Great Expectations (1974 TV Movie) User Reviews

Good adaptation of the Dickens classic

[frankiehudson · 7/10 · 5 January 2007]

I got this film a tiny price in the Silver Classics series from Woolworths, at £2.79 cheaper than the local video shop (even if it were available, which is unlikely) and it surprised me.

Michael York as superb as the adult Pip, as is Joss Ackland as the humble Joe Gargery and Anthony Quayle as Jaggers, the rather cynical London lawyer. James Mason is good as the well-meaning convict, Abel Magwitch.

There don't appear to be any outside shots - all studio work - which is a shame, but the sets are brilliantly done, particularly the Blue Ball inn back by Romney and the marshes, and the stage coach office with its sign for 'Newhaven, Dartmouth, Plymouth'.

Of course, Sarah Miles has always been a remarkable beauty and she doesn't fail here either as Estella, boxed up in Satis House.

Overall, I would prefer the famous David Lean version, but this is still well worth watching.

Very seventies, but some good parts

[HotToastyRag · 5/10 · 29 June 2018]

There have been so many Great Expectations films, it's hard to keep them straight! The good news is usually big names flock to the adaptations, so it's easy to remember them as the "John Mills one," or in this case, the "Michael York one."

In the Michael York version, several other big stars of the 1970s joint together for Charles Dickens's classic novel about striving to become a gentleman: Sarah Miles plays Estella, Margaret Leighton plays Miss Havisham, Joss Ackland plays Joe Gargery, Anthony Quayle plays Jaggers, Robert Morley plays Uncle Pumblechook, and James Mason plays Magwitch. While it's wonderful to see James Mason lend his talents to the heartwrenching role of Magwitch, I always wondered why he wasn't cast as Pip in the "John Mills version". He would have been the right age and had the right talents for the part.

This version is very "seventies" in the way it was filmed and edited, but there are some good parts to it. This is the only version I've seen where the character Biddy teaches Pip how to read; it's not necessary, but it is an interesting part of the story. Michael York has the wide-eyed innocence required for Pip, and if you can get past Sarah Miles, you can pretend he has other motivations and root for him. Great Expectations is my mom's favorite book, so she always recruits me to rent every version known to man. Unless this is also your motivation, just check out the cast lists and pick whichever version you think you'll like.

Unexceptional remake of Charles Dickens' classic story.

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 24 December 2006]

There have been some outstanding screen treatments of the classic literature of Charles Dickens. This 1974 TV movie is not among them. The story had already been filmed brilliantly in the '40s by the great David Lean, so quite why a remake was ever deemed necessary is a bit of a mystery. Still, the film has a cast to die for, featuring the likes of Michael York, Sarah Miles, James Mason, Margaret Leighton, Robert Morley, Anthony Quayle, Joss Ackland and Rachel Roberts. Any film which gathers so many famous faces in one place has a certain appeal, though it must be noted that several of the actors are miscast and many of them give indifferent performances.

In Victorian Kent, apprentice blacksmith Pip (Michael York) comes across an escaped convict in a foggy graveyard. The convict, Abel Magwitch (James Mason), is on the run from the law and needs food, drink and something to release him from his leg irons. Frightened Pip agrees to help him, but later Magwitch is recaptured by soldiers even though Pip does nothing to betray him. Soon after, Pip is summoned to the nearby house of eccentric old lady Miss Havisham (Margaret Leighton) to act as a friend for her adopted daughter Estella (Sarah Miles). Pip does not realise that Miss Havisham is an avid man-hater who has been plotting to unleash her fury against the opposite sex since the day she was jilted just hours before her wedding. Estella is a cruel, taunting, distant girl who has been trained all her life to break men's hearts on behalf of Miss Havisham – and Pip is to be victim number one! Later, Pip learns that he has inherited a fortune from an un-named benefactor. Assuming that he must somehow have impressed Miss Havisham and that she must be the benefactor, Pip heads off to London to become a gentleman. He even assumes that once he has established himself as a gentleman he will be married to the beautiful Estella. But Pip is in for an extraordinary shock when he discovers that his true benefactor is Magwitch, the dirty old convict who he tried to assist all those years ago. Magwitch has never forgotten that act of kindness and has spent his lifetime since trying to return the favour.

Mason is in excellent form as Magwitch and gives what is easily the film's strongest portrayal. Good actors like York, Miles, Leighton and Roberts seem much less enthused about the film and give rather bored performances. In the case of York and Miles, it barely helps that they seem far too old to be playing their respective characters. The film's production values are rather limited. The costumes are good enough, but the interior and exterior sets aren't up to much. Also slightly disappointing is the way that a lot of key events from the book are omitted from this version, although it is at least faithful to the basic plot line. In summary, this is a watchable but unexceptional remake of the story. If you want to see it done better, go for the 1946 David Lean version.

Decent job for TV movie made in UK in early 70s

[HobbitHole · 17 June 2009]

With one noted exception to date, it seems that all who rated this only noticed at a later time after viewing that this film was made for TV. Perhaps people in other places are unfamiliar with conditions in 1974 and British TV.

I have heard that budgets at BBC in the early to mid-70s were small and therefore special effects and expensive location shoots had to be dispensed with in favor of trying to use imagination and get the great story across with small budgets.

I got "Great Expectations" on a very inexpensive DVD copy, had looked it up here and saw it was made for TV and enjoyed the work of the cast, so I gave it a shot.

I thought the music and some of the things they did with the sets outdid what most TV films and serials were able to do was remarkable compared to other things on TV from the same time period on the BBC.

It was a wholesome family friendly adaptation and the chief complaint is that it was too short! Yes, it was difficult because it had to cut out so many parts of the incredible Dickens book, but you try to adapt a huge novel into a made-for-TV film that has to fit in less than 2 hours (to accommodate commercials) and see how much better of a job you can do! Many of the best Dickens adaptations whether for the big screen or small are MUCH LONGER and have a MUCH BIGGER BUDGET. Is it the best Dickens adaptation? No, of course not.

Is it on the other hand unwatchable and piece of junk? Not at all.

For TV fare, it is above average and for the time period, it is a real treat to see one of the later great performances from the legendary James Mason, and very good performances by much of the cast.

I disagree that Michael York did a poor job. He purposely underplayed a boy who was by nature not a pushy, scheming character like Miss Havershim, his uncle Pimblebrook(sic?), the relatives of Miss Havershim, the guy that marries Pip's true love-Estelle, and so many more.

Perhaps it was also difficult coming off playing D'Artanian (sic?) in 'The Three Musketeers'.

Maybe he wanted not to play a fearless, reckless youth, but an honest, caring youth, that sometimes made big mistakes - lying to his family about Miss Havershim's activities, telling a snooty London 'friend' that Joe was his blacksmith, etc.

But Pip (when GROWN played by York) was a young man that learned lessons from the heart and never lost sight of his love of Estelle, his uncle and surrogate father Joe, his teacher and later 'stepmom'.

He nearly got caught up in the 'gentleman's snobbery' towards Joe and his benefactor, but showed in the end that both had not wrongly encouraged and put their trust that Pip would turn out alright, each investing in Pips life in their own way to help him not to have to have the struggles that they had.

Joe brought Pip up due to his parents dying, and Joe's first wife was Pip's sister. After Pip's ill-tempered sister died, even though not a blood relation or true father, Joe still regards Pip as a son and marries Pip's kind reading teacher who brings more of a steady and mother-like influence to Pip.

Joe was also well done by Joss Ackland, an underrated British actor who also played C.S. Lewis in the original 'Shadowlands' ((also done for TV and MORE accurate in that it portrayed Joy Gresham with TWO sons...the later film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger (nominated for Academy award in the role of Joy Gresham) was adapted from the television screenplay in the movie version...imagine that?)).

Many years later Ackland also played in the fun family film 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' as King Arthur.

I think it would be great if someone remade Great Expectations for regular film today, just as there was a more recent version of Oliver Twist (which overall was well done though there were parts I didn't like either...) No director can please everyone and NO FILM EVER 100 percent represents a book, unless the author wrote a screenplay and not a book! To those who haven't: read the book! It's the best source of the story in all cases.

To those that prefer lavish productions, big budgets and Lord of the Rings style all out efforts of a book (though fans of the books point out flaws in those too...no director can win with the die hard book folks that can't seem to separate the mediums and, like me, sometimes enjoy both...differently!), then watch one of those versions or films.

For a family friendly couple hours (for those with kids old enough to watch something more than animation), check it out! It's much better than even much of the 'made for cinema' movies put out on cheap DVD release in Europe and the USA.

Respectable Rendering.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 23 December 2010]

This made-for-television production obviously doesn't follow the book too closely. The novel brims with sub plots and details of the period. I know this not because I've ever read it but because I once saw it in a library, took the book down, and hefted it in my hands before deciding I wasn't up to tackling it. I was just recovering from a traumatic experience with "War and Peace." But the movie is nothing to be ashamed of. Oh, it's not as taut and dramatic as David Lean's earlier version, which is compact and superb, but it has its virtues.

One of them is Sarah Miles -- not so much her performance as the bitchy Estella, but the fact that in her first scenes she passes adequately for a post-pubescent teen ager. This is remarkable because she was a post-pubescent teen ager ten or fifteen years earlier in both "Term of Trial" and "The Servant." She's mean enough, but doesn't quite project the same genuine haughtiness of Jean Simmons in David Lean's film.

Michael York is adequate as the blacksmith's apprentice turned snob turned Mensh. The Oxford-educated York seems to handle the accent well. Joss Ackland is a proud, benign presence. He had yet to develop the jowls he displays and wobbles so threateningly in later villainous roles, like the Commisar in "Citizen X." James Mason -- this is quite a cast, isn't it? -- James Mason is the rude and murderous Magwitch and handles the part surprisingly well, given that his criminal persona is usually so suave and ironic. Anthony Quayle, a great Shakespearean, is lawyer Jaggers and Peter Bull appears in a small role. Margaret Leighton is fine as the tragic Miss Havisham.

It all ends happily or, at least, justly. In the final scene York manages to convince Miles that she should give up the notion of re-living Miss Havisham's life and marry him instead, and he prints on her soft cheek a lover's kiss.

Yet it's all a little depressing. Dickens is almost always a little depressing. What are the themes he deals with so relentlessly, after all? Poverty, wealth, inheritance, greed, pride, social class, power, parentage. No one was more graphic about being poor and to see it in living color on the screen isn't exactly uplifting. Dickens himself was born poor and knows whereof he speaks. During a visit to the United States he had a chat with Edgar Allan Poe. One can only wonder what in God's name they had to talk about.

Hardly the last version, but pretty good

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 8 February 2015]

I count a dozen versions of Charles Dickens' beloved classic Great Expectations made for the big and small screen, but this version from the BBC in 1984 stands up with the best of them. The best being the one that David Lean did in 1946.

Curiously enough I was watching some legislative hearings on the foster care system and it occurred to me watching this that Dickens was making some kind of commentary on it that's still relevant today. Mostly through the lawyer Jaggers played here by Anthony Quayle. Both the characters of Pip and Estella are in what we would consider foster care placements for good and evil. Jaggers tried to save two children from what at that time was a damned existence on earth by placing them in good surroundings. Unfortunately the strict class system being what it was both have to go through some trials before gaining a measure of happiness.

Michael York and Sarah Miles pretty well fit my conception of what Pip and Estella should be. Margaret Leighton is one batty old Miss Favesham. I lived with a relative while I was growing up who could have been a Miss Favesham, taking it out on the world around her for a miserable childhood. I knew another whom I worked with who also was left a bride at the altar and also behaved quite weirdly after that for her 90 plus years.

The convict Magwitch is a bit of offbeat casting for James Mason. I'm used to that polished and precise speech whether a good guy or a villain. Here Mason shows he's got the acting chops to stretch his casting persona as the rough and crude Magwitch who provides Pip with his Great Expectations.

I'm sure we'll see more and more versions of this classic in the future. This production can certainly hold its own with the others.

Bad casting detracts from a good production

[nurflugel9-572-101336 · 6/10 · 5 October 2021]

I have seen more productions of Great Expectations than any other literary work. I would love to say that this was a very good production with a stellar cast, but when you cast two thirty-something actors to play adult teenagers, you can't expect that. Both the beautiful Sarah Miles and the handsome Michael York are so miscast that I cannot give this otherwise very good production any more than a 6. Even if they had had a real teenager play the part played by Sarah Miles, she still could not have passed for an early 20s young lady. Maybe they needed better makeup. Definitely needed better casting.

My expectations not quite shattered, but far from great.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 29 July 2022]

They've glamorized the fantastic Dickens epic through vivid color and thus removed the darkness and dour atmosphere that was noticeable in the abridged 1934 Hollywood version and extremely prevalent in the iconic 1946 David Lean British version. As the third version (and first in color), this is handsome and certainly watchable, but not as emotionally vacant as it should be. Only Pip, a few of the other young characters (certainly not Sarah Miles' Estella) and select older characters should show any kind of verve, and there are times when you expect the characters to break out in song. These are characters with no song in their heart or any rhythm in their soul, and even without songs, this emotion greatly harms the film as a whole.

There are good central performances by Simon Gipps-Kent and Michael York as Pip, and York is definitely the selling point due to his popularity at the time. Sarah Miles as Estella has a Jean Simmons look about her (obviously why she was cast), but having her playing Estella as a young girl was a huge mistake. She looks like a young school teacher while flirting with young Pip, and that makes her taunting of him seem all the more perverted, and not in the way that Dickens meant. As Pip ages, his continued affection for this manipulated young woman makes him seem a fool as he is used as the victim for Miss Havisham's revenge.

As the ghostly living walking dead, Margaret Leighton is seemingly even more sinister than Martita Hunt was in her iconic role that is the guidebook of every Miss Havisham in stage and film history. Her insanity isn't as pitysom as it is much more frightening as Hunt used a longing coming from her eyes to glimpse what could have been, while with Leighton's, she seems to simply care less. Robert Morley, James Mason, Rachel Roberts and Anthony Quayle fill out other major parts with mixed success. I really wanted to love this version, but it is probably too lavish for its own good, while a little bit of dirtying it up and giving a grittier viewpoint could have added to the mood that is sadly missing. Not a complete failure, but this would not be the go to version for readers of the book who have never seen it on screen before.

Mediocre retelling of the classic Dickens' tale.

[sam1784 · 6/10 · 27 December 2000]

Having not read the book "Great Expectations," I don't feel comfortable discussing its faithfulness to Dickens' novel. However, I think that I can critique its worth as a movie. There are some good performances in it; Anthony Quayle is an effective Jaggers, he has that lawyer's edge, and he does bite his index finger at people (sometimes). Joss Ackland is a likable Joe. But the emotion of the movie is too far below the soaring Jarre score to be compelling. Maurice Jarre's wonderful music is a major reason behind the success of scenes in "Doctor Zhivago" and "Lawrence of Arabia," but of course he is helped by excellent acting and direction(or maybe vice-versa). Unfortunately, neither the acting or the directing is up to that level. With its romantic crescendo, the final scene did make my eyes misty, but I was listening more to the music more than watching the character's interaction. 'Made for television' about sums up the quality of this production.

Pretty nice

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 5 January 2022]

Another early 1970s all-star adaptation of a literary classic, this time the much-filmed Dickens novel. It's a hugely entertaining book and as such these adaptations don't have to work hard to be similarly entertaining. This one gets by alone on the strong cast, with the likes of Joss Ackland, James Mason and many others excelling, and the production values are good enough to make it all work pretty nicely.

Uninspired and dull telling of a classic

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 5 September 2013]

Great Expectations is a difficult book to adapt, that is true of a lot of Dickens actually, but that doesn't stop this 1974 TV film from being a disappointment- and on its own merits as well- especially considering the talent involved. Of the adaptations there is, the definitive one is David Lean's, one of the best Dickens adaptations there is as well, while this fares the weakest from a personal perspective. The redeeming qualities are in the costumes and a handful of decent performances. The costumes are very beautiful-looking, and of the performances Margaret Leighton, James Mason, Joss Ackland and Anthony Quayle fare the best. Leighton brings mystery and tragedy to Miss Havisham although the writing can work against her. Mason makes for a Magwitch that is both creepy early on and dignified in the latter parts of the story. Ackland is effectively subtle and forthright as Joe without ever trying too hard. And Quayle's Jaggers is very intelligently played with the right amount of occasional pompousness.

Unfortunately, these four performances are the only ones that work. The worst case was Sarah Miles, the very meaning of miscast. Yes she is beautiful, which is just part of Estella's character, and Estella is not a likable character at all. But she plays the character as too much of a overly-hysteric and condescending snob, and manages to not be cold or haughty enough. The decision to cast her as Young Estella too backfired hugely as well, she doesn't convince at all playing a character that is meant to be over half her age. Michael York is a good actor as well as handsome, but seems wooden and ill at ease as Pip. He and Miles don't have that much chemistry and their scenes are lifelessly paced. Robert Morley is too comedic and not shrewd enough for Pumblechook, though he gets the indignity right, he's done these types of roles before so it did come across as rather predictable. Rachel Roberts looks and sounds bored as nasty Mrs Joe Gargery, and while the boy who plays young Pip acts very reasonably and is very photogenic he didn't really convince as a seven year old, too tall. And you'd be hard pressed to find a blander Herbert Pocket than Andrew Ray.

The adaptation does have other problems other than the casting. Of the production values, only the costumes left too much of an impression. The camera work lacks character or any distinction, and completely fails to give any atmosphere in the opening graveyard scene. Done so unforgettably and hauntingly in Lean's film, the choice of camera work- the scene works so much better with Magwitch appearing suddenly instead of having the camera work focusing completely on him- made the scene devoid of any surprise or tension. The settings are also colourless and too TV-bound, with very little of the dreary and desolate quality that Dickens' writing and the other adaptations portrayed. The Satis house was the sole exception, the details were quite well done there such as the wedding cake. The music sounds beautiful and is ravishingly orchestrated, not a surprise as this is Maurice Jarre we're talking about. Unfortunately, it is both not appropriate and poorly utilised, in places it's very syrupy and in others it is comically rousing, it never seems to find the right tone and it's rather repetitive as well. The script is dry and stilted, also often taking a simplistic approach, the additional dialogue veers on ludicrous. Miss Havisham's taunting of Pip was not needed and very insensitive, it also distorts Miss Havisham's character.

But it's the story where the adaptation falls down most upon on, adaptation-wise and on its own. The basic structure is faithful but that's pretty much it, the worst cases being the ending, Biddy's role being changed to a significant degree and Miss Havisham and Estella's character writing taken to extremes. The storytelling is much too simplified to the extent that some instances don't make sense, any darkness, conflict and ambiguities are completely lost and even the underwhelming ending of the 2012 Mike Newell film wasn't this horrendously bungled. With a longer length and much more secure pacing(details were rushed but the pacing on the whole was tedious) things probably would've been better. Apparently it was originally meant to be a musical, but the songs were excised, even with that happening a lot of it is staged in a way of anticipating some big musical number, but one that never happens. In conclusion, good costumes, good Satis house and four good performances but uninspired and dull. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Simon Gipps- Kents' best work to date

[naomiengland · 10/10 · 27 February 2011]

I saw this years ago back in 1994. The movie has always stayed with me it holds a special part in my heart. Simon Gipps-Kents beauty just took my breath away. Everything Simon Gipps-Kent says and does turns into gold. This boy should got a award but didn't. What makes Simon Gipps-Kent so bloody great is his facial expressions.

He plays Pip, Pip is a poor boy thats had a hard life. His parents died when just a little child. His friends take him to visit Miss Havishem. Miss Havishem is very strange. When Pips firsts see her if asks people "Is she mad"? Miss Havisem lets play with the daughter Estella of course, Miss Havishem encourage Estella. I love the erotic undertones this movie has you wouldn't expect but is has. "You may kiss me if you like" Estella asks Pip indeed kisses her. It is the best kiss I have ever seen in a movie! When Miss Havisham asks Estella if Estella likes Pip Estella makes a cute response. I can't tell you because I can't give to much away. Then Pip grows up and thats the end of the movie. Simon Gipps-Kent died of a drug overdose. RIP

Faint praise

[grahamebarnwell · 4/10 · 16 February 2020]

Given the all-star cast - a 'name' in almost every role - I was surprised that I'd never heard of this adaptation until accidentally finding it on a repeats tv channel today. As the film proceeded I quickly realised why this is so. I doubt whether any of the famous actors fondly remember their participation. Enjoyable though it always is to see York, Mason, Leighton, Miles, Quayle, Ray, Morley, Bull et all, without doubt it is a wooden script they deliver and every other televised or filmed version I've seen over the last fifty years is better than this one.

is this really a movie for "Great Expectations"?

[Agent12358 · 11 January 2006]

The story is hardly any close to what the book has. The acting is pretty dull, not interesting at all. Even Pumblechook and Jaggars (who seemed to be put in as a comical figure then a shrewed one) bored me with their performance. The only character that stuck to the book was Miss Havisham. Michael York's performance is not a good one but the way Estella, Biddy and Joe are portrayed is hardly any better. Those three characters are completely against the characters in the book- they are much older then they should be.

For those of you who might want to watch this movie instead of the book for a class, don't even bother. The plot is so far off and you miss tons of important events. You're also probably going to have much better time reading the book then watching this movie. The movie is just as tedious and wordy as the book and the plot is way off.

sleeping pill

[rtd_u_4_utter_underappreciation · 3/10 · 3 April 2003]

before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.

the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.

the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.

the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).

live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.

3/10

I don't recall it a happy ending!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 12 June 2011]

I remember being assigned to read Charles Dickens' novel, "Great Expectations," as an English major in college. I think this movie would have greatly enhanced my understanding of the story. The film has a first rate cast featuring a rising star, Michael York, as the adult Pip. Miss Havisham is played by the late great British actress, Margaret Leighton. Sarah Miles played Estella in this film. I loved Leighton's performance as Miss Havisham, the mysterious woman who lived in a mansion in a small English village with Estella, her adopted daughter. The first rate cast features plenty of great actors and actresses mostly British such as Joss Ackland, James Mason, Anthony Quayle, Heather Sears, Rachel Roberts, and even Tom Owen has a scene in there as taunting adult Pip. The quality is decent and the film was done in Elstree Studios long before East-Enders in Bedfordshire, England.

'Pop' Expectations

[IcyTones · 5/10 · 29 December 2021]

This Is The 'Informal' Version. The particular features that you would expect to find in any Great Expectations adaptions are all there in this 1974 TV Film, which is full of 1970s familiar & popular faces. In comparison to all other adaptations, it showcases the best 'Biddy' played by actress Heather Sears & the worst Abel Magwitch played by actor James Mason.

The film's unique attributes to the story are twofold: 1. It very briefly honours Christmas by the presence of or the appearance of Christmas Carol Singers: 2. One actress - a '30 something' year 'old' actress is used to play the 2 parts of being both a younger & older Estella.

This 'coming-of-age' story - which by today's standard and broadly speaking could be anything from 16-25 years of age depending. There's a good likeness between Simon Gipps-Kent who plays the younger Pip & Michael York - another '30 something' year 'old' actor who plays an older Pip. Sarah Miles is the actress who plays both a younger & older Estella.

I guess the two 'old has beens' - Michael York & Sarah Miles - were popular in 1974. Nevertheless, both Michael York & Sarah Miles played their parts well enough for me not to vote them as 'the worst', but not good enough to be voted 'the best', by any measure.

I First saw when i was 17 in High School.

[kerndreamer · 10/10 · 13 September 2016]

In 1979 When I was a Senior in High School My English Teacher got this movie and showed it to the class to do a report on. It took a few days but it really stuck with me. I'm Not sure why it made such an impression on me. But I went on to see two new versions and didn't realize this had been re-made almost 17-or more times since 1917. Very Impressive. Loved the actress Estelle Winwood. What a career. I love movies that keep you captive and you need to figure out what the back story is... and then some how it all comes together to make sense at the end... Absolutely mesmerizing. I still Love it. Would love to buy for my classic collection. Not sure why I like the black and white version, maybe it gives more mystery to the fog scenes, the mansion, etc... if you haven't seen this version I highly recommend it.

The best version

[mharrison-17627 · 10/10 · 16 June 2021]

Much better than the 1946 black and white version in every way. Simon Gipps-Kent was outstanding as the young Pip, what a tragedy he died in his twenties in mysterious circumstances. Michael York was far better than John Mills as the adult Pip and at least looked closer to the character's age.