing. A few edits to shorten it up would help.

"Les Miserables" (1933): This film on DVD comes in three parts, totaling 279 minutes. Audiences were appreciative of long, complex stories. They didn't need everything stated and resolved in 22 minutes. They had an attention span. This is THE definitive interpretation of Victor Hugo's novel. The photography is flawlessly inventive and artistic. The scoring is everything from subtle to emotional and sweeping. The story is, of course, HUGE. Like other authors of that time, the use of irony was a major, and wonderful, device (no, it is not an invention of 1990s films). DO expect IT to expect YOU to keep up. The acting is all over the map, from superb and aware, to stiff and overstated (from the only-then-dying silent film era). The set room sets and costumes are great, the landscapes & "cityscapes sometimes contrived as flat sets. This film, like All Quiet on the Western Front, are must-see examples of what powerful, early film making can be.

Last summer (and fall...) I read the complete unabridged novel Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Needless to say, it had an impact on my life. I have since been on a quest to find a book that is its equal, but who knows if that book exists.

I made the mistake of watching the 1998 Hollywood butchery job and let's just say I was unimpressed. Somewhere I read that this 1934 French version was the most 'true-to-book' version of the novel out there. Well, after watching it, I'd have to agree! It is a long movie, but it covers pretty much every major part of the novel except for Jean and Cosette's experience living in the convent. It still works, though.

I wouldn't recommend anyone who has not read Hugo's amazing novel to sit through this movie: but if you want to reminisce a little, and recall some visions that you had while reading the book, this film should do the trick better than anything else out there.

Well done!!! 9 out of 10, kids.

Several of us spent most of one weekend centered around watching five different versions of Les Miserables, and the general consensus was that the earliest, this by Raymond Bernard, was the masterpiece, the most accurate reflection of the massive Hugo novel, the only one in which the relationship between Valjean and the infant Cosette is captured with understanding and charm, and the only one that doesn't count on a fiendish Javert to advance the plot. Inspector Javert, after all, is only a tool for an antiquated justice system, only one coil in a larger serpent that threatens human justice.

Each of the other versions naturally has separate strengths and weaknesses, the best conventional overview version still being the 1935 Hollywood version with Fredric March and Charles Laughton, and one of the weaker entries featuring Tony Perkins as Javert (channeling Norman Bates).

Bernard's version is a lasting experience! Count on an entire day to watch this, as it is separated as three different films, each with it's own visual rhythm, but all connected to the redemption of it's hero. This epic had never been released as a complete film in the United States, and thanks to Criterion, we now have the opportunity to engage with a dazzling, if sombre masterpiece.

Don't let the long length deter you, the story is such a big one that is very rich in detail and does need over 2 hours at least to tell it. This film is not just very faithful to it, the most faithful out of all the adaptations, but tells it absolutely thrillingly and with great emotion too. You are drawn into Hugo's world and in the time of the Revolution and along with the 1978 adaptation this is the version with the best characterisation(Valjean has never been this well-realised on film). While Javert is not as prominent as other adaptations his scenes do have tension and there is the feeling of he and Valjean being polar opposites as well as mirror images of one another, the sewer chase is thrilling, Valjean and Cosette's father-daughter relationship has never been more charming, the Revolution scenes have a real emotional intensity and immediacy that has been unparalleled on film and the romance is not shallow nor does it feature too much. In fact all the character relationships are explored beautifully and don't out-balance one another, one will argue that the rest of the characters pale next to Valjean here, I don't agree I think they are all convincing and it's mainly because Harry Baur's performance is so good that there may be that feeling. But it's not just how well it scores adaptation-wise that makes Les Miserables(1934) the best version of the book and one of the best of its decade but how it works so well as a film.

There are more lavish and authentic adaptations of the book(1935, 1998) but that says very little because the costumes and sets are still beautifully rendered here and the Expressionistic style the photography and lighting adopt are equally striking. Arthur Honnegar's music score adds much to the atmosphere too, it is sweeping and grand yet emotional and subtly haunting too. The film is brilliantly written and treats the story and Hugo's prose like it knows that it's a classic(and Les Miserables is). The story doesn't run out of steam, allows time for things to develop and never feels too rushed or too structurally thin. And as said early on in the review what is so powerful in the book is translated every bit as powerfully here, and you can tell that everybody connected with their roles and what they're going through, kind of like it's affecting them in a personal way. Of the performances, the best by far is Harry Baur, that he is the only actor as Valjean to properly fit the role physically(Gerard Depardieu in the 2000 mini-series comes close but not close enough) is one part of the allure but every better is that he gives a towering and in this viewer's mind definitive performance in the role, noble, emotive, tragic, charismatic, initially immoral and later redemptive. Charles Vanel is a very icy and ruthless Javert, one person you wouldn't want to cross paths with and there is a tense dynamic between the two and that Javert is very strongly principled. The only thing that has been done slightly better in other adaptations is Javert having a more vulnerable side. All the performances are fine, Fantine is deeply affecting and Cosette and Marius are the least bland their characters have often been since, the only reservation is Eponine being too old(and we're not talking a bit here) but she still is written and portrayed very convincingly so it isn't too much of a hindrance. And of course Raymond Bernard's direction is superb. Overall, a magnificent film, both as an adaptation- the best film adaptation of Les Miserables by a mile- and as a film in general. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Les Misérables is not War and Peace, and as a novelist, Victor Hugo was not Tolstoy. There is a lot of filler in the novel. Bernard does a good jog of focusing on only the important scenes and simply ignoring the rest - he made this movie for an audience who knew the novel and did not have to be filled in on a lot of the exposition. Those scenes that he does choose to film, especially the revolution on the barricades, are often very well done.

By the last third of the movie, however, he becomes too self-indulgent, and spends too much time on scenes that, given the length of the movie, would have been better passed over far more quickly.

The star, without any question, in this movie is Henry Bauer as Jean Valjean. He's not a handsome man, but he's a big and powerful one as Valjean was big and powerful. And an actor capable of conveying great emotion just with his face.

This is not always easy to sit through. If you don't know the story well, you may feel lost at times. But at its best, this movie gives a remarkable account of Hugo's novel, less the story of les misérables - the poor - than of one man who was asked to bear more sorrow than any man should have to bear, yet who never complained and just kept forging ahead.

I accept the generous reviews below, but in my view this is hardly a masterpiece. Many vital elements of the novel are left out (e.g., the late appearances of Thenardiers), which considerably lessen the emotional impact of the story. Yet the film lavishes attention on minor scenes in the novel, such as the Marius-Cosette wedding.

The movie is interesting for historical reasons however. France was deep in the depression in 1934, and the French film industry must have been very short on funds, yet it mounted a costly and beautiful expressionist production. (The threat from Nazi Germany must have also drawn government funds from the arts to armaments.)

I also found some of the acting melodramatic, in the silent-film era style. Young Cosette seems to be looking off-camera for direction about what to do. Yet I also found Baur occasionally wooden as Valjean.

I am not enamored of the novel because the unabridged original is vastly long-winded, redundant, and needing an editor. Still, it packs a huge emotional impact several times over 1450 pages. The only similar emotional release in this movie is when Valjean embraces Cosette at the very end, which is a cheap, largely unearned way to engage the audience.

Deemed by many as the best film adaptation of the book, this is, effectively, the book onscreen. Do you believe that books should be adapted to the letter of how they're written no matter how long they are? If your answer's yes, this is the film for you!

I don't adore 4.5-hour-long films. Even 3 hours is a push for me. A film isn't a book; it's an entirely different format of storytelling and one that benefits from being a bit more concise. Having said that, this is a very visually impressive piece of cinema which captures the tone of the book very well. Just not my favourite version.

Raymond Bernard was certainly the most underrated director of the thirties ;his name is almost never mentioned along the usual suspects :Renoir,Carné,Duvivier,Pagnol,Christian-Jaque,Grémillon,et al;he nevertheless produced two classics in this golden era: his gigantic "Les Miserables" and his work about WW1 slaughter, "Les Croix De Bois "which compares favorably with Gance's "J'Accuse" or Kubrik's "paths of glory".

People interested in his Hugo adaptation (and they are numerous) should try and watch other works : a prolific director,he made forgettable movies (like everybody else) but "Cavalcade d'Amour " (1939) which tells three love stories in the same place but at different times;"Un Ami Viendra Ce Soir" a curious movie about the French Resistance - which might have inspired De Broca for his highly praised "Le Roi De Coeur ";"Le Jugement De Dieu" , a brilliant melodrama in the Middle Ages poorly remade later as a sketch of "Les Amours Célèbres with B. Bardot and A.Delon;a black comedy " Le Septième Ciel" ,all these movies worth seeking out;there's also a silent version of "Le Miracle Des Loups "(1924),later remade by André Hunebelle in the sixties.

Forgive me for this long introduction,but it's really a pity this director should be ignored even in his native country (among the many comments,how many come from French users?).

In the thirties ,it was a titanic task,actually an equivalent of Gance's "Napoleon" of the twenties;it's the only French thirties work which features three parts :at the time,in Paris, it was possible to see the whole in one day,for the theaters did not show the same film;later on,with the staggering exception of "Les Enfants Du Paris" ,the two-part movies (such as "Le Comte De Monte Cristo" and Le Chanois's much inferior own "Miserables" ) were released several months apart.

The male cast is close to perfect:Harry Baur is considered one of best French actors of all time ,the extraordinary lead of Duvivier's first talkie "David Golder "and was made to portray Valjean ;his restrained but highly intense acting works wonders in the scene with bishop Myriel and in all his scenes with Javert played by the always reliable Charles Vanel ,the only French actor enjoying 2 movies in the IMDb top 250- 'Le Salaire De La Peur " and "Les Diaboliques" - by the way!matching them all along the way is Charles Dullin - a great stage actor whose portraying of Molière's Harpagon has remained memorable-as Thénardier ,with his face ravaged by greed;Jean Servais the French audience mainly remembers for his later parts and often forgets there was a time when he was young,and he is a very good Marius.

On the other hand,the female parts are more uneven ;Florelle as Fantine is deeply moving ,the destitution's child who endures the unwed mother's fate;the great Marguerite Moreno shines as La Thénardier ,the actress was as convincing as a shrew as she was as a Grande dame;Pagnol's Orane Demazis is less talented as Eponine although she fortunately forgets her Provençal accent and has a good final scene (the part was intended for Arletty ) ;as for the forgotten actress who plays Cosette,she is totally bland (the part was intended for Danielle Darrieux)

Although Waterloo is not included -represented here by a painting and some Thénardier's lines- there are imposing scenes on the barricades ,and the death of Gavroche ("this little soul had flown away") is really moving,with a young actor with more screen presence than his sister;more intimate scenes such as these with bishop Myriel go straight to the heart ;and "the tempest in the skull" shows Bernard's virtuosity ,here in a league with Abel Gance .

Neither Le Chanois's nor Hossein's versions ,let alone American effort starring Liam Neeson can hold a candle to Bernard's Magnum Opus.

The first part of this three part, four hour and 21 minute adaptation is superb and moving. For its time the characters are surprisingly nuanced in both writing and acting, and there are a number a great scenes and terrific twists.

Frustratingly the 2nd and 3rd parts feel much more hackneyed and clichéd, with more uneven acting, thinner characters, and overly melodramatic moments.

Lead actor Harry Baur is great throughout, which helps keep the 2nd and 3rd parts still quite watchable, and throughout there is some terrific camera-work, including modern-feeling touches like hand-held fights, and Dutch angled scenes. Certainly this is a brave work on a film-making level.

But as the story focuses less and less on Jean Valjean and his various incarnations, and more and more on the world around him, that thrilling feeling of watching a masterpiece fades into just watching a very interesting and impressive piece of film history.

That said, many film writers I respect treat the whole thing as a masterwork, so perhaps I'll re-visit.