6/10
Superfluous
12 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes you sit through a film you have seen before and enjoy it, even though you know the plot. This time I sat through a film I hadn't seen before and I didn't get that much out of it.

It may be partly because the BBC had done an excellent adaption only one year ago. The serpentine plotting of Dickens was also better suited to the longer format of three episodes rather than a two-hour film. There are limits to how much plot you can cram in and the film probably exceeded them.

In both versions the acting was good, but I query the casting in the new film. I would say I preferred Ray Winstone as a true Cockney Magwitch and David Suchet as a creepier Jaggers. Estella is also supposed to be someone who captivates Pip. Even though Holliday Grainger acted well, I couldn't see her as a woman who could drive someone to distraction with her stunning beauty.

The sets were obviously intended to outdo any previous versions. Satis House was straight out of Gormenghast while London looked more mediaeval than it probably was in 1860.

If it hadn't been done so soon before, it would probably be rated as a better film.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed