User reviews

Of the six adaptations of A Tale of Two Cities seen, in personal ranking this one is number 3, number 1 is the 1935 film and number 2 is the 1958 film. The Paul Shelley adaptation is very good on the most part, Chris Sarandon's is decent while the Burbank Films Australia animated adaptation is the only one below average. This mini-series is not perfect, the biggest flaw is the execution of the mob scenes which are under-populated, unexciting and tension-less, almost too polite. Some of the hair-styles are on the wacky and anachronistic side(too 80s-looking). The costumes and sets are accurate and are rendered lovingly, and helped by the fluid photography. The music is haunting, beautiful and emotional, especially in the poignant final scene. There is also a very literate and thoughtfully adapted script and the direction is mostly competent apart from the mob scenes. The adaptation is faithful to Dickens' very concise if initially complicated book while not forgetting to give the storytelling life. The tragedy is very affecting(the ending is a tear-jerker as it should be) and the suspenseful moments quite intense, Cruncher's funny moments are judged well. The acting is good on the most part. James Wilby, Xavier DeLuc and John Mills stood out. Wilby's Sydney Carton is handsome and movingly characterised, DeLuc is dashing and succeeds in not making a far less interesting character dull and Mills is wonderfully sympathetic that you are touched by his presence. Serena Gordon's Lucie is very tender, Kathy Kriegel is a very bat-out-of-hell Madame DuFarge, Anna Massey is perfect as Miss Pross, the Cruncher of Alfred Lynch is sly and hilarious, Jean-Pierre Aumont evokes sympathy too and Jean-Marc Bory is a creepy Evremonde. The idea to mix English and French actors was a great one and it paid off, something that it does better than the other adaptations. In conclusion, not perfect but a very good adaptation on the whole. 8/10 Bethany Cox

In my youth I set myself the task of reading Dickens. I read Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Little Dorrit and a few other novels with great pleasure. I decided that I could skip the ones I judged weaker, and so I never bothered with A Tale of Two Cities. On the basis of this ITV series I made the right choice. Dickens is never interesting when he deals with events taking place before he was born, and so it is here. I don't care about Dr. Manette and his daughter, Sidney Carton and his death-wish, or any of the other plot threads.

The cast is starry: John Mills, James Wilby, Jean-Pierre Aumont, Anna Massey (whom I remember from so many TV dramas) and many more capable performers, many of them French. The sets are well-designed, costumes appropriate... ho hum.

I rented this movie without expectation, thinking it was just another mini series made in the 80's with poor lighting and wacky hairstyles. But I was blown away by it! The innocence and heartbreaking bittersweetness of the movie gripped me, and of the thousands of movies I've watched I have never seen one with this astounding of character development. Even if you generally don't enjoy movies like this, I recommend to give it a try! It's not easily found, but if you are lucky enough to stumble across it you'll love it. The set and hairstyles are very 80's-ish, but the acting and characters are so perfectly drawn I didn't notice anything but them! Sydney Carton now ranks right up there with Sir Percy Blakeney (from The Scarlet Pimpernel) on my list of ideal men.

I think the commenter from Florida may be discussing the awful film made for television in the early '80s. This mini-series made in 1989 does not have no-name B-list actors. They are all superb British and French actors. I would just caution people that they need to be aware which version they have gotten hold of to watch. The costuming is they only thing that seems a little out of place in this version. As to highlights of this version, I would have to say that James Wilby as Sidney Carton does excellent work. He is actually heartbreaking to watch. It is easy to make this pivotal character much too maudlin, but this is not the case here.

You should not do this. You should not compare a film to its literary source: they are two different media, each with its own codes of expression and interpretation. But I couldn't help it: I had to do this. Only to constate that the movie gives up almost all the motives of interest present in the novel. Note that sometimes movies are on the same level as literary sources: for what concerns "A Tale of Two Cities", see for exemple the old and quite forgotten silent movie of the same title, directed in 1917 by Frank Lloyd: it stands out of its own, Dickens or no Dickens.

Apart from the comparison, this is quite a lenghty TV film, quite static, a little boring sometimes, but by no means badly realized. I will call it: quite well done, and quite useless.

I saw this in English class, and I must say, is an engrossing adaptation of the book. It kept me involved and i liked the little changes they made to the movie. A must watch for any fan of Charles Dickens' novels.

Although I did not care for the way Lucie's hair looked in the beginning, it is just a minor quibble. The two men playing Darnay and and Carton are perfect for the roles, and Jerry Cruncher is hilarious. Another thing I liked was that they made Madame Defarge young and witch looking. in the novel she is only in her twenties when Lucie finds her father, and less then 20 years have passed, so she is quite young.

All in all 9 out of 10 stars.

This is without doubt one of the real gems of the British TV scene ever. The story, the characters, the costumes and the acting are all without fault and could never be bettered. Do not pass up the opportunity of seeing this series if it ever should arise. From the opening scenes to the tear-jerking conclusion there is drama, excitement, romance, heroism and self-sacrifice, often several of them simultaneously. It is altogether a most marvellous experience and a real landmark in the history of recorded drama. I don't doubt that Charles Dickens would have been proud to have been associated with it.

I met this mini TV series by chance many years ago, when I was still in my teen-age years, and I found I loved it at first sight.:) It's a beautiful journey watching this new adapted classic which continued for somewhat more than three hours. All the actors, especially those who stood for the four major characters, were definitely the perfect choices for this famous story.

I liked James Wilby, in the way he rambled around mopishly, the way he loved 'Lucie' in an unbeknown warm corner of his deep heart and he smiled before people weakly. I always thought that years ago James Wilby was one of the few absolutely beautiful actors I have seen in my life, and in this TV in 1989, his beauty was totally unapproachable! The performance of the good-looking french actor Xavier Deluc for 'Darnay' was brilliant too. It's really odd that during watching this TV I continued thinking about he was somehow a bit similar with dear Dicaprio in some aspect. But what a pity that he seemed to arise in other TV or movie out of France rarely these past years.

The french actress Serena Gordon for 'Lucie' had a pair of really large eyes! And she had an appropriate tender and lovely look and that kind of archaic temperament.

All in all, I would clutch at any chance to watch this splendid mini TV again! Regretfully, DVD version of it is not seen coming out by now in China. But it is still vividly memorized in my heart, in spite of these many years run through~

I had to read A Tale of Two Cities for my English class this year, and found it to be not that bad of a read, and it got VERY exciting towards the end. After we finished the book, our class watched this movie...while I had fun watching it because its so terrible at points I couldn't stop laughing, it's really a travesty.

The first problem is that almost all of the acting (perhaps with the exception of Darnay and Dr. Manette) is remarkably terrible. They have hired a whole movie's worth of low budget B-Actors, who simply can't be taken seriously. Their emotions are laughable, they deliver lines terribly, their accents are inconsistent, and they often overact trying to compensate for their own bad acting.

The worst thing is probably the script itself. Since I have read the book I followed the movie very well, but to someone who hasn't, they would be completely lost. The movie never keeps on clear direction or narrative and jumps all over the place spastically. The story is hardly told at all, its almost as if the script is ATOTC highlights strung together into almost 4 hours of hell.

So if you're DESPERATE for a movie version, give it a shot. But terrible acting and terrible script keep this from being all it could be.

I just want to say that this movie made a great difference in my life. Sydney Carton (James Wilby) touched my heart with the depth of the look of his eyes. Many times i felt just like him, drunken, wasted & that i did nothing good or useful to be remembered by, no one will weep for me so i guess i felt he's a part of me & that is all because of Wilby's wonderful performance. The music was really really great too. I felt it touched my soul. It made me cry a lot. Every time i see this movie i cry over & over again. Everyone played their roles perfectly that it could have never been better. This is my best movie ever. I just love it & feel it.

This is by far the best version of Dickens' Tale. The cast was outstanding.James Wilby really conveys Carton's feelings of hopelessness,alienation,and self-sacrifice.The musical score is moving,the costumes and settings accurate,the story very true to the original.Dickens would be proud!