A Tale of Two Cities

I thought this was an incredible movie, especially for being an '80's movie. Most movies from the '80's hardly impress me, but this was an undoubtable exception. We watched this in my history class and I was honestly shocked at the emotion and feeling put into every part and the realism represented by the film-makers. Very historically correct, which especially impressed me. It was a very good representation of Dickens' wonderful book, which I read last summer and plan on reading again as a result. I was literally in tears, and in front of my history class, too! It was very moving and aroused a feeling of sympathy in my heart. The theme of absolute love was shown well and made a great impact. Wonderful movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it and was surprised just how closely it followed the book and history as well.

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.

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...

Profound human love and the most repugnant savagery, horror and redemption, a heroine and a grotesque revenger, two families with dark secrets, two cities, all in the backdrop of the bloodbath that was the French Revelation. In watching it, be prepared for the "Best of Times and the Worst of Times." James Welch Henderson Arkansas 5/17/21.

I was very impressed with this movie, as it was well told, and didn't go in for melodrama. You can really feel like you're glimpsing actual moments from the past and get swept up in the French Revolution, with sympathy for both sides.

This is not the first time I've appreciated seeing Peter Cushing in a role other than Van Helsing, and in a film other than the horror genre. He did an excellent job here as Dr. Manette , as did Chris Sarandon in the dual role of Charles Darnay and Sidney Carlton.

I was also pleased, as an Agatha Christie fan, to discover that David Suchet (a.k.a. Hercule Poirot) was a part of this movie, too.

This one's a winner, not to be missed.