Opiniones de usuarios

Oh, I do love a good period drama… I got interested enough after one episode of this to re-read the book for the first time in 10 years, and was impressed by how very dark and cynical Dickens' tone is. The show is well-shot and well made, and does the book justice in almost every way. The only thing which is – so far – slightly lost is the cynicism: the staggering incompetence and idleness of the Circumlocution Office is meant to be an attack on the whole governmental administration system. Likewise, the inordinate raising up of one person above others on a great balloon of hot air, and the great, national disgrace that was the imprisonment of whole families for debt. The intensity of the satire is missing – which is a great shame, since a central part of the story finds its perfect parallel in events unfolding both in this country and elsewhere right now. That was a missed opportunity – but I suspect the show wouldn't have attracted such ready funding and promotion if it laid the satire on too thick at the expense of say, the costumes (yawn).

The casting is excellent, and it seems almost unfair to single out individuals from the list, including Judy Parfitt's cold Mrs Clennam, Tom Courtenay's vain, haunted Mr Dorrit, Russell Tovey's charmingly emotional young Chivery, Claire Foy's delicate, youthful Amy and Matthew McFadyen's kind-hearted, generous Arthur. Ruth Jones' wondrous recreation of the voluminous Flora is bettered only by Annette Crosbie's frankly terrifying Aunt. (She's how I want to be when I get old!) I'd been disappointed by McFadyen's Mr Darcy in the Joe Wright film "Pride & Prejudice" - it was almost at times as if he had been stuffed, and his looks were somehow lost in the mix. Here all his best attributes are to the fore – his eyes, his height, his voice and manner, the excellence of his diction – all these create a warm, breathing man out of really quite flimsy material. In the book and even in this dramatisation, Arthur is a rather shadowy presence, on the sidelines while things happen to those around him. Yet his appearance each week is like a beacon, a feeling of warmth, like home.

Claire Foy does a really wonderful job as the title character. Dickens' heroines used to drive me mad – so tiny and blushing and always so very, irritatingly good, drat them. Foy manages to be all of these things, but to be likable too, and I very much admire her for it. The way she looks at her father – half with love, half with pity – is spot on. Tom Courtenay is brilliant – I can't imagine anyone else being able to bring so much to the character of this foolish, vain, blind Mr Dorritt. I kept missing episodes and having to watch them on the (BBC's excellent i-player) catch up site. Now I've at last seen the final episode I think it's sadly rushed, missing a few voyeuristic opportunities for catching up on some of the minor characters seen in the series. However the scenes between John Chivery, Arthur and Amy are moving and beautifully handled. I will definitely be getting hold of the DVD. This one's a keeper.

LITTLE DORRIT is an excellent British TV version of the Dickens novel, the kind of saga that almost makes David Copperfield's struggles look pale by comparison. Here, the leading characters are mystified by the secrets involving their past and the young man ends up in debtor's prison when he can't pay his creditors. Everything is eventually cleared up, but getting to the end of all the woes is quite a struggle.

As usual, all of it has been given magnificent production values, great sets that look as though people really lived there in those times, and fine acting by an ensemble cast of fine British actors. MATTHEW MACFAYDEN and CLAIRE FOY are splendid in the leading roles and ANDY SERKIS does a fine job as the villainous Ragaud.

I'm going to have to watch the replay to see the whole story, but what I saw has certainly whetted my appetite for catching the whole story from beginning to end. I can see why this production has been winning so many awards. Fine job.

I admit I hadn't read the book for a long time, and I do remember finding it rather complicated. Reading it again, I found it an insightful piece of literature, but it isn't the easiest book to sink your teeth into at first. But along with 2005's Bleak House, this adaptation of Little Dorrit was absolutely brilliant, and by far one of the better dramatisations of 2008.

What is worth of mention is the period detail. It was stunning and truly evocative! You can never go wrong with realistic looking sets,skillful camera work, lavish costumes and breathtaking scenery, and this adaptation scored highly in all four of these areas. The music from John Lunn was gorgeous, and the scripts were of exceptional quality. The plot, may be a little complicated at times, but I will say at 17 I was hooked from minute one. I think it was to do with how every scene was shot and executed. There are a handful of poignant, bleak and truly haunting moments throughout.

Other than the overall closeness to the book and how it was filmed, what made this dramatisation was the quality of the performances. I don't think anybody gave a bad performance whatsoever. Claire Foy gives an appealing lead performance as Amy, and Matthew MacFadyen is charming and handsome. Tom Courtenay is truly heart-wrenching as Amy's father, in one of his best understated performances, and I do think Courtenay is in some ways undervalued as an actor, Allun Armstrong is as reliable as ever as Jeremiah and Andy Serkis steals every scene he's in in a truly sinister performance as Rigaud (who is a real creep). And I found his accent convincing, if anything he could have done with more screen time.

Overall, I cannot sing my praises enough of this fine dramatisation of Dickens' book. 10/10 Bethany Cox

From the first moments of this wonderful production we (mum, dad and two girls 10 and 12) were entranced. Unlike those in the UK who would see this a slice a week, we saw the whole lot over a single long weekend. As I write - we've just two episodes to go...

We have all the BBC Dickens productions for comparison - including the recent Bleak House and our favourites Great Expectations and (my personal top) Our Mutual Friend. LD comes v.close to the top of this pile - The last two episodes may tip the balance....

From the first, this production grabs with its beautiful and (perhaps unusually) 'sunny' scenery. None of the austerity of the recent Great Expectations production, nor the gloominess of Bleak House. Actually this made for a nice change.... The acting is perfect - with key emotional scenes being utterly believable. The actor playing Young Chivery (heading for great things I suspect) induced a flood burst of tears from my 10 year old in the marriage proposal scene. As others have mentioned, even the smaller parts are excellently cast and played. But there's something else at play here to make this possible.

In many Dickens productions Directors seem loath to leave peripheral characters out. Bleak House in particular suffered for this I think. In LD everyone seems to have space and time in which to be presented and to evolve. It never feels chaotic or suffocating - time is taken, and this makes the whole that more soluble.

The leads are all superb - Little Dorit is perfectly perfect without being goody goody....(another issue with Bleak House), and Andrew McFad is particularly good, managing to look younger than he did in the wonderful Pride and Prejudice... And did he chub up for the role? Things have been left out - and perhaps the damning indictment of society and government are not so forcibly presented as they might have been. But what remains is a delightful mystery, beautifully told and acted and which we will want to watch all over again as soon as we've come to the end.

Generally the BBC adaptation of Dickens are great, but this was just something more. Not only is this a great story, parts of which could have been ripped from recent financial headlines, but the script, cast and direction were pretty much flawless from beginning to end. And did I mention the cinematography?

The plan was to watch the 4 disc set over several days. That didn't quite work out. The second day became a marathon viewing session. All of us watching kept calling out for the next installment as soon as the previous one came to an end. It had it all: love story, social commentary, great characters, and a mystery that isn't solved until the very end. I won't say what that is. In a way, it is incidental to the story. It will keep you guessing, but it is not really the point.

Get it and watch it. You won't be disappointed.

This BBC adaptation of the Dickens novel has enthralled me from the very beginning, mainly because of the outstanding quality of its performances. Every single character, even minor ones like the insufferably haughty Merdle butler or the paranoid Italian (perhaps with the exception of Maggy who's perfectly manicured fingernails in one close-up blew her otherwise worthy portrayal), has been ideally cast and all the actors are absolutely convincing in their delivery.

What made me write this comment, though, was Tom Courtenay's heart-wrenching performance as Mr. Dorrit for which I hope he will receive all the accolades he deserves. His multifaceted Dorrit awed me until the very end and will resonate with me for a long time.

What I particularly liked about the series was how we got more than a glimpse of all the characters' 'little lives', people going about their respective businesses, revolving in their little worlds. Even if a scene only touched on a certain character, setting, costumes, and dialogue provided ample information for the viewer to evoke the full picture of this character's life and to imagine how they would go on after the camera had panned away to continue with the main story.

On top of that, the great care put into the selection of costumes and locations made Little Dorrit a real feast for the eye, perfectly accompanied by the wonderful score by John Lunn.

May this be a 'true Dickens' or not, what it surely is, is Grand TV. And as such, it adds another sparkling jewel to my cherished collection of BBC adaptations.

This adaptation takes the book very seriously, and is a true adaptation. 14 episodes at first seemed a little daunting, but this series is captivating, with wonderful characters and fantastic cinematography. The soundtrack suits the series well, and just gives that extra touch to get the watcher crying, laughing, and sighing at the television screen! You truly feel like you are in the series, which makes it a series in a league of it's own. The casting is fantastic, and well done for Claire Foy - she portrayed the character brilliantly for a first large part! In the end, if I had to describe this series in one word; it's really, truly 'sweet' - there is no other word! - and will no doubt leave the viewer with a smile on their face by the end of it!

I stumbled on to this series about half way through an early episode purely by accident and within 5 minutes I was totally hooked - wow. My favorite programs are a combination of a great story, careful character development and excellent acting. This series has all these and more - the cinematography shows great sensitivity, the sets and costumes world class and even the theme music is mesmerizing. Each episode practically stands on it's own. It's the whole package.

Clair Foy is nothing short of brilliant - I have never seen a character that so completely captures your sympathies and heart. She is the perfect manifestation of beauty being so much more than skin deep.

Matthew Macfadyen is the idea counterpart and perfectly represents the goodness that mankind can (should) strive to achieve. The electricity between Matthew Macfadyen and Claire Foy is also magic.

Tom Courtenay performance is in many ways the most extraordinary of all. His role as William Dorrit is by far the most complex and challenging. Tom Courtenay's insight into this complex and rapidly evolving character is truly remarkable - I have seen very few that could compare. In my mind on the same level as George C. Scott in Patton.

The other supporting actors are also faultless almost to a man (or woman).

If you haven't seen this one - I suggest you do it's great and timeless entertainment.

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.

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.

So many characters I'm still not sure I have them attached to the right families since family names seem also b to be inconsistent? Got the impression the villain had a brother..but couldn't connect it? By the time we hit the expose I had to keep replaying it and still couldn't follow for sure who they were talking about. It sounded like Arthur's father got someone pregnant and adopted the boy..but what happened to the mother? Died at birth or.paid off and died later? Was the lead female also born from that character screwing up again? Is she actually Arthur's half sister😵Or was the baby the black girl who really has no role in this show? If the lead actress. Isn't part of the rich family.. why does she get an inheritance instead of the black girl? I've never hit the end of a movie and had to keep replaying it to untangle what the flock I was watching. Guessing the main characters didn't have the same dad or they wouldn't get married...so what family does the black girl.actually belong to??

I watched the Christine Edzard film of Little Dorrit aged fourteen and was so enthused by it that I ended up doing work experience on her next film. For this reason I resisted watching this version for a long time. I relented recently having just read the book, but I was right to be wary. Watching this version reminded me how good the 1988 Edzard films were. This version has good production values and some very strong performances (although I still find Matthew McFadyen annoyingly wooden), but it lacks much of the book's depth and subtlety, while ironing many of his characters (who are always larger than life) into shadows of their written selves. The story has been 'distilled' and the stakes raised so that it has become a quest story, rather than a social satire with a quest element. Everyone seems about ten years too young for the parts they play, except Clare Foy, who is altogether too tall, too old and too knowing for Little Dorrit. They are also far too clean, as is London, and William Dorrit's room in the Marshalsea is so enormous it might qualify for the status of 'suite' when in fact the rooms in the Marshalsea were shared and less than ten feet square. Plus the language is far too modern and some of the details anachronistic (Clennam would NEVER have kissed his mother hello in 1826, even if she hadn't been a fearful old battle-axe). Most annoying of all, this version explains and signposts through scenes that have no place in the book, while cutting others (like the wonderful introduction of Flora Finching) back to the bone.

The Edzard version takes a more consistent approach to the point of view issue by telling the story twice, once from Clennam's point of view and then again from Little Dorrit's (and in a sense this version, with its shifting perspectives, is truer to the book). The camera-work is far more engaging in this version; Edzard's camera is static, a cool observer, whereas this version employs a liquid, flowing approach that gives the geography of the city greater life and a more sinister edge. Nonetheless the film is far better cast and its use of the original dialogue is more authentic.

The summary of Episode One in the DVD set describes Amy as an 'enterprising young woman'. This misses the point. She is a girl under pressure, a child, like so many in the developing world today, whose responsibilities are far greater than they should have to bear. It's Dickens's exploration of exploitation and imprisonment, in all its forms, that forms the essence of Little Dorrit. And I'm not sure this version does justice to any of these themes.

I have seen many many adaptations of Dickens and other novels and period dramas. Little Dorrit is not one of Dickens' most known novels, however, this as it turns out is one of the best adaptations of all time. It has an extensive runtime allowing a complete and thorough faithful adaptation of the novel to be included. The production is wonderful and never drags, the different plot lines are interwoven brilliantly. Casting is perfect and all round great acting. Particularly Claire Foy in one of her early roles she is wonderful as Little Dorrit. Though the 1987 version of Little Dorrit was not bad for its time, this is such a great version that I supplants it in every way. The definitive Little Dorrit and the gauntlet for all period and novel adaptations.

They hit the nail on the head with this. Perfect casting (with the exception of Maggy... maybe). The scene towards the end with Young Chivery pouring his heart out to Arthur Clennam is incredible actibg. You're crying with him practically. I've read the book and the actors did such a great job portraying the real characters Dickens wrote about. This is my favorite period drama of all time. I have no idea why this has an average rating of 8.2 and not a 10. Yes... they maybe veered from the book a tiny bit in places but keep in mind they're trying to squash a 800+ page book into 7 episodes.

I really wanted to like this, hoping for something like the BBC's wonderful Bleak House of a couple of years back. It had the characters and some excellent acting (but see below), but what it lacked was a clear plot. About half way through I realised that I wasn't sure (a) what we were waiting to find out and (b) who was who in the lesser roles and (c) why I should bother trying to sort it all out.

On the other hand, Claire Foy, Matthew MacFadyen and Russell Tovey stood out, along with several others. But will someone please tell me what Andy Serkis was up to with that ludicrous, atrocious fake French accent?

It is hard to watch Littoe Dorrit without a stupid grin on my face. I just think it is perfect. The characters are all just as you imagined when reading the novel. From The leads in Clare Foy and Matthew To the vast array of supporting characters. It is like the book has come to life itself. Ruth Jones is a stand out. Just brilliant

Great production values, you can smell and taste the rancid decay of 19th century London. A wonderful cast of splendid actors .... Armstrong giving a richly textured portrayal, Parfitt energerizing the story with an aural of measured evil, Paterson, Courtenay and Foy are all delightful to watch. A top notch, well paced and acted film. The young actor Russell Today is one to watch. He emanates an inner combustible power that you sense can carry him to acting greatness. In short, he's got "IT". I look forward to the film that gives him the opportunity to show the full range of his acting chops.

When I first watched the first episode of this superb production of BBC, I gave 7 to it. Then I continued to watch and found out what a exceptional work it is. There are lots of adaptations from different authors but none of them could catch my eyes like this one. The chemistry between characters, the performance of them, the creation of locations, costumes, the music regarding each scene... in a simple word admirable... Perfect. As someone who read the novel itself and has the highest esteem for the author of it, I should say this adaptation, ironically, is so superior than the novel itself, it gave life to the "Little Dorrit" of Dickens. It deserves the highest rate.