A Tale of Two Cities

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...

I wouldn't call it the definitive version nor would I, for every conceivable criticism you could give this film, vote it low for not showing them cutting everyone's hair before beheading them as a previous reviewer did. As far as Dickens adaptations go, this is alright if you need a visualization of the novel. The actors all do good jobs, especially Peter Cushing as Doctor Mannette, Billie Whitelaw as Madame Defarge, and especially Alice Krige as Lucie Mannette, who makes the character feel a little more real than she was in the original novel. In the dual role of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, Chris Sarandon does alright. Obviously he has more to work with playing Carton, but I would not call either performance brilliant.

The sets and costumes are good; obviously the production values are not sky high, seeing as this is a TV movie. The lighting is flat and dull, as was per usual in many TV productions during the 1970s and 1980s. The music is passable, but not memorable.

Still, even at over two and a half hours, this film feels rushed. We never as close to the characters as we should be and Sydney's "last dream of my soul" line and most of his final speech being cut are criminal. I think the whole production could have benefited from an extra thirty minutes.

Nothing special, but a nice way to illustrate the novel for an English class or for your own enjoyment. Just don't expect the definitive A Tale of Two Cities adaptation.

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.

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.