TheLittleSongbird Of the six adaptations of A Tale of Two Cities seen, in personal ranking this one is number 3, number 1 is the 1935 film and number 2 is the 1958 film. The Paul Shelley adaptation is very good on the most part, Chris Sarandon's is decent while the Burbank Films Australia animated adaptation is the only one below average. This mini-series is not perfect, the biggest flaw is the execution of the mob scenes which are under-populated, unexciting and tension-less, almost too polite. Some of the hair-styles are on the wacky and anachronistic side(too 80s-looking). The costumes and sets are accurate and are rendered lovingly, and helped by the fluid photography. The music is haunting, beautiful and emotional, especially in the poignant final scene. There is also a very literate and thoughtfully adapted script and the direction is mostly competent apart from the mob scenes. The adaptation is faithful to Dickens' very concise if initially complicated book while not forgetting to give the storytelling life. The tragedy is very affecting(the ending is a tear-jerker as it should be) and the suspenseful moments quite intense, Cruncher's funny moments are judged well. The acting is good on the most part. James Wilby, Xavier DeLuc and John Mills stood out. Wilby's Sydney Carton is handsome and movingly characterised, DeLuc is dashing and succeeds in not making a far less interesting character dull and Mills is wonderfully sympathetic that you are touched by his presence. Serena Gordon's Lucie is very tender, Kathy Kriegel is a very bat-out-of-hell Madame DuFarge, Anna Massey is perfect as Miss Pross, the Cruncher of Alfred Lynch is sly and hilarious, Jean-Pierre Aumont evokes sympathy too and Jean-Marc Bory is a creepy Evremonde. The idea to mix English and French actors was a great one and it paid off, something that it does better than the other adaptations. In conclusion, not perfect but a very good adaptation on the whole. 8/10 Bethany Cox

keith-moyes-656-481491 I may be a lone voice, but I think this Tale of Two Cities is easily the worst of the four versions I have seen and is about as bad as Dickens gets. There is almost nothing in it I can recommend.The production design is poor. Everything and everybody is too clean and pristine. The sets of the Bastille, the wine shop and the room where Dr Manette is secreted are all too spacious. Every scene is over lit and under populated. It is the least atmospheric Dickens drama I can recall.The writing is worse. Arthur Hopcraft jumps straight into the book as Mr Lorrie and Lucie are nearing Paris, omitting the early scenes that set up the story and some of its key characters. As a result, Miss Pross doesn't appear for over an hour. He also omits the scene on the boat where Lucie and Darnay first meet, which plays a significant role in the plot. Then he labours over the murder of the Marquis d'Evremont and other scenes set in France. The two movie versions get through the plot in about two hours, without too much simplification. Hopcraft struggles to tell the story in a more generous three hours plus.Key aspects of the characters are underplayed or absent altogether. Miss Pross's fierce protectiveness towards Lucie only emerges slowly, as a result of her actions, rather than as their motive. We see nothing of the businesslike reserve under which Mr Lorrie hides his feelings and only get a weak sense of Dickens's deliberate contrast between Stryver's bustling self-promotion and Carton's resigned, careless self-neglect.Philippe Monnier's direction is wretched. The staging is uniformly poor, without pace, excitement or inventiveness. For example, the bursting of the wine barrel, the storming of the Bastille and the grave-robbing scenes are all listlessly thrown away. The first trial scene is a muddled dud and the two trials in Paris are polite and uninvolved, giving little sense of how justice is being perverted by a howling mob. Mostly, Monnier just points the camera at the actors as they wander aimlessly around the sets.Some of his decisions defy belief. When Carton coerces Barsad's aid he uses the analogy of a card game, contrasting the strength of his own cards with the weakness of Barsad's hand. This scene demands to be set in an Inn, with an actual deck of cards on hand, but we just get the two protagonists strolling in a public square.The actors are just left to fend for themselves. For example, when Carton is approached by the seamstress in the Bastille, there is no single point at which we suddenly see her recognise his heroic deception. Where was Monnier when this scene was being botched?The performances are universally lacklustre. Serena Gordon and Xavier Deluc are OK as Lucie and Darnay, but James Wilby's Carton is a gloomy, lovelorn moper, rather than the dissipated, self-destructive wastrel of the book. Jean-Pierre Aumont's Dr Mannette never even hints at the underlying anxiety that causes his temporary lapses into insanity, so his behaviour is even more unconvincingly schizophrenic than Dickens depicts it. It is as if Aumont never believed in the business of the cobbler's tools and said: "I'll do it if I have to, but that's what it is - 'cobblers'." John Mills just phones in his part. However, the acting depths are only finally plumbed by Karl Johnson's ineffectual, bemused-looking Barsad.It is rare for any movie to be so bad in so many different areas simply by accident or incompetence. Usually, it is because the movie makers have consciously adopted an approach to the material which is wildly mistaken and this follows through into every aspect of the production. I suspect that is what has happened here.Dickens wrote in very broad strokes. His characters are vivid and striking but are often one-dimensional, exemplifying a single human trait. Psychological complexity is not found in individuals so much as in the interplay between them. His plots are full of unlikely situations and improbable coincidences. More importantly, they are peppered with scenes of high emotion, in which Dickens loved to wallow - feelings he wants his readers to share. When he depicts injustice or petty malice, he wants us to be as apoplectic with rage and disgust as he is. When he depicts tragedy, he wants us to weep along with him. When he depicts good, he wants us to applaud with joy.A Dickens novel takes us into a world of heightened reality where we are invited to laugh and cry and thrill with suspense as we wind our way through the tortuous story towards to the eventual release of a happy ending. But they are not just escapist fantasy. We pay for our simple pleasures by having to confront the urgent social and moral issues that preoccupied Dickens throughout his career.It is this unique mix of the populist and the profound which makes Dickens different from most other great Nineteenth Century novelists.I believe that this production is so lame because the film-makers perversely decided that they wanted the profound without the populist. They didn't want it to look or sound like any other Dickens movie, so at every point they smoothed out the eccentricities of the characters and deliberately backed away from all the emotional highlights of the story. In their hands, an exuberant melodrama becomes a sober, tepid, low-key history lesson. But in trying to keep the high-brow and discard the low-brow they end up being resolutely middle-brow.This Tale of Two Cities is Dickens with the Dickens taken out. It dies of 'good taste'.

angelknpenny I think the commenter from Florida may be discussing the awful film made for television in the early '80s. This mini-series made in 1989 does not have no-name B-list actors. They are all superb British and French actors. I would just caution people that they need to be aware which version they have gotten hold of to watch. The costuming is they only thing that seems a little out of place in this version. As to highlights of this version, I would have to say that James Wilby as Sidney Carton does excellent work. He is actually heartbreaking to watch. It is easy to make this pivotal character much too maudlin, but this is not the case here.

ithacaqiu I met this mini TV series by chance many years ago, when I was still in my teen-age years, and I found I loved it at first sight.:) It's a beautiful journey watching this new adapted classic which continued for somewhat more than three hours. All the actors, especially those who stood for the four major characters, were definitely the perfect choices for this famous story.I liked James Wilby, in the way he rambled around mopishly, the way he loved 'Lucie' in an unbeknown warm corner of his deep heart and he smiled before people weakly. I always thought that years ago James Wilby was one of the few absolutely beautiful actors I have seen in my life, and in this TV in 1989, his beauty was totally unapproachable! The performance of the good-looking french actor Xavier Deluc for 'Darnay' was brilliant too. It's really odd that during watching this TV I continued thinking about he was somehow a bit similar with dear Dicaprio in some aspect. But what a pity that he seemed to arise in other TV or movie out of France rarely these past years.The french actress Serena Gordon for 'Lucie' had a pair of really large eyes! And she had an appropriate tender and lovely look and that kind of archaic temperament.All in all, I would clutch at any chance to watch this splendid mini TV again! Regretfully, DVD version of it is not seen coming out by now in China. But it is still vividly memorized in my heart, in spite of these many years run through~