Jean Valjean, convicted of stealing bread, is hounded for decades by the relentless and cruel policeman Javert.
You may also like
Les Miserables torrent reviews
Scott S (us) wrote: This film is perfect for you if you've enjoyed the creme de la creme of channel4s late night sitcoms the last decade. All the cast recognisable and playing suitable and likable parts. Mitchell and Webb sometimes trundle through the patchy and occasionally offbeat script but the comedy is reminiscent of Peep Show and sometimes our most loved sketch show. Well acted, mediocre script, not one for the visuals.
Edith N (ag) wrote: What Was the Point of All This? Every once in a while, I am stuck watching a movie not because it interests me, particularly, but because I'm working under a time constraint. Hence this one. I got it from Netflix because the plot description sounded vaguely intriguing, but by about fifteen minutes in, I knew that I didn't care all that much. However, fifteen minutes in was still putting me well after nine, and I have that thing about getting reviews in before midnight. (I spent my evening watching [i]Perry Mason[/i], because there was no one on the hold list yesterday, and when I went to renew it today, there was. So it's overdue.) This meant that I didn't really have time to start something else, because I try to be done with my movies by eleven so I have an hour to write the review. Sometimes, it only takes fifteen minutes, but better safe than sorry. So we're getting a review of this, even though I'm not sure how much I have to say. May (Angela Bettis) had a lazy eye when she was a little girl and played by Chandler Riley Hecht. She was lonely and had no friends, and her mother (Merle Kennedy) told her that she should make her own and presented her with a doll. That was, naturally, in a glass case and not something May was allowed to touch. May grows up as much a social reject as you figure, given that back story. She works in an animal hospital, where the receptionist, Polly (Anna Faris), is constantly hitting on her. May does not notice. She does notice a guy who goes to her laundromat, Adam (Jeremy Sisto), and gets weirdly obsessed with his hands. Only May is so out of it that she doesn't know how to initiate a relationship, and once she's sort of in one with Adam, she doesn't know what to do about it. She actually manages to do a little better with Polly, but Polly does not appear to be the monogamous type, and May doesn't know how to deal with that, either. Oh, and the doll is talking to her, so there's that. Polly, naturally, is a Movie Lesbian. It's not that she obviously just needs the Love (or something) of a Good Man to become straight. It's that she's pretty and flirtatious and probably promiscuous. She's the kind of lesbian that men are interested in watching. Which goes badly for her, given the kind of movie we're dealing with, here, but consider this. She hits on May even though she has no real reason to believe that May is even bi. Now, I think May is just desperately lonely and is willing to go along with anyone who pays attention to her, but it's not like that's something healthy. It doesn't seem to me that Polly has any interest in knowing what May is really like. It's how we the audience are supposed to know that Adam is a jerk, but I think we're still supposed to find Polly appealing. They're equally self-centered, and they're equally dismissive of May without realizing it, but it's okay when Polly does it, because lesbians. I'm not sure this movie really knew what it wanted. It reminded me most of [i]Brimstone and Treacle[/i], that weird movie I watched years ago where Sting might or might not have been the Devil. The plots bore little resemblance to one another, inasmuch as either movie can really be said to have a plot, but they both had the same feeling of unreality. Not the kind I think they wanted, either. Both movies had moments where I stopped and demanded to know if the thing that just happened had really happened, because it didn't make any sense or seem to follow from what went before. The whole thing with May and the blind kids didn't work for me at all. I'm not entirely clear on what the deal was with the guy May picks up at the bus stop; I think it might be to convince us of how weird she is, if even that guy thinks she's weird. But let's face it; if the film hasn't convinced us of how weird she is by that point, it has failed, and you have to wonder what it's been doing with itself all that time. Obviously, the question is not if May is crazy or not. May is definitely crazy. But is her crazy believable? There was at least one scene that I was utterly, utterly convinced had to be a dream sequence or fantasy or something. This was for two reasons. First, because it was so out of left field. Second, because you can't stab someone with scissors like that. Really, there were several places in the movie that convinced me that no one involved really knows how sewing works. (May sews with her presser foot up!) Sewing scissors are sharp, but not, in general, that sharp at the point. Heck, mine aren't sharp at the point at all, because there's no need for it. But anyway, the film never really established anything. Is the doll really talking to May? It seems as though it might be. On the other hand, it might be a delusion. There's no way of knowing, and it simply isn't interesting enough to leave us talking about it afterward. Note that I'm much more interested in May's presser foot--and how many of you even know what one is?
Collin T (de) wrote: Kurt Russell's performance alone is the main reasoned I reviewed this movie. The movie is not great but is made considerably better with Russell involved. He is the reason my rating is 4 stars instead of 3.
Randy T (us) wrote: Blanchett and Ribisi have an uneasy chemistry that seems to work within the context of the story. An odd sort of film with texture and forgivable deficiencies.
Michael S (ca) wrote: A silly, way over-the-top action flick from the 90s. Simultaneously fun and dumb.
Anthony J (ru) wrote: Aside from a nice performance by Jonathan Scott-Taylor as Damien Thorn, this is pretty dull and slow moving followup to the far superior original. There's 1 good kill involving an elevator.
Malinda N (kr) wrote: Rediculous! Funny...but rediculous!
Tim W (fr) wrote: The title line above is from a movie poster for Roger Corman's "Teenage Doll", about a female street gang. Another poster for it reads: "Too Young to Be Careful... Now It's Too Late to Say 'No'." It's a decent flick ostensibly about how the breakdown of society and the family unit fuels teenage rebellion and leads to gangs and crime. Or whatever. Really it's about hot chicks and flashy violence. The "socially redeeming value" part is just some crap you stick in there to try and fool the censors, and maybe a couple critics. And Corman was/is brilliant at it. But he might not be a match for Larry Clark, maker of "Kids", "Gummo", and "Bully", the last of which I just watched today. Corman's movies played in drive-ins and dive theaters; Clark's films play in the art houses. Both "Kids" and "Bully" (and to a lesser extent "Gummo", which was actually kind of about it's characters, and actually kind of rad) are about teenagers set adrift by complacent middle-class parents into a world all their own filled with drugs and kicks and many, many, many shots of Chloe Sevingy and Rachel Miner completely naked. And of course, how could one even begin to illustrate the complex, dystopian lives of pleasure-hungry rejects from the consumer superstructure without lots of bouncing tits and firm young asses? Checkmate, MPAA. The only real difference between Corman's earliest work and Clark's is that forty or so years have gone by. You can get away with more ass in a movie now, but you've got to be sneakier. You can't just stick a lascivious headline on a pulpy looking poster and call it a day. Now you need to base you movie on a "true" (or even a "really, really true") story (like "Bully") or add a warning to parents like at the beginning of "Kids". (Parents, of course, were the primary target audience for that movie. Uh-huh. Yeah.) I've known kids as dumb as the ones in Clark's movies, kids whose only interests were the fullfillment of lusts, who seemed more animal than human in their single-minded determination to be high and laid at all times. I might be tempted to say that they were too boring to make a movie about, but of course everyone has their story. Some critics seem to think that Larry Clark is telling it, which is the only thing I'm objecting to. If you want to see a good art movie about immoral stoners who kill somebody, watch "The River's Edge". If you want to see Brad Renfro humping about a million times, watch "Bully". Or, as my friend Ross is always saying about movies like this, you could just rent a porno.
Kathleen M (ru) wrote: A fun and charming movie. Comparing to other screwballs of its era, it's rather dull and dare I say, boring?
Blair S (fr) wrote: Cute teen movie. Nothing more.
Al K (it) wrote: The first 1/2-3/4 of this movie was good and funny, but the last bit was very hypocritical. [SPOILER ALERT:] David tried to kill Shaun, but then everybody risked their lives to save David... what? I did not like how they pretty much killed off everybody.