HotToastyRag I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Fredric March, since he reminds me of my grandpa in The Best Years of Our Lives. Sometimes, as in that movie, he's a wonderful actor; but sometimes, he's just stinky. In Les Misérables, he plays the famous literary hero Jean Valjean, and unfortunately, he's pretty stinky. Charles Laughton plays the complex villain Inspector Javert. As everyone knows, since the story is French, his character name is pronounced "Jah-verr". Fredric March doesn't say it that way. From start to finish, he calls his enemy "Ja-vert". My dad came up with a possible reason for the outrageously embarrassing mistake: Freddie said "Ja-vert,", and director Richard Boleslawski said, "Cut! Freddie, it's 'Jah-verr.'" Freddie said, "Yeah, yeah, I know." Then, thrown out into the ring again, he said "Ja-vert." Rinse and repeat. That scenario sounded so much like something my grandpa would do, that even though "Ja-vert" almost ruins the movie, it still makes me laugh.Now, let's talk about what else is wrong with this version. I really like Charles Laughton, but I think he was miscast as Javert. Charles has a very expressive face, and he always comes across as having enormously deep problems. Javert can't look that way. He's strict, rigid, and has enormous discipline because he loves the law. He doesn't have deep emotional problems. The supporting cast isn't that bad, with Rochelle Hudson as Cosette, Florence Eldridge as Fantine John Beal as Marius, and Cedric Hardwicke as the bishop. Rochelle and Fredric March are pretty contemporary, and parts of the story feel rushed and cheaply done. All in all, this really isn't the best film adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel. Every version has its ups and downs, though, so it's a matter of taste when you pick your favorite.

TheLittleSongbird Les Miserables, with its rich and powerful narrative and mostly compelling characters, is deservedly a classic. It is also not an easy book to adapt, because of how rich in detail it is and its mammoth length. This 1935 film is one of the best and most accessible of Les Miserables(which has been adapted several times with mixed results). Adpaptation-wise, it is not word for word-we are looking at a very long film or mini-series, which was literally unheard of around that time, that way- and condensed(some might say it guillotines the text, but that seems to me too harsh and violent a word to use), but it does do a great job still and the spirit of the book still remains. It does deserve to be judged on its own merits, as do most adaptations, and on that front Les Miserables(1935) succeeds brilliantly. It is a very lavish and authentic production, of all the film adaptations it is one of the best-looking. Alfred Newman's score has that stirring and haunting touch, it has his distinctive style yet it fits the tone of the film ideally. The script is very literate and thoughtful and the story still is powerful, I am in complete agreement that there is the sense also that Valjean doesn't find goodness to be easy despite his nobility. The climax is ironic and hugely emotional, apparently Charles Laughton himself said that it was "the finest thing I have ever been able to accomplish on the screen", some could argue that but with others(including myself) it is very easy to see why. It is skilfully directed and paced in a way that doesn't feel as though it's rushing through the narrative nor that it plods. The chase in the sewers is thrilling. The performances are very good, Frances Eldridge is a moving Fantine, John Beal is likable as Marius, Frances Drake's Eponine is loyal and empathetic and while Cosette is one of the least well-developed characters of the book Rochelle Hudson is charming and sympathetic, careful not to let her delicate looks overshadow her acting(easy to do and a lot of Cosettes have fallen into that trap). The leads are the ones that dominate. Fredric March is very well cast as Valjean, bringing out his nobility and character conflict, that he's handsome too is a bonus. Even more impressive is Charles Laughton, who is effortlessly obsessive and menacingly commanding but he does manage to reign in and not resort to hamminess too much, Javert's conflict has been more convincing elsewhere but there is still the realisation that he can't get what he's been pursuing for so long without going against what's he's stood for(and the realisation also that he cannot accept that Valjean has really changed after thinking him an immoral man for so long) and it still convinces. In conclusion, brilliant film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Syl I thought this was an excellent early version of Victor Hugo's classic. The actor who plays Valjean does an excellent job as does British actor Charles Laughton who plays Javert who chases him for years. I love the film even though it might be dated but it's still faithful to the classic novel. The actresses who play Cosette and Fantine do an excellent job even though they are supporting parts. The film's quality is still excellent even though it was done over seventy years ago in the early stages of talking movies. I still think it's a classic movie and of the novel's best. This film version does not have the music but it still contains the same message of Victor Hugo's novel. Valjean is beautifully played as is Javert in this film.

MartinHafer This isn't a bad film--in fact, if you never read the novel by Victor Hugo, you may think it is a great film. However, how can any film possibly adequately capture the intricacies of a HUGE novel with so many characters and sub-plots. As a result, many of these subplots and characters are simply missing from the film or aren't fully developed. Charles Laughton does a decent job of playing Inspector Javert, however, this character is probably the most important from the novel and in this case he is simply a bad guy without much rhyme or reason. As a result, the movie is sketchy and pretty to look at, but that's really about all.