Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

TheLittleSongbird Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is a classic, a very rich and emotional story but also one that is difficult to adapt, all too clear in how mixed the numerous adaptations of it are. This is not a bad film, far from it. As an adaptation, it's not great, but when judged on its own it's one example of a film with many merits but falls short. Debra Paget makes one of the least interesting characters of the book even blander, if she wasn't so beautiful she would have been completely forgettable, while I do agree that Cameron Mitchell is similarly stiff. The film suffers also from too much of the film being focused too much on Cosette and Marius and not enough on Valjean and Javert(whose story is much more interesting and important, seeing as Paget and Mitchell are so unconvincing in their roles it does hurt the film. Valjean and Javert do have some good tense chemistry together but you wish there was more.Some may say the film is pedestrian, I personally think the opposite and that it's rushed, it maintains the pacing of the book well but the effectiveness of the different subplots is mixed and the characters don't ring true as much as other adaptations because the film does feel rather superficial at times. The ending was abrupt- I missed the emotion and irony that the 1935 film's had- and made Javert's suicide almost pointless, Marius' accusation seemed out of character and unnecessary and the omission of Enjolras and Eponine, the waste of Gavroche(better than omitting him like the 1935 film, a much better film, but still) and the addition of Robert(who didn't add a whole lot) added to the lack of story depth.You might think reading all this that Les Miserables(1952) is a bad film. As said already, it isn't. It is very handsomely mounted with authentic sets and costumes and lovely cinematography. The final shot is a notable example. The music score from Alex North is a mixture of rousing, haunting and beautiful. The script is a very thought-provoking one that respects Hugo's writing. The story did lack a fair bit but it did have its very good moments. Fantine's story is still very poignant(though much more so in the book and in other adaptations), the film is set up very well, Valjean and Javert's conflicts make for some good tension and the sewer chase is thrilling. The storytelling also may be lacking in detail but the spirit of the book is present.Michael Rennie is a very noble Valjean who also gives the character real truth and emotion, which makes him one of the film's most sympathetic characters(the other being the bishop). That goodness doesn't always come easy to Valjean is not absent either. Robert Newton's Javert is equally excellent, he is menacing and authoritative but like with Valjean the film doesn't forget to give a sense(though not the most powerfully depicted) that Javert can't catch Valjean despite getting very close-especially at the end-without breaking what he stands for, and also that Javert cannot accept that Valjean has changed. James Robertson-Justice does have a warm presence and makes an effort to make Robert like he was part of the story already, it doesn't work in that respect but Justice still gives a good account of himself. Sylvia Sidney is affecting as Fantine, and Edmund Gwenn brings humanity and benevolence to the bishop.In conclusion, a decent film that could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Neil Doyle This may not be the best version of LES MISERABLES, but it certainly can be recommended on the basis of a strong performance from Michael Rennie who easily gives the most interesting and sympathetic performance in the film. A considerably restrained Robert Newton is the hated Javert hunting him down. Newton, usually a superb villain, fails to make the sort of villainous impact Charles Laughton made in an earlier version of the story.Unconvincing and simply there as window dressing is Debra Paget as Cosette. Likewise, Cameron Mitchell is stiff and lifeless as the young man who falls in love with her, which surprised me because he is a talented actor who made much better impressions in other films. He seems badly miscast here.Much of the story has been altered in this version, but whenever the concentration is on the story of the haunted central character the film is lifted to another dimension. Rennie as the convict in the early sequences is especially good at conveying all the pain and humiliation his character feels.Too bad that subplots take away from some of the story's strength, especially the one involving Sylvia Sydney's character which is probably among the weakest roles of her career. Her reunion scene with daughter Cosette is almost laughable.A deeper, more penetrating exploration of Valjean and Javert would have given the film a stronger feel. Production-wise, Fox has given the film all the technical values it needed with some fine B&W photography and settings, but it all comes across as a superficial version of the original story.

sligocait This is my favorite version of this story, and Michael Rennie is wonderful as Jean Valjean. Robert Newton is also at his crusty best as Javert, his relentless pursuer. I have never seen Rennie give a bad performance and this movie was one of his best, made right as his film career in the US was taking off. The supporting cast is also excellent, and the conflict that arises within Valjean as his feelings of fatherly love for Cosette become romantic feelings that he cannot act upon add to the tension of the film and make for a very complex performance from a gifted actor.I heartily recommend this movie to anyone, and if you are a fan of Michael Rennie and/or of Robert Newton, you won't be disappointed in either of them. ENJOY!!

bkoganbing Michael Rennie and Robert Newton have a go at playing the classic roles of Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert in another version of Les Miserables. The story was far better told on Broadway and in the 1935 film with Fredric March and Charles Laughton.Not the fault of the actors, Michael Rennie is the restrained voice of civilized humanity in Jean Valjean, proof that a man can overcome a bad start in life and make a contribution to mankind's betterment. Holding the opposite view of course is Robert Newton as the ruthless Inspector Javert who in fact did have a bad upbringing, the child of a convict, but refuses to believe that anyone else can. His negative view of mankind doesn't bring anyone any love in their lives. This I've always felt is the key to Javert be he played by Charles Laughton or Robert Newton.What I didn't like and was not in the March/Laughton version was the idea that the Valjean character had more than a fatherly interest in Cosette, the child of the doomed Fantine who Valjean adopts. Those are the major female roles in Les Miserables and are played here by Debra Paget and Sylvia Sidney respectively and well. I don't think it was necessary at all to have Paget's young suitor, revolutionary student Cameron Mitchell make that accusation.It's not a bad film, but after March and Laughton this one seems like a local stock company production.