ThiefHott Too much of everything

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

kathymonktrudy I love this version of Little Dorrit. Whilst I have not read the book, and so cannot vouch for its following the storyline faithfully, I find it interesting enough to enjoy it immensely every time I watch it.Some characters are funny, some capricious, others are mercenary whilst a few are kind and good hearted. The juxtaposition of all the different personalities really does make good viewing, and the true Dickensian oddities are very funny and entertaining, like Mr. Panks or the extraordinary French gentleman!The story holds a lot of events and developments that both interest and satisfy the viewer. A classic tale of love, hardship and affluence, this film is like a ray of sunlight in a darkened room: murky and mysterious, yet somehow also rather quaint and sweet.

kindervatr-728-153790 I am a great fan of period dramas in general, and especially of the Andrew Davies BBC adaptations. Of all the movies done of Pride and Prejudice, none come anywhere near the exemplary dramatization done by Mr. Davies.I saw the original 1988? movie of Little Dorrit, and apparently was one of the few who really enjoyed it! I thought the actress Sarah Pickering was appropriately waifish, mysterious, resolute but "minding her humble place," and I have no problem with actresses re-creating characters that are accurately representative of the way women behaved in that time period, and the way Dickens wrote them. The sassiness that 21st century actress often bring Dickens' characters is bothersome because it is simply not an accurate representation. We have to get past our pride to accept that this is just how reality was back then, and if done right, the proper 19th century representation can have something very refreshing and winsome about it. That is why I enjoyed Sarah Pickering's Dorrit.Having said that, Andrew Davies' Little Dorrit was really very good. Claire Foy as Amy was a bit saucy at times for my taste, but overall did an excellent job. The entire production was high-class and visually very attractive.The plot had some unexplainable loose ends, and since I haven't read the book, I'm not sure if it's a fault of the book, or because the movie just ran out of time. For example, Tattiecorem was a big, colorful character, well-developed, at the beginning of the story. By the end of the story, I wondered what had happened to her and what was the purpose of her character being in the story at all. Same with Pet and Henry--after the baby was born, what happened to them?? And I didn't understand the purpose of the Blandois character to the plot in general. He was a frightening, vicious killer at the beginning. By the end he was an annoying, intrusive extortionist but kind of lost the "evil". I can't figure out why Dickens needed a character like that to expose the secret of Mrs. Clennan. It seemed totally unrelated to the rest of the story. Perhaps Mr. Davies just had too many characters to deal with, even with such an epically long program.But none of that detracted from my enjoyment of the movie. It was high quality in every way. I plan to buy the DVD and add it to my collection!

screenman I have been a Dickens fan most of my adult life. Discouraged in childhood by a succession of Sunday evening serial adaptations of unremitting bleakness and gloom; I missed out on The World's Greatest Ever Writer until I had grown up a bit.Ironically; it was another TV adaptation, screened during the 1970's - this time of 'David Copperfield' - that caught my interest and imagination. I enjoyed it so much that when I saw a subscription book-club for his complete works, I signed-up at once.What a joy. He was the best investment I ever made. The books turned no profit but enriched my life beyond measure. I came to love Dickens and his characters so much and read the books so often that each volume became a treasured friend. I discovered that the 'David Copperfield' serial had been absolutely solid-gold spot-on. It was Dickens from first to last, with his deep and complex plotting, his unbelievable variety and imagination in character creation, and truly authentic and believable dialogue. But above all; there was his light hand of wit and minutely observed study of human nature: wicked, weird, spoilt, tragic and wryly comical. You have to read his books to enjoy the full extent of his comedy; there's no other way. So much of it is contained in the narrative - which, of course, cannot be easily represented on screen, and certainly not in the subtle language of his style.And as well as all of this, there is the profound thread of social commentary: his enormous intelligence, poking fun at the cynical and snobbish, contemptuous of high-office, compassionate for the poor and suffering of all. Dicken's huge outpouring worked as much as any other force to draw public attention and compel a change in official attitudes to the poor and dispossessed.I'm sorry about this lengthy preamble, but it needed to be said. Because I tell you truly that this serial (and another - earlier - rendering of 'Bleak House') is not Dickens at all.Oh-yes; it's BASED upon a Dicken's work. The serial bears his title. The various characters also possess their respective names. But that's it. There is non of the hilarious lampooning political and social commentary. There is non of the splendid mirthful dialogue. But most of all there is no empathy for good or ill with the characters. All of the minutely observed details with which Dickens twits his creations and their oh-so-human vices and foibles, mocking ourselves in the very same instant - because we are also guilty - all of this is absent. Never was a baby so comprehensively jettisoned with the bath-water.Instead we seem to re-live my childhood. We have a montage of staid, unimaginative, humourless characters steeped in sets as dull and dreary as my infant memory. Dickens has been squeezed out to make way for what is no more than a grim short-running soap-opera. His sly stroke of satire has been replaced by an insensitive corporate stamp.Whoever created this travesty must have worked upon the characterisation and scripting of 'Eastenders'. It's that bad. They can't possibly have read the book. Or if they have then they possess not a particle of humour. Or perhaps this is yet another example of the politically-correct BBC scourging our great national heritage once more, and dumming it down to their own miserable, resentful left-wing agenda. Dickens towers so mightily above anything that they can conceive - despite billions of pounds of tax-payers' money - that they pull down the edifice so that it no longer confronts and mocks them with their own pygmy-like creativity. The BBC is precisely the sort of arrogant, self-serving, tower of weakness that would have excited Dicken's ire. If you doubt me, read the book. Read his whole chapter about the 'Circumlocution Office' (Whitehall). And discover how 'the whole science of government' is defined by one abiding principle: 'HOW NOT TO DO IT'. Nothing has changed unto this day.The viewer has been cheated. It's as simple as that. I earnestly entreat anyone who is not familiar with 'The Master' to read his books and find out why Dickens will live on, long after the BBC and its squalid little munchkins have passed into history.

alfa-16 I may have been looking forward to this too much. Period drama has been hitting new heights recently but I'm not surprised that there hasn't been a rush to comment on the latest BBC/Andrew Davies Dickens adaptation. 18 months ago, Bleak House, with its dark shadows, glacial foreboding and taut narrative storyline gripped the nation. Not so Little Dorrit.What's the problem? Surely with a winning formula, a great cast and a brilliant novel, we must be guaranteed some sort of success? The three leads are very successfully cast. McFadyen and Courtenay are both living their parts and taking every opportunity that comes their way. Amy has just the right combination of winsomeness, vulnerability and moral strength and can bring a tear to the most jaded eye. But here's where the problem starts. She's so tall, fit and healthy that if someone told you she was the British All-Comers keepie-up champion you wouldn't be surprised.And the whole series is like that. London looks spruce and modern, the Marshalsea looks more inviting than any accommodation I ever had in London, everyone is clean and fettled and no one seems to have a problem worthy of the name. Parts of it,like everything associated with the Meagles at Twickenham, are actually boring and defective.Apart from that, the planning that went into the storyline of Bleak House to come up with a strong narrative thread supporting two half hour episodes a week is missing here. Characters constantly seem to be rushing off stage. Andy Serkis, as Rigaud, is a delicious villain and would be a much-needed, hugely oppressive presence if only they'd give him more than a minute an episode.I can't see myself falling in wholeheartedly love with this production, especially when there is a much more imaginative (and even better acted) adaptation already on DVD, from Christina Edzard.I love Panks and the Bleeding Heart Yard crew, and the Clennam household is a tremendous success. I'd watch Judy Parfitt mowing her grass, she's beautifully paired with Alun Armstrong and Sue Johnston is perfect as Affery.But whilst it scores, it also continues to disappoint. I just don't think enough hard work went into it at the planning and scriptwriting stages.