Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

The first must-see film of the year.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Length seems to equate to epic in the general sense of the word nowadays. Cameron's "Avatar" went from being an Oscar worthy sci-fi blockbuster to an Oscar worthy sci-fi epic by upping the length. However, in the case of Avatar, the length doesn't do a huge amount for it, other than finding more crevices to squeeze in the best CGI ever seen in film. There are plenty more examples, too. Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is a fantastic example of an epic that exists for the sake of being an epic. Sure there are some breathtaking scenes throughout (notably, you guessed it, the spectacular chariot scene finish), but it tends to drag in numerous places; and that's coming from someone who's infatuated with Tarr's seven and a half hour "Satantango". Or perhaps look at Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which could have been a solid two hours shorter in total at minimum, or Cameron's "Titanic", whose extra length seemed to only provide extra melodrama and sentimentalism. This begs the question, how does one pull of this "epic" film correctly?Sometimes, it's by sheer quality and scale. Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" accomplishes this and also is one of the hardest hitting emotional movies I've seen in a while, and I had no actual interest in watching it in the first place. I had a similar experience with Fleming's "Gone With the Wind", which I also loved to death. It seems at this point that the word "epic", or any film with a running time above two and a half or three hours seems to have a few key ingredients: grande scale, impeccable acting, but emotionally aloof and formulaic, and even the former two masterpieces sometimes have these issues in them. How does Bernard overcome this? What makes his Les Miserables my second favourite film of all time (behind De Sica's "Bicycle Thieves")? The reason is that he has mastered the art of emotional power and comprised it into this four-and-a-half hour magnum opus of French film, while also displaying his immense talent for set production, direction of acting, his technical capabilities, mastery of a myriad of genres...For those of you unfamiliar with the Les Miserables story (the extended and "real" one I mean, not the watered down Hooper pretty musical version), it goes a little something like this: Jean Valjean is released from prison after a number of years due to his criminal activity within the government's control. Additionally, he now must carry around a voucher explaining that he is a dangerous man and said voucher must be stamped if he is to leave a certain boundary. Due to this, he has grown to be very bitter. A preacher assists him and gives him a quick start to help his life a bit, but Valjean takes advantage of his hospitality and steals from him. When he is arrested, the preacher simply insists that it was a "gift" and that Valjean forgot the rest of his gifts, in this case, two sterling silver candle-holders. It is in this sequence that the audience can truly see the beauty of humanity, and Bernard is one of the few to have captured this, arguably one of the first, and he is able to do it without melodrama, over indulgence on sentimentality, or even music. Valjean's life intertwines with a number of other stories, including the saving of an orphan, in addition to numerous others, as he vows to do the best that he possibly can in life after this simple hospitality. Some scenes in the film are technically brilliant, and criminally overlooked given the time of the production. The steady-cam use in the riot scenes in part three are incredibly ahead of their time, and Bernard's juxtaposition of multiple scenarios in part one (with Valjean's confession) is a direct homage to Griffith's "Intolerance" and Bernard does it better, giving Hitchcock a run for his money as "master of suspense". The power packed in the last half hour is stronger than that of many directors' entire career, and a great portion of this is due to the outstanding performance by Harry Baur as Jean Valjean, who makes Hugh Jackman's performance look like it originated from a B-movie. As of the time of this writing, the film has 814 votes on IMDb. It's a tragedy how underseen this movie is, but it has garnered an almost unanimous acclaim among the few that have. The story never lags, never becomes boring, and I was literally mesmerized the whole time, never knowing the outcome of the next chapter. It's not a philosophical film, nor does it have a very complex message, but its power comes from its simplicity, it's perfection, its entertainment. It is the ultimate film, and I long for the day that another director is able to make something anywhere close to it.Rating: 10/10

This film is available from Criterion. It shows up on eBay with some regularity. Expect to pay $25 plus postage. Raymond Bernard's films have been released in four sets. Les Miserables is contained on a 3-disk set. It is number 4 in the Bernard series. I have just bought one at auction. There remain 3 other listings as of this date, January 4, 2009. The original Pal Secam films with Baur are harder to find, such as the "Rasputine." I am considering buying the region-free, Pal Secam converter, which can be found for under $300, and with which the old VHS PAL Secam tape can be burned to any DVD, and can play on any television. Hope this helps.

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.

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.