I just finished the first episode and the excitement I feel is like no other. For the first time, I feel like the novel of Les Misérables has finally caught the eyes of some brilliant director who can bring out the full potentials of the story to light . Now right from the beginning when you watch, you can sense that there is something special about this show. The cinematography, the acting, and the outstanding story are all mixed together to exhibit a work that I might personally claim to be far better than the previous versions of Liam Neeson and Hugh Jackman.
132 Reviews
Ignore rating bellow 7 or 8
givemethespam5 February 2019
Let's be honest - this is one of the best tv series for the last years may be decades. I am expecting serious awards for the show and lead actors especially Dominic West. I am giving it 9 because of some little inconsistencies but otherwise outstanding acting and directing.
A brilliant story telling
boggie47587 January 2019
I found this excellent story telling. I also wanted to see a non musical version of a story of redemption and forgiveness story. So they cast a black man he if a good actor and did his character justice. The sadness and desperateness of the characters was well done. I will be watching all of this series. I just watched episode 2 and I am really liking this...Well done BBC......
Masterful - Translating the story for a British Audience
laurabguest-939475 February 2019
First of all, having read some of the previous reviews, I would like to give my own opinion on what appear to be ill-thought-out observations.
The casting of Javert - he's black. We get it. But can we look past his skin tone for a moment and marvel at how brilliant Oyelowo is at portraying Hugo's obsessed Javert? This actor has a way of delivering his lines in a way that makes you hang on to his every word, like you're physically being drawn in - he's absolutely fantastic, a character that you love to hate and it saddens me that people can't see past his race. The point is that it's an adaptation for a modern, British audience, it doesn't have to truly mirror nineteenth century France for us to understand that it is set in ye olden times!
On a related note, the accents. They're British and at times, very cockney and I think that there is a simple reason for this. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an upper-class Frenchman and a working-class one, because I am not French. Therefore, the director has chosen to use accents that we as a British audience are very familiar with and will associate with certain stereotypes, ie. The Thenardier's, who are from a lower class, have a cockney accent and even say their few French phrases in that accent because the majority of the British Public associate the cockney accent with the working class community. I can only imagine the hullabaloo that reviewers would have kicked up if this stellar cast had attempted butchered French accents - better that they stick to what they're good at.
And for the few who have commented that there is too much sorrow and woe and suffering... What did you expect when you tuned into a show called Les Miserables! Maybe next time, you should consider watching Les Happy People.
Also, I don't know what other people were watching, but the acting in this series far outclassed any soap I've ever seen. I would like to take this moment to appreciate the always wonderful Dominic West - his portrayal of the wounded hero Jean Valjean is truly wonderful. I'm also surprised at the lack of love shown for Lily Collins as Fantine. I have been a fan of hers for quite a while but even I doubted how well she would be able to pull off the tragic Fantine, but it was amazing. I've never been more impressed with her as an actress and I think she deserves way more credit than she's recieved.
Over all, I don't think the BBC were trying to make any sort of statement, or be PC or anything of the sort. I think that the best actors were chosen to portray the roles perfectly and that the script was adapted to suit the target audience, we the British public. And I would highly recommend this series to anyone with a soul who will appreciate the beauty in it.
The casting of Javert - he's black. We get it. But can we look past his skin tone for a moment and marvel at how brilliant Oyelowo is at portraying Hugo's obsessed Javert? This actor has a way of delivering his lines in a way that makes you hang on to his every word, like you're physically being drawn in - he's absolutely fantastic, a character that you love to hate and it saddens me that people can't see past his race. The point is that it's an adaptation for a modern, British audience, it doesn't have to truly mirror nineteenth century France for us to understand that it is set in ye olden times!
On a related note, the accents. They're British and at times, very cockney and I think that there is a simple reason for this. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an upper-class Frenchman and a working-class one, because I am not French. Therefore, the director has chosen to use accents that we as a British audience are very familiar with and will associate with certain stereotypes, ie. The Thenardier's, who are from a lower class, have a cockney accent and even say their few French phrases in that accent because the majority of the British Public associate the cockney accent with the working class community. I can only imagine the hullabaloo that reviewers would have kicked up if this stellar cast had attempted butchered French accents - better that they stick to what they're good at.
And for the few who have commented that there is too much sorrow and woe and suffering... What did you expect when you tuned into a show called Les Miserables! Maybe next time, you should consider watching Les Happy People.
Also, I don't know what other people were watching, but the acting in this series far outclassed any soap I've ever seen. I would like to take this moment to appreciate the always wonderful Dominic West - his portrayal of the wounded hero Jean Valjean is truly wonderful. I'm also surprised at the lack of love shown for Lily Collins as Fantine. I have been a fan of hers for quite a while but even I doubted how well she would be able to pull off the tragic Fantine, but it was amazing. I've never been more impressed with her as an actress and I think she deserves way more credit than she's recieved.
Over all, I don't think the BBC were trying to make any sort of statement, or be PC or anything of the sort. I think that the best actors were chosen to portray the roles perfectly and that the script was adapted to suit the target audience, we the British public. And I would highly recommend this series to anyone with a soul who will appreciate the beauty in it.
Many misleading reviews
ejandresen20 January 2019
I have watched les miserable live in theatre and the movie aswell. But my god, what a great 3 episodes I have watched. I have watched so many tv series and I honestly think this might be the best one I have ever seen. This tv series really is packed with emotion and I have never felt sad for a character ever, like I did here. Highly recommend it. Amazing!!
A good start
aidanrutland30 December 2018
Episode 1 complete, and I will definitely keep watching. Having previously been put off the story by the musical versions I was happy to see a drama available which I hope will give me a sense of the original story with which I am unfamiliar. So far the cast seems excellent and the whole thing has a big budget feel. The story is just unfolding and I hope they can keep up the quality.
Absolutely Beautiful
m-girl-199631 December 2018
A great beginning for the show, I've read the book and the first episode gave me the same vibes and I love how faithful the first episode was to the book and I hope the quality does not drop, I will definitely watch it next week.
A missed opportunity
SWC7711 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This could and should have been great. So many adaptations miss out a lot of the story and this series included lots of events in the novel which are not normally shown, which was great to see. The cast were well chosen, the acting was generally very good, as were the sets, the pacing and the score.
However it was ruined by changing the story to have Valjean fire Fantine whereas the book is quite clear that he knew nothing of it. I know that a film or tv adaption will change certain things and am ok with that, but this is totally against Valjean's character at this point in the story and spoils the whole series.
Good - But Missed Opportunity
richferguson-3235814 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I have read the unabridged book twice, and seen every screenplay and stage adaptation. There is much to be admired, but too many missed opportunities which miss the essence of this masterpiece of a book, which in my opinion is akin to scripture.
What I liked:
What I didn't like (I'm not a snob that thinks things have to be perfect in their adaptation):
This last point I have difficulty finding the words to express, but go to the essence of why I rated this a 6/10. The novel, (and the musical) capture these spiritual elements, the events which raise the human mind to great thoughts, and beauty. This adaptation spends too much time in the muck and mire from a voyeuristic angle, and not enough time showing the triumph over the darker aspects of our humanity.
If you love the book and the musical, there are many things in this adaptation which you will enjoy, but so much missed - the opportunity to have been a truly great adaptation.
What I liked:
- Excellent cinematography, and sets - truly give the feeling of what conditions must have been like.
- Great casting - including Jean Valjean (JVJ), Thernardiers, Fantine, Marius, and Cosette
- Showing many of the backstories in the novel, such as how Fantine became pregnant with Cosette or how the Thenardiers and Marius lived in the same apartment complex where the Thenardier tried to rob and kill JVJ, as well as Baron Pontmercy courage and love (Marius's father).
- Adaptations - In some cases the screen writers did a good job filling in details not in the book, such as providing more background on Javert and his motivations.
- Acting - overall very well done.
What I didn't like (I'm not a snob that thinks things have to be perfect in their adaptation):
- Adding details that aren't true to the character of JVJ, at times making it seem as if JVJ stumbled into goodness. I get trying to show conflict, but JVJ was not murderous, nor a possessive, angry/abusive father. (Yes, the book speaks of his torment of letting Cosette go, but he does not stand in the way of her future. He unselfishly does what is right for her).
- Having Cosette tell JVJ that she hated him.
- Turning Eponine into a prostitute, and Marius lusting after her. Complete with brothel scenes.
- Not staying true to the essence of the more spiritual elements of the novel, of redemption, forgiveness, love, and yes, faith in God - which are lacking in our post-modern world.
This last point I have difficulty finding the words to express, but go to the essence of why I rated this a 6/10. The novel, (and the musical) capture these spiritual elements, the events which raise the human mind to great thoughts, and beauty. This adaptation spends too much time in the muck and mire from a voyeuristic angle, and not enough time showing the triumph over the darker aspects of our humanity.
If you love the book and the musical, there are many things in this adaptation which you will enjoy, but so much missed - the opportunity to have been a truly great adaptation.
Brilliant first episode.
paulrwilkin30 December 2018
The 2012 film minus the songs and with added sleaze
maryandbopeep20 March 2019
This isn't an adaptation of Victor Hugo's book, it's a remake of the 2012 film, which makes it an adaptation of adaptation of an adaptation. The only things it has to differentiate it is is added violence against women (realism!), a depressingly pessimistic ending (which goes against Hugo's message), sexualisation of child prostitute Éponine (fairly certain this writer has a virgin-whore complex and learnt nothing from Fantine's story), racist casting (cringe-worthy in the case of Thénardier who becomes a slave trader), no empathy for the dispossessed (Fantine is apparently stupid for seeing becoming a prostitute as a last resort) and poor depiction of LGBT people as deviant (they are in the background of a completely unnecessary and added brothel scene, but otherwise absent). Oh, and horrible characterisation, to almost parodic levels. In fact if this series called itself "The BDSM Love Story of Inspector Javert and Jean Valjean" I'd be a lot less harsh, it does sort of work as a very boring parody.
Bizarrely, amongst this relentless "realism" Cosette sticks out like a sore thumb. She's styled like a golden-locked fairy princess, however simultaneously her love story is ruined. Rather than realising that one day love affairs only work in musical theatre and taking the opportunity to flesh out this part of the story with scenes from the novel, instead a large age difference and a couple of off-putting scenes (suggested by nothing in any other version of the story that I've come across) have been introduced making it clear this Marius does not have eyes only for Cosette. Why? Because degrading everything is what makes good TV? Writer didn't like Marius and/or Cosette? They got mixed up and accidently read a fanfiction and used that as source material? No idea, but considering the autobiographical details he added to this part of the novel Hugo is spinning in his grave. To complete the insult I'm surprised there was no implication that the couple would go on to be unfaithful and embittered with eachother, just to really hammer home that all of Fantine's sacrifices were for naught and Jean Valjean would have been better off leaving her with the Thénardiers (their children seem a lot happier with their lot in life). It would've also thoroughly stripped both lovers of their innocence rather than just the one, instead I'm left pondering why Cosette gets the opposite treatment compared to every other role.
On the topic of Hugo, I suppose this writer never considered that he didn't give his characters full names for a reason, and has decided to amend that grave error. Remember that iconic character Fantine Thibault? No? Characters with no other purpose than to be expositioned at are also invented whole cloth, it's all truly amateur. And trashy. Hugo was a Romantic poet who also wrote beautiful prose, but here we're treated instead to peeing scenes (insert pun about taking the piss here). Even when I pretended this was an original story with original characters I found all of the male characters creepy, the female characters pathetic/underdeveloped, I didn't believe in any of their relationships and I detested the pessimistic, humourless storytelling.
I can't even praise the less important parts of the production. Words were mispronounced in a way that even I could pick up on. Cosette's distractingly modern side parting annoyed the hell out of me. There are some really uncharismatic performances. It's a visual replica of the 2012 film to the point of intellectual property theft. I suppose Walder Frey was good as the grandpa, the kid actors were cute, and the outdoor scenes looked pretty. That's all I've got.
Overall for a Les Misérables adaption it's strangely un-socially conscientious, choosing to degrade the great novel rather than update it. It's a shame that this wasn't better handled, and it's a shame that many will now think this mean-spirited distortion is an accurate representation. Teachers, please don't use this for teaching except as an example of how to more or less stick to the plot but rip out the soul of the work you're adapting. Don't be fooled by the BBC's prestige, if you want a songless version the 1934 French films are much better and actually respect the source material. This one strangely enough is a reflection of the BBC as an institution - at first glance polished, but with a seedy underbelly.
(PS - Anyone heavily involved in the decision-making of this production should go on to make a version of Love in the Times of Cholera, if they haven't already.)
Bizarrely, amongst this relentless "realism" Cosette sticks out like a sore thumb. She's styled like a golden-locked fairy princess, however simultaneously her love story is ruined. Rather than realising that one day love affairs only work in musical theatre and taking the opportunity to flesh out this part of the story with scenes from the novel, instead a large age difference and a couple of off-putting scenes (suggested by nothing in any other version of the story that I've come across) have been introduced making it clear this Marius does not have eyes only for Cosette. Why? Because degrading everything is what makes good TV? Writer didn't like Marius and/or Cosette? They got mixed up and accidently read a fanfiction and used that as source material? No idea, but considering the autobiographical details he added to this part of the novel Hugo is spinning in his grave. To complete the insult I'm surprised there was no implication that the couple would go on to be unfaithful and embittered with eachother, just to really hammer home that all of Fantine's sacrifices were for naught and Jean Valjean would have been better off leaving her with the Thénardiers (their children seem a lot happier with their lot in life). It would've also thoroughly stripped both lovers of their innocence rather than just the one, instead I'm left pondering why Cosette gets the opposite treatment compared to every other role.
On the topic of Hugo, I suppose this writer never considered that he didn't give his characters full names for a reason, and has decided to amend that grave error. Remember that iconic character Fantine Thibault? No? Characters with no other purpose than to be expositioned at are also invented whole cloth, it's all truly amateur. And trashy. Hugo was a Romantic poet who also wrote beautiful prose, but here we're treated instead to peeing scenes (insert pun about taking the piss here). Even when I pretended this was an original story with original characters I found all of the male characters creepy, the female characters pathetic/underdeveloped, I didn't believe in any of their relationships and I detested the pessimistic, humourless storytelling.
I can't even praise the less important parts of the production. Words were mispronounced in a way that even I could pick up on. Cosette's distractingly modern side parting annoyed the hell out of me. There are some really uncharismatic performances. It's a visual replica of the 2012 film to the point of intellectual property theft. I suppose Walder Frey was good as the grandpa, the kid actors were cute, and the outdoor scenes looked pretty. That's all I've got.
Overall for a Les Misérables adaption it's strangely un-socially conscientious, choosing to degrade the great novel rather than update it. It's a shame that this wasn't better handled, and it's a shame that many will now think this mean-spirited distortion is an accurate representation. Teachers, please don't use this for teaching except as an example of how to more or less stick to the plot but rip out the soul of the work you're adapting. Don't be fooled by the BBC's prestige, if you want a songless version the 1934 French films are much better and actually respect the source material. This one strangely enough is a reflection of the BBC as an institution - at first glance polished, but with a seedy underbelly.
(PS - Anyone heavily involved in the decision-making of this production should go on to make a version of Love in the Times of Cholera, if they haven't already.)
Masterful but the race police win the day
harj-41-60709013 February 2019
An excellent adaption of a masterpiece is almost ruined at the BBC's attempt to take political correctness to dizzying heights. There were most probably very few if any black people in France at this time - let alone a black policeman (a sergeant at that).
If you can filter this (major) distraction out of the film, this is not a bar adaption at all. Mesmerising in its delivery and very entertaining.
If you can filter this (major) distraction out of the film, this is not a bar adaption at all. Mesmerising in its delivery and very entertaining.
Just read the book
nadjamarie-6879211 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This wasn't very good. It felt very derivative of the movie that came out just six years earlier. I semi enjoyed the first half but then the second half was very rushed and the bad characterisation started to really show.
I have four main critiques. One, all of of the actors sans David Oyelowo were just off-brand versions of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, etc from the aforementioned movie. Two, as I already mentioned after the time skip the story was rushed, jarring after the leisurely pace of the first episodes. Three, the trailer promised me hope and love but the actual show didn't really deliver and seemed more like misery porn.
My final critique gets its own paragraph because in my opinion the characters are the dramatic heart of the story and I felt that they were badly botched. Valjean is portrayed as a borderline abusive parent, more like a villainous parent from a Disney film than the noble figure I'm used to. Javert is more one-dimensional than ever. Marius is very suspect and different from the character in the book and movie, not the type to fall in love forever at a glance. The two younger female characters were turned into lust-objects who only care about romance. It was painful to see petite Cosette, that symbol of childhood poverty reduced in this way. And isn't the whole point of Éponine that she isn't a lust object? If I hadn't read Les Misérables I think I would have enjoyed myself more, but I just couldn't understand why these changes had been made. Until I looked at the credits...
Andrew Davies really shouldn't keep getting work, and whoever hired him for Les Misérables should get their brain checked. It's right after Oliver Twist on the list of books that really don't need sexing-up. This moron can't even sex things up properly. Rather than casting good looking actors and expanding on the sexual themes that are in the book, such Cosette's arc where she comes to realise the power of her femininity, instead he made Javert into a predatory coded gay villain and has Marius completely out of character leering at Eponine. And he's getting worse! Judging by this venture, if he remade Pride and Prejudice today there'd be a scene of Darcy bedding a series of prostitutes for the purpose of gaining information of Wickham's whereabouts. Casting your actors all the colours of the rainbow but still hiring that nasty pretentious old man rather than some talented younger writer is the epitome of why I detest identity politics. So like the show I end this review on a bitter note.
I have four main critiques. One, all of of the actors sans David Oyelowo were just off-brand versions of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, etc from the aforementioned movie. Two, as I already mentioned after the time skip the story was rushed, jarring after the leisurely pace of the first episodes. Three, the trailer promised me hope and love but the actual show didn't really deliver and seemed more like misery porn.
My final critique gets its own paragraph because in my opinion the characters are the dramatic heart of the story and I felt that they were badly botched. Valjean is portrayed as a borderline abusive parent, more like a villainous parent from a Disney film than the noble figure I'm used to. Javert is more one-dimensional than ever. Marius is very suspect and different from the character in the book and movie, not the type to fall in love forever at a glance. The two younger female characters were turned into lust-objects who only care about romance. It was painful to see petite Cosette, that symbol of childhood poverty reduced in this way. And isn't the whole point of Éponine that she isn't a lust object? If I hadn't read Les Misérables I think I would have enjoyed myself more, but I just couldn't understand why these changes had been made. Until I looked at the credits...
Andrew Davies really shouldn't keep getting work, and whoever hired him for Les Misérables should get their brain checked. It's right after Oliver Twist on the list of books that really don't need sexing-up. This moron can't even sex things up properly. Rather than casting good looking actors and expanding on the sexual themes that are in the book, such Cosette's arc where she comes to realise the power of her femininity, instead he made Javert into a predatory coded gay villain and has Marius completely out of character leering at Eponine. And he's getting worse! Judging by this venture, if he remade Pride and Prejudice today there'd be a scene of Darcy bedding a series of prostitutes for the purpose of gaining information of Wickham's whereabouts. Casting your actors all the colours of the rainbow but still hiring that nasty pretentious old man rather than some talented younger writer is the epitome of why I detest identity politics. So like the show I end this review on a bitter note.
A BLACK police chief in France 1810? More liberal propaganda
Hang_All_Drunkdrivers14 August 2020
Other than that this is a very good telling of a story that has been done many times. I've seen maybe 5 versions of this and this is one of the best. Dominic West makes a good valjean though he's kind of small for playing the strongest man in the world. Liam Neeson, a very big man who played the part 20 years ago, is still the best valjean.
At the end of the day, it's brilliant!
Birminghamukengland30 December 2018
I have seen Les Miserables at least 8 times in London and love it.
The first episode was superb.
We'll acted and directed.
I found myself humming the songs in my head, at the end of the day!
I have high hopes for this but feel it's going to be a real tear jerker.
Derek Jakobi was excellent.
Most moving adaptation of the novel
vanderbeauty23 April 2019
I've read the english translation of the original novel, seen the musical on stage more than once, and recently watched the 2012 movie musical. Although I haven't seen all adaptations I can confidently recommend this moving adaptation as honoring the story and characters best.
Finally a Les Miserables I can watch
bdb-7681418 May 2019
This version is captivating. While the musical version has some excellent music, I have never been able to get through watching it. I found it overly dramatic and distracting. I love Dominic West in The Affair and decided to give this version a try and am glad I did.
Solid Enough But Not Great
annlevtex20 September 2020
All the complaints about actors of color playing main characters that historically would have been white are getting tedious. Has anyone seen "Hamilton?" It does the same thing, and it succeeds brilliantly. The only problem I have with the casting is that the two antagonists are played by Black and South Asian men, while the (albeit flawed) hero and romantic lead are White. Also, enough with the petty villains, like the prison guards and Madame Thenardier, having Cockney accents. The class bias is deep and pervasive, and it really gets under my skin.
That said, some good acting is wasted here because of the way Javert is written. It isn't the actor's fault, but his Javert is made to be very flat. This invention that he has a sexual attraction to/obsession with Valjean is beyond unnecessary and undermines the whole theme of the novel, the theme of slavish devotion to the word of the law over basic human decency.
I thought Lily Collins was actually very good as Fantine, sweet and strong and moving. Including the backstory of her and her lover was a good move, for me. It really underscored her heartbreak. Josh O'Connor was an interesting choice as Marius. He seemed perpetually morose, very internal. Marius in the musical is such a dull character, a real cipher. At least this one had a personality, even if it wasn't a dynamic one. Cosette got on my nerves, but then she always does.
I didn't mind Marius being attracted to Eponine. It makes sense. I haven't read the book, so if this strays from the book I can understand why it bothered some viewers, but it didn't bother me. To me it showed that Marius, who is a Bourgeois, religious young man at heart, can be attracted to Eponine but not love her. She's poor, uneducated, impure, unlike the convent-bred Cosette in her pretty clothes walking in the park with her respectable-looking father. He falls for both of them, in different ways, so the privileged Cosette gets the man and poor Eponine gets nothing but lust and a sort of respect.
The pacing is slow and uneven, which would have been OK if that had been due to character development, but it's really not. Fantine has a journey, but how could she not? So does Valjean, but he's a bit too dark for me. I don't need him to be all virtue all the time, I just didn't care for his lingering.....meanness.
I think producers need to look to new, younger, talented writers. Sorry, but sometimes it's just enough with the old white guys like Davies. I didn't see War and Peace but I understand it was not great either, so why hire him again? Let someone else take a shot at it. It's such a clubby world. Open some windows and let in some air.
That said, some good acting is wasted here because of the way Javert is written. It isn't the actor's fault, but his Javert is made to be very flat. This invention that he has a sexual attraction to/obsession with Valjean is beyond unnecessary and undermines the whole theme of the novel, the theme of slavish devotion to the word of the law over basic human decency.
I thought Lily Collins was actually very good as Fantine, sweet and strong and moving. Including the backstory of her and her lover was a good move, for me. It really underscored her heartbreak. Josh O'Connor was an interesting choice as Marius. He seemed perpetually morose, very internal. Marius in the musical is such a dull character, a real cipher. At least this one had a personality, even if it wasn't a dynamic one. Cosette got on my nerves, but then she always does.
I didn't mind Marius being attracted to Eponine. It makes sense. I haven't read the book, so if this strays from the book I can understand why it bothered some viewers, but it didn't bother me. To me it showed that Marius, who is a Bourgeois, religious young man at heart, can be attracted to Eponine but not love her. She's poor, uneducated, impure, unlike the convent-bred Cosette in her pretty clothes walking in the park with her respectable-looking father. He falls for both of them, in different ways, so the privileged Cosette gets the man and poor Eponine gets nothing but lust and a sort of respect.
The pacing is slow and uneven, which would have been OK if that had been due to character development, but it's really not. Fantine has a journey, but how could she not? So does Valjean, but he's a bit too dark for me. I don't need him to be all virtue all the time, I just didn't care for his lingering.....meanness.
I think producers need to look to new, younger, talented writers. Sorry, but sometimes it's just enough with the old white guys like Davies. I didn't see War and Peace but I understand it was not great either, so why hire him again? Let someone else take a shot at it. It's such a clubby world. Open some windows and let in some air.
Embarrassing
Wyrrd4 May 2019
Reading the promotional interviews make it clear the writer was very unsuited for this project and has poor literary comprehension. On the continuing relevance of Les Misérables: "People are asking themselves 'how is it possible to live a good life in a world like this?'. You know, 'can we marry the ones we love, or are we going to have to settle for second best?'" Another charming quote: "I toyed with the idea of Javert having loveless sex with a 50-year old prostitute to 'clean the pipes out.'"
He seems very preoccupied with the musical and doesn't appear to realise Les Misérables is one of the most adapted works of all time, with many non-musical versions.
He gave Marius a "wet dream" not about Cosette but his neighbour the Jondrette girl, a teenage girl forced into prostitution by her father. Heartthrob material? Actor John O'Connor seems to be thinking of the dreaded musical when he says that Marius loves her as a sister.
Amusingly the more Hugo describes you as quiet and introverted, the more likely you are to begin roaring in Les Misérables (2018).
Critics have a history of getting it wrong with Les Misérables and that trend continues here. 1/10 for competent directing and some lovely shots.
He seems very preoccupied with the musical and doesn't appear to realise Les Misérables is one of the most adapted works of all time, with many non-musical versions.
He gave Marius a "wet dream" not about Cosette but his neighbour the Jondrette girl, a teenage girl forced into prostitution by her father. Heartthrob material? Actor John O'Connor seems to be thinking of the dreaded musical when he says that Marius loves her as a sister.
Amusingly the more Hugo describes you as quiet and introverted, the more likely you are to begin roaring in Les Misérables (2018).
Critics have a history of getting it wrong with Les Misérables and that trend continues here. 1/10 for competent directing and some lovely shots.
Makings of a great
michelletebbs31 December 2018
Not sure how culturally aware filson-88347 is, but both France and Britain have been multicultural for centuries; coloured people from Africa and the Far and Middle East were integrated into both countries' societies well before Les Miserables was written. That aside, I loved it and can't wait for the next episode
Racist rather than too PC
kaitemkovitz15 April 2019
I am amazed by so many complaints about the supposed "liberal" political correctness of the casting. Nobody seems to mind the cockney accent, but a l ot of people got irritated by black actors. As in "Romeo and juliet", it's all just a different formalistic interpretation. Where it gets unpleasant for me, is how ethnicities are associated with characters.
The heroic, strong, knight-like caucasian main hero played by Dominic West. The innocent, beautiful blonde girl in need of protection, played by Ellie Bamber. The black policeman antihero played by David Oyelowo. The scoundrel Thénardier played by Adeel Akthar with Pakistani and Kenyan descent. The freckled, red-haired teen-prostitute played by Erin Kellyman.
Maybe it's just coincidence, but the scale of it is at least insensitive. It looks like a racist film makes a mockery of BBC casting guidelines.
Historical or political correctness in movies, why bother....
fredfeenstra7 January 2019
Let me start to say that I have really enjoyed the current adaptation of les miserables by the BBC. Beautiful colours, scenery, script, a classic social story and of course good actors. What I do not enjoy are the contributions by what I have to describe as the race police. Les miserables is a story, written in a time when racial diversity was less then it is now. But to portray this story in this time with the actors we now have it would be strange to cast actors on basis of racial attributes dating back two centuries.
It would be equally strange to defend the choice of actors for certain characters by explaining Javert could have been Haitian as there were some Haitians in France at that time, but then you would have to argue why Javert could be from Haiti, but not Valjean, which discussion to me seems even more nonsensical.
Reading some of the contributions some people seem to think that a cast must not only mention actors skills but also race, but I do not agree. I think the public is well informed enough to look past these casting choices as long as the acting is top notch.
In opera we see German women play Chinese princesses in Turandot, I even saw an Afro-American Brunhilde and why not, as long as the performance does not suffer.
Coming back to Les Miserables, I like how Valjean and Fantine are played, I have some trouble with Javert though, maybe more because of the character than the way he is portrayed. His motivation is explained, but his actions are not always so clear cut to me, but maybe I'm missing something as it is only the second episode.
Misnamed story
jamalking154 March 2020
The acting and casting was good but the story was changed too much to call this Les Mis.
Disappointing that Jean Valjean's character and motivations were changed too much.
Javert was well acted, but again the character was written here too shallow.
Enjolras was overplayed and made to appear more valiant than Hugo wrote him.
Should have given the story another name but not Hugo's story. Davies, the rewriter, should me made to apologize publicly and the Director should go back to horror movies only.
Should have given the story another name but not Hugo's story. Davies, the rewriter, should me made to apologize publicly and the Director should go back to horror movies only.
Fake-woke perversion gets passed off as "quality" television
sunny-5492214 March 2020
The characters all look wrong and are portrayed wrong. For example my favourite, Inspector Javert... his symbolic function is simply nonexistent. Instead of the law he is now singularly, manically, obsessed with Valjean, and the implication is that being homosexual is bad. Are these really the timeless themes that have kept this story relevant for hundreds of years? The male characters are all supposed be sexual naifs, but even if they weren't I find this view of the male psyche that is projected onto them to be degrading.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
