Les Misérables (1998)

Victor Hugo's famous 1862 novel has been turned into a number of movies (as well as a miniseries and a musical) but this one, from 1998, is probably the consensus film adaptation of choice. Now, I've always loved the musical and one of my most daring ambitions is to read the aforementioned 365-chapter (not page, but chapter) book. So my expectations were high (but realistic) heading into this movie. And I ended up satisfied. The musical is much better and I imagine the lengthy book is as well, but standing on its own accord in a vacuum, this was not a bad movie. I won't compare and contrast it to the musical because doing so would certainly spoil elements of the story and I'm pretty sure nobody on Back-Blogged has had the pleasure of enjoying it yet. Suffice it to say that due to time limitations, much was cut from the musical (and far more from the book, I'm sure). What was left behind was very much the barebones story of Valjean and Javert (with appropriate involvement by Fantine and Cosette). The Thénardiers appear in just one scene and the grown-up Éponine is never even seen. Marius remained, but in a heavily bastardized role that saw him as the leader, rather than a hesitant member, of the student-led revolt. And without Éponine's involvement, the romance between Cosette and Marius felt very regular and bland. I actually didn't enjoy Claire Danes' portrayal of Cosette; she was difficult to like. Geoffery Rush made a very suitable Javert, and the only actor I could think of that seemed a more natural fit for the role was Alan Rickman. Liam Neeson was fine as Valjean, though the character was slightly damaged in my eyes when Valjean slapped Cosette late in the movie, something the real Valjean would absolutely never do! (Screenplay's fault, not Neeson's.) Lastly, Uma Thurman was probably my favorite casting call. She did an excellent Fantine and really impressed me as more than just a Tarantino vehicle. Between this film and her work in The Producers, I think she's earned my respect as a legitimate actress and not just a female bad-ass typecast. Anyway, back to Les Misérables. It felt very front-heavy, by which I mean that the majority of the film was dedicated to events that took place prior to the intermission in the musical. We're talking about a ninety-minute to thirty-minute split here. In fact, things really slowed to a crawl near the middle of that second hour. Fortunately, the film ended with the right amount of action, drama, and tragedy that made the second act of the musical so enjoyable. And please note that this movie adaptation of a 365-chapter book managed to have a running time of just two hours and change. Yes, plenty was trimmed out, but the movie still felt complete and enjoyable. Adding just another half-hour could have really made it much more fulfilling, at least by including Éponine and expanding on the romance between Marius and Cosette. Now tell me how a 365-chapter mega-novel can be made into a great two-and-a-half-hour movie but Harry Potter 7 needs to be split into two separate two-hour-plus movies. Worse yet, why does the fourth Twilight book need to be two movies long? Or Peter Jackson's attempt at The Hobbit? What happened to the art of sufficient movie editing? Why is less no longer more? But alas, I am ranting. Allow me to wrap things up by recommending Les Misérables. Not only this movie, but also (and especially) the musical in all its glory. Someday, I hope to be able to speak as highly about the book. But that day is at least a year from now. I mean seriously, even if I were to buy the book today, and even if I went at the ambitious pace of a chapter a day, it'd still take me a year to finish. Do you see why I'm holding off on that one? It's two and a half Moby-Dicks. It's Gone with the Wind plus another 500 pages. It's in the same league as Atlas Shrugged and War and Peace. And someday, I'll have it logged. Every last word. But not yet. Not yet, dear readers. Not yet.