Pluskylang Great Film overall

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

TheLittleSongbird A Tale of Two Cities is a wonderful book, ranking Dickens' works it's to me towards the top. It is wordy with a very complicated story, but it is also very compelling and the characters especially Sydney Carton and Madame Dufarge are memorable. This 1980 version is not the best(the 1935 film) or worst(the animated Burbank Films Australia version) of the book, but adaptation-wise and on its own it's very decent. It is hampered by Chris Sarandon's stiff and emotionally cold Charles Darnay, a rather cheap, under-populated and lacking-in-suspense-and-urgency storming of Bastille scene and the on-the-saccharine-side romantic theme in the music score. The adaptation could also have done a better job at differentiating between Charles and Sydney, visually especially with the hair they are never quite distinctive enough. But the production values are generally quite decent, it does at least make an effort to be true to Dickens and the historical period it's based in and they have good colour and atmosphere if lacking somewhat in refinement. The music serves the adaptation well, while the script is intelligently adapted and does nobly with conveying Sydney's sardonic humour, the heartfelt tragedy at the end and the dark, foreboding humanity. The story is faithful in spirit to the book, though there are things inevitably missed out, and doesn't feel too confused. It's solidly paced too. With individual scenes the standout has to be the ending which is extraordinarily moving, though the final forty minutes generally is very suspenseful. The acting is fine on the whole. While Sarandon disappoints(to me at least) as Charles he is outstanding as Sydney- that Sydney is a far more interesting character helps-, he is humorous and sardonic while also poignant and dignified. Alice Krige is an emotive and beautiful Lucie, Flora Robson's Miss Pross is regal and loyal and Barry Morse is rightfully hissable as Evremonde. Billie Whitelaw is fine as a very snake-like Madame DuFarge, David Suchet characterises the conflicted character of Basard brilliantly and beautifully, Peter Cushing is perfect as Dr Manette and Kenneth More is more than competent too. George Innes does a very good job too as Cruncher, very sly and funny, but the character could have been more prominent. In conclusion, decent version, worth watching but for the best adaptation look to the 1935 film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

howardmorley Yes,I know this is a TV version and therefore impressionable children may be watching, (even after the British 9pm watershed) but the final guillotine sequence was wholly unconvincing.I went with my late parents in 1965 to the Conciergerie on the Ile de Paris where they imprisoned the condemned, before their final ride in the tumbrils.There they had a room where they severely cut off the hair of the condemned because otherwise the blade would not cut through the neck cleanly.Yet again producers do not do enough technical research regarding being dispatched by "The National Razor".The 1935 version with Ronald Coleman was farcical in this respect.As he came up the stairs he had his high collar up before issuing forth with, "It is a far far better thing...." speech.In the subject 1980 TV version, you have Chris Sarandon as Sydney Carton mounting the scaffold stairs with shoulder length hair! There are many other films which inaccurately portray the methods used in capital punishment and it was not until I saw Timothy Spall in "Pierrepoint" that we saw an accurate rendition.I know this is a bit ghoulish but I would rate the overall production as just about "adequate" and I awarded it a rating of 6/10.It was good to see Kenneth More in one of his last roles as Jarvis Laurie.

Hans C. Frederick Seeing as how this was made for television,we need to judge this particular production and the standards required for that medium.For the most part,the cast is very competent.Indeed,Peter Cushing does better as the doctor than ANYONE else that I've seen.Carton,Darnay,Lucy,and the supporting parts are all quite capable.And Kenneth More does a fine job as Mr. Lorry.(Has anyone ever commented on the fact that he's starting to sound and look like Basil Sydney?)Robson is a worthy successor to Oliver.I had trouble recognizing Suchet as Barsad.The actor playing Defarge come across as depressed and somber,and this isn't quite right.Defrage is a hulking,wounded,inarticulate animal,caught between love and loyalty to his former master,and devotion to his cause.And Madame Defarge is a fat,flabby,clumsy,nasty snake,lacking the fire of Blanche Yurka.Her scenes at the fight and fall of the Bastille were totally unconvincing.And why did they trim down the role of Jerry Cruncher?That sly, funny rogue is perfect for the talents of that splendid character actor George Innes.Still,it's a worthy effort,and a nice way to see a new slant on the story.

TaeDanielle I saw it as part of his characterization that Chris Serandon didn't show very much emotion as Carton in the end. It came across, at least to me, as trying to be strong for the sake of the other characters in the movie. I also thought that that was a great amount of emotion displayed in Darnay's supposed final meeting with Lucie after he is condemned. That aside though, I think I've decided I like the movie better than the book because Charlie is just a little bit too wordy for my taste. That's what we get for paying him by the minute...