Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Micitype Pretty Good

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

maik434 I think it's a totally original and powerful series that actually magnetizes you from the first episode to the last one. Amazing interpretations, beautiful and appropriate costumes and scenery and generally very careful work at every point. Congratulations to all contributors, thank you!

didier-20 A lot is already being covered about the virtues and flaws of this series in the press as it airs. However a major concern is that the writer appears to be falling into an unforgivable trap with regards both it's ambiguously stated gay protagonist, Arthur Havisham as well as it's token ethnic-minority male, Artful Dodger. In both instances the writer, though appearing to be mold-breaking on the one hand ,has in reality, evoked the tired and well worn negative depictions of ethnic minorities and gays living in a straight white world, that belong to an era we should have moved away from. The ambiguously asserted gay character, Arthur H, manages to adopt all the usual negative stereotypes assigned to a gay character for most of the 20th Century and widely castigated and made unpopular during the 70s and 80s. Havisham not only has no real voice as a gay individual, nor any active or satisfactory sexuality, but he's very much the victim, hysteric, corrupter, and corrupted all rolled into one. Usually the gay character with a negative stereotype has been assigned just one of these attributes. Yet Dickensian manages to roll all six into one. Not only is this unforgivable, It's totally anachronistic and homophobic.Likewise for the token ethnic-minority male, assigned to the Artful Dodger. Despite all appearances of being ground breaking, what non- white male viewers can enjoy is the usual negative images of a black man (in this instance boy) already well versed in the antics of crime and actively untrustworthy and a suitable suspect for accusations of homicide. As with LGBT depiction, this racist stereotype dominated for the best part of 100 years of moving image history, along side the more permissible image of the fun loving, cuddly, musical, cheeky but always servile black man. Artful Dodger appears to have been assigned something of all these negative stereotypes too. Here we are again, with the unconscious and unchecked racism of the writer and director who no doubt are both white and male, significantly, at a moment when there is uproar about this year's Oscars exclusion of ethnic minorities in the short lists of winners.It's not a trade off either. Just because a portrayal of ethnically diverse adolescent romance is included, it doesn't mean the writer gets away with the failures described. In fact, the choice continues to affirm what is palatable to the white-male-heterosexual, being his access to the not-too-black pretty girl, alongside the denigration of the gay and non-white male, both who no doubt represent a threat to his power. The series is still airing as i write, but one is now left speculating to what extent Havisham will escape an inevitable dismal ending (a nail- biter we've just gone through with the gay footman, Barrow of Downton Abbey)and the question of the degree of Dodger's immorality though of course where he'll be inescapably always bad. A good writer would have offered a different set of speculations.If white heterosexual writers are going to write in LGBT & ethnic monitory characters, then they should at least be familiar with the mistakes and criticisms made against script writers of their profession in the past and undertake not to repeat them. It all boils down to very bad craftsmanship, not political correctness, a defence so often sited by the offending. It's time to grow up, we can't drag these cliché derogatory stereotypes into the 21st century.

beresfordjd Given that I totally loathe Eastenders and its dreary premise, I was so surprised to find just how enjoyable Dickensian is. I recorded quite a few episodes but once I started watching I have fond it compulsive viewing. My only complaint is the casting of Stephen Rea as the detective, Bucket. Rea is not a great favourite of mine so I find it hard to be convinced by him. The other actors are, in my opinion, fantastically well cast. Pauline Collins is great as is Ned Dehenny as Scrooge. Everyone inhabits their parts very well. Production values are high and Victorian Britain is well portrayed here. The story is well written and plotted and makes a pleasant change from the dreadful Eastenders. It is interesting to see the show's take on Miss Havisham's fate which was never really fully explained in Great Expectations. I just hope that the standard remains as high as the series has been so far.

jc-osms The idea of bringing together into one narrative different fictional characters has been done recently and brilliantly in the likes of "Penny Dreadful" but this new BBC series takes it up a few notches more, not only in the number of disparate characters but of course that they are all from the world of Charles Dickens.I must admit I was concerned when I read that the series was devised by the producer of the Beeb's dreadful soap opera "Eastenders" but, five episodes in, these Londoners I can stand. It is slightly confusing to see some resurrected characters walking about like Nancy from "Oliver Twist", Little Nell from "The Old Curiosity Shop" and Miss Haversham from "Great Expectations" and one wonders if they are going to meet the same end as before, also in my reading of the former, I didn't have Nancy pegged as a call-girl as here and attending, shall we say, to Jacob Marley too.The show is set up along the same lines as the channel's previously successful adaptation of "Bleak House", i.e. in thirty minute programmes, usually with a kind of cliff- hanging climax at the end of each episode, which of course ties in well with the weekly publication method that Dickens himself worked to. The main story of the many plot strands appears to be the death of Jacob Marley from "A Christmas Carol", with Inspector Bucket of "Bleak House" on the trail, but a close second appears to be the anticipated jilting of Miss Haversham too.As you'd expect, the production values are high, the settings are superb, interiors and exteriors, the latter especially played out in the winter snow. I'd imagine the eyes of the various agencies for actors in the UK all lit up when they got wind of this production, so many of them are employed here, although not too many big names that I can see, perhaps Stephen Rea in another mannered portrayal of Bucket, Caroline Quentin as the domineering Mrs Bumble and Pauline Collins having fun as that old soak Mrs Gamp being the most identifiable. There's also a smattering of new characters too just to help the plots develop and to date these creations are fitting in seamlessly well.Anyway, I'm thoroughly enjoying it now that I'm familiar with the main characters and can see the plot coming nicely to the boil. I'm just wondering if some of the best known nicer characters like Pip from "Great Expectations", Nicholas Nickleby or David Copperfield might yet show up, but really there's more than enough to be going in with. With another fifteen episodes to go, there's plenty of time for surprises yet.Some might see this interpretation of Dickens as manipulative or even sacrilegious but with modern writers devising authorised use of characters by say Charlotte Bronte and Ian Fleming to give two very different examples, personally I'm finding it fun and rather enjoying it so far.