A Tale of Two Cities is a wonderful book, ranking Dickens' works it's to me towards the top. It is wordy with a very complicated story, but it is also very compelling and the characters especially Sydney Carton and Madame Dufarge are memorable. This 1980 version is not the best(the 1935 film) or worst(the animated Burbank Films Australia version) of the book, but adaptation-wise and on its own it's very decent. It is hampered by Chris Sarandon's stiff and emotionally cold Charles Darnay, a rather cheap, under-populated and lacking-in-suspense-and-urgency storming of Bastille scene and the on-the-saccharine-side romantic theme in the music score. The adaptation could also have done a better job at differentiating between Charles and Sydney, visually especially with the hair they are never quite distinctive enough. But the production values are generally quite decent, it does at least make an effort to be true to Dickens and the historical period it's based in and they have good colour and atmosphere if lacking somewhat in refinement. The music serves the adaptation well, while the script is intelligently adapted and does nobly with conveying Sydney's sardonic humour, the heartfelt tragedy at the end and the dark, foreboding humanity. The story is faithful in spirit to the book, though there are things inevitably missed out, and doesn't feel too confused. It's solidly paced too. With individual scenes the standout has to be the ending which is extraordinarily moving, though the final forty minutes generally is very suspenseful. The acting is fine on the whole. While Sarandon disappoints(to me at least) as Charles he is outstanding as Sydney- that Sydney is a far more interesting character helps-, he is humorous and sardonic while also poignant and dignified. Alice Krige is an emotive and beautiful Lucie, Flora Robson's Miss Pross is regal and loyal and Barry Morse is rightfully hissable as Evremonde. Billie Whitelaw is fine as a very snake-like Madame DuFarge, David Suchet characterises the conflicted character of Basard brilliantly and beautifully, Peter Cushing is perfect as Dr Manette and Kenneth More is more than competent too. George Innes does a very good job too as Cruncher, very sly and funny, but the character could have been more prominent. In conclusion, decent version, worth watching but for the best adaptation look to the 1935 film. 7/10 Bethany Cox
22 Reviews
A solid TV adaptation
MissSimonetta14 April 2014
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.
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.
Good TV movie based on Dickens
AngelofMusic199827 August 2020
A Tale of Two Cities is a very good novel,though I like it a bit less than Oliver Twist or Great Expectations.Charles and Sydney are played by the same actor since they look the same and the job on making sure who is who should have been done better.The Bastille scene should have been more intense.Chris Sarandon did a great job as Sydney,but a bit boring as Charles.The rest of the cast is great.Sets and costumes are nice.The ending is moving as it should be.Overall,very good movie based on A Tale of Two Cities 7/10
I thought the level of emotion was fine
TaeDanielle22 May 2003
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...
A good interpretation of the Dickens classic.
jason-21024 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A reasonably good interpretation of the Dickens classic, which sticks to the book quite well.
Some of the acting was excellent, in particular Chris Sarandon who was perfectly cast as Sydney Carton / Charles Darnay. His portrayal of the complex Carton in particular was very clever and convincing. Cushing also was well cast as Manette and played it perfectly, while Kenneth Moore delivered his role competently was one would expect.
Unfortunately the film is marred by poor, low budget 1970s television production and art direction values. It is mostly unconvincing in its portrayal of the revolution, especially the action scenes. One of the problems with early television adaptations, especially those by the BBC from the 1960s and 70s, is that they think "dramatising" means simply adding pictures to text. They assumed that if you were faithful to the events and dialog, and dressed people up in period costume, then you've done a good job. The storming of Bastille seems like a routine amateur theatrical depiction, where the extras clearly had a minimum of choreography and direction. There just weren't enough revolutionaries to create a convincing atmosphere of chaos and terror. These problems were further exacerbated by the stereotyping and poorly acted roles of the key revolutionaries Monsieur and Madame Defarge.
The ending has one notable and moving scene - the meeting and very brief love encounter between Carton and Seamstess before the guillotine, again made possible by the Sarandon's excellent portrayal of Carton.
At the time of writing the film is currently available in a boxed set of three DVDs in the "Best British Classics" series in Sweden. The the series is designed for Swedish audiences but the films are in English with the option of subtitles. A quick search on the Internet on Google.se for "Best British Classics" should give you some hits.
Some of the acting was excellent, in particular Chris Sarandon who was perfectly cast as Sydney Carton / Charles Darnay. His portrayal of the complex Carton in particular was very clever and convincing. Cushing also was well cast as Manette and played it perfectly, while Kenneth Moore delivered his role competently was one would expect.
Unfortunately the film is marred by poor, low budget 1970s television production and art direction values. It is mostly unconvincing in its portrayal of the revolution, especially the action scenes. One of the problems with early television adaptations, especially those by the BBC from the 1960s and 70s, is that they think "dramatising" means simply adding pictures to text. They assumed that if you were faithful to the events and dialog, and dressed people up in period costume, then you've done a good job. The storming of Bastille seems like a routine amateur theatrical depiction, where the extras clearly had a minimum of choreography and direction. There just weren't enough revolutionaries to create a convincing atmosphere of chaos and terror. These problems were further exacerbated by the stereotyping and poorly acted roles of the key revolutionaries Monsieur and Madame Defarge.
The ending has one notable and moving scene - the meeting and very brief love encounter between Carton and Seamstess before the guillotine, again made possible by the Sarandon's excellent portrayal of Carton.
At the time of writing the film is currently available in a boxed set of three DVDs in the "Best British Classics" series in Sweden. The the series is designed for Swedish audiences but the films are in English with the option of subtitles. A quick search on the Internet on Google.se for "Best British Classics" should give you some hits.
Really liked it
jewelch17 May 2021
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.
Unconvincing Guillotine Sequence
howardmorley11 March 2012
Yes,I know this is a TV version and therefore impressionable children may be watching, (even after the British 9pm watershed) but the final guillotine sequence was wholly unconvincing.I went with my late parents in 1965 to the Conciergerie on the Ile de Paris where they imprisoned the condemned, before their final ride in the tumbrils.There they had a room where they severely cut off the hair of the condemned because otherwise the blade would not cut through the neck cleanly.Yet again producers do not do enough technical research regarding being dispatched by "The National Razor".The 1935 version with Ronald Coleman was farcical in this respect.As he came up the stairs he had his high collar up before issuing forth with, "It is a far far better thing...." speech.In the subject 1980 TV version, you have Chris Sarandon as Sydney Carton mounting the scaffold stairs with shoulder length hair! There are many other films which inaccurately portray the methods used in capital punishment and it was not until I saw Timothy Spall in "Pierrepoint" that we saw an accurate rendition.I know this is a bit ghoulish but I would rate the overall production as just about "adequate" and I awarded it a rating of 6/10.It was good to see Kenneth More in one of his last roles as Jarvis Laurie.
CBS TV rework of a Dickens classic
Leofwine_draca5 January 2023
This CBS TV movie reworking of the Dickens novel certainly has an epic feeling to it and a running time to match. The author's tale of the French Revolution is one of his most dramatic and tragic and certainly this hits the right marks at times, with a real intensity in some of the scenes set in Paris. The cast is obviously wide-ranging and offers a good mix of seasoned old-timers (like Peter Cushing) and fresh new faces, including Chris Sarandon and Alice Krige. It gets a bit plodding during the middle section but there are always performances like Billie Whitelaw's to enjoy, and the ending certainly ties it off nicely.
Wonderful movie, full of emotion
notperfect_justloved17 February 2005
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.
The beginning that they laugh at will lead to the end that they fear.
mark.waltz12 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
When Miss Pross refers to Madam DeFarge as the bride of Satan, it's as if the great-great grandmother of Billie Whitelaw's character in "The Omen" is being exposed for a family curse that would continue for generations. Indeed, Whitelaw as Madame DeFarge is evil, filled with such hatred that revenge will cross over to the innocent. In the 1935 version, the excellent Blanche Yurka saved her emotional explosion for the courtroom, sitting and knitting patiently, her sardonic humor definitely on par with the character of Mrs. Lovett, the human pie maker from "Sweeney Todd", served with a glass of DeFarge chablis of course. I always felt sorry for her character whose years of grief over the murder of her family made her slowly loose her mind. From the start, Mme. DeFarge here is a smirking monster, and fascinating on a completely different level.
It's ironic that the key to her getting her comeuppance here is Flora Robson, very different as Miss Pross than Edna May Oliver was. Gone is the humor and nose sniffing, and in is a repeat of what Robson had played as the housekeeper Ellen in 1939's "Wuthering Heights". She's none the less formidable, very concerned about the safety of her beloved Lucy (Alice Krige) and Dr. Manette (Peter Cushing), recently reunited with his daughter after decades of captivity in the Bastile. It's nice to see Cushing playing a character more like himself who has occasional bouts of flashback nightmares to his past. Barry Morse, briefly on as the evil Marquis St. Everymonde, is appropriately hateful and inhumane.
The lead roles of Sidney Carton and Charles Darnay (nephew of the Marquis) isn't as developed as Ronald Colman's, but Chris Sarandon (particularly with long hair) is quite handsome. He basically reminds the audience that both characters are simply part of the ensemble, only becoming emotionally involved as the threat of the guillotine becomes more likely. The film is certainly stunning to look at, but the streets of the Paris slums seem far too clean, absolutely no dirty faces, rotting teeth or evidence of squalor. I still recommend it for being a bit more detailed and just as strong emotionally. The addition of color probably got younger readers at the time more interested (like me), so it served that purpose too just as other elaborate versions of Dickens novels did.
It's ironic that the key to her getting her comeuppance here is Flora Robson, very different as Miss Pross than Edna May Oliver was. Gone is the humor and nose sniffing, and in is a repeat of what Robson had played as the housekeeper Ellen in 1939's "Wuthering Heights". She's none the less formidable, very concerned about the safety of her beloved Lucy (Alice Krige) and Dr. Manette (Peter Cushing), recently reunited with his daughter after decades of captivity in the Bastile. It's nice to see Cushing playing a character more like himself who has occasional bouts of flashback nightmares to his past. Barry Morse, briefly on as the evil Marquis St. Everymonde, is appropriately hateful and inhumane.
The lead roles of Sidney Carton and Charles Darnay (nephew of the Marquis) isn't as developed as Ronald Colman's, but Chris Sarandon (particularly with long hair) is quite handsome. He basically reminds the audience that both characters are simply part of the ensemble, only becoming emotionally involved as the threat of the guillotine becomes more likely. The film is certainly stunning to look at, but the streets of the Paris slums seem far too clean, absolutely no dirty faces, rotting teeth or evidence of squalor. I still recommend it for being a bit more detailed and just as strong emotionally. The addition of color probably got younger readers at the time more interested (like me), so it served that purpose too just as other elaborate versions of Dickens novels did.
Maybe spoiled by...
jcjccaz14 March 2020
The 1930s version is far superior to this, I will try to overactive or act none act all, version. Why have Chris Sarandon sitting in the booth in a pub facing one another is awful. Instead of Sarandon playing two roles (Darnay and Carton) they should have had two actors, ridiculous. Further, the Sydney Carton character should be more gritty and more layered, here is not.
They have to be different actors (Carton & Darnay) because it makes for a better film, since they aren't twins. And Sarandon is awful as Carton, he looks a little like Mike Myers character Wayne Campbell in "Wayne's World." Just awful and as Darnay, maybe worse. His only good role was in "Fright Night."
Lastly, the black and white film of 1935 is far superior and has so much more grit and also has more "characters" (meaning, literally more in the 1935 film than this one AND even the actors that play the characters are characters in their own right) and the grit and link boys in the old film give it such greatness.
Forget this film and watch the 1935 version with Ronald Coleman and you will see a ten, Colmans film and a one, this film. You will not be disappointed in the 1935 film and thank me later, maybe (lol).
Thanks.
God Bless.
James.
P.S. I give the movie a three only because it has Peter Cushing in the movie and maybe George Innes, but he is in the film not much and even though Cushion isn't either, Cushion is or had a far better pedigree up to this point.
P.S. I give the movie a three only because it has Peter Cushing in the movie and maybe George Innes, but he is in the film not much and even though Cushion isn't either, Cushion is or had a far better pedigree up to this point.
Convincing and very enjoyable historical fiction
kwongers25 April 2004
First things first: I have to say I have never read Charles Dicken's book, but after seeing this movie, I'll be stopping by the state library to pick it up. This is a GREAT movie - enjoyable, moving, and historically convincing. (My history teacher made us watch it to see what the French Revolution (especially the Reign of Terror) was like.)
After reuniting with her father, Dr. Manette (they had been separated from each other for many years), Lucie Manette goes back to England, where she meets a handsome stranger, Charles Darnay. Darnay is really Charles Evremonde, a French aristocrat who disdains his vain and arrogant uncle and who runs away from France. They fall in love and marry. But there is an English lawyer, Sydney Carton, who also loves Lucie. When Darnay returns to France to save his servant, he is thrown into prison and besieged by all the foolishness and speculation of the French Revolution. I won't divulge any more of the story to you.but I have to say the ending is really, really great. It's so moving that I can't watch it without crying at least a little. (Yeah, I cried when we were watching it at school, and hopefully no one saw me.)
For others who know the story, I can't tell you if the movie lives up to the book, but I do think the movie is a very convincing depiction of what happened during the French Revolution. Madame DeFarge, one of the `revolutionaries' (ha!), embodies the spirit of the common people during the Revolution. She felt it was absolutely necessary to kill a lot of nobles, even if they were innocent and had done nothing wrong. In the court scenes, we see how unfair the French tribunals are; defendants are barely given the chance to speak and they are convicted on little evidence and a lot of speculation. (The film compares the French court to the English court, which is infinitely more just.) We see the so-called anti-Revolutionaries being marched to the guillotine.it's a very moving moment. The film works very well because it doesn't lose any part of the story or the historical background. They work very nicely together.
To single out someone for acting, I have to commend the talented Chris Sarandon, who played Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay. That must have been really hard to do, especially since Darnay gets everything he wants and Carton doesn't. It's great acting. However, Sarandon manages to stay on course and the results are wonderful. He manages to combine jealousy, love, and strength all in the same gaze.
A WONDERFUL film.it gets your anger going, pulls on your heartstrings, and keeps you perfectly enraptured through the entire running time. I loved this movie. 10/10
After reuniting with her father, Dr. Manette (they had been separated from each other for many years), Lucie Manette goes back to England, where she meets a handsome stranger, Charles Darnay. Darnay is really Charles Evremonde, a French aristocrat who disdains his vain and arrogant uncle and who runs away from France. They fall in love and marry. But there is an English lawyer, Sydney Carton, who also loves Lucie. When Darnay returns to France to save his servant, he is thrown into prison and besieged by all the foolishness and speculation of the French Revolution. I won't divulge any more of the story to you.but I have to say the ending is really, really great. It's so moving that I can't watch it without crying at least a little. (Yeah, I cried when we were watching it at school, and hopefully no one saw me.)
For others who know the story, I can't tell you if the movie lives up to the book, but I do think the movie is a very convincing depiction of what happened during the French Revolution. Madame DeFarge, one of the `revolutionaries' (ha!), embodies the spirit of the common people during the Revolution. She felt it was absolutely necessary to kill a lot of nobles, even if they were innocent and had done nothing wrong. In the court scenes, we see how unfair the French tribunals are; defendants are barely given the chance to speak and they are convicted on little evidence and a lot of speculation. (The film compares the French court to the English court, which is infinitely more just.) We see the so-called anti-Revolutionaries being marched to the guillotine.it's a very moving moment. The film works very well because it doesn't lose any part of the story or the historical background. They work very nicely together.
To single out someone for acting, I have to commend the talented Chris Sarandon, who played Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay. That must have been really hard to do, especially since Darnay gets everything he wants and Carton doesn't. It's great acting. However, Sarandon manages to stay on course and the results are wonderful. He manages to combine jealousy, love, and strength all in the same gaze.
A WONDERFUL film.it gets your anger going, pulls on your heartstrings, and keeps you perfectly enraptured through the entire running time. I loved this movie. 10/10
A Tale of Two Cities
Prismark1016 June 2022
This version of Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities is an American production of a type that was so popular back in the 1980s. The ones with an all star cast and the grimy streets of London and Paris look so clean.
Charles Darnay (Chris Sarandon) is a French nobleman with a dastardly uncle. He gives up his title and moves to England to become his own man. Back in Paris there is decadent drunk lawyer Sydney Carton (Chris Sarandon) who looks like Darnay.
Both men take a shine to Lucy (Alice Krige) an Englishwoman who came to France to be reunited with her father Manette (Peter Cushing) who was imprisoned for years in the Bastille. It is Darnay who marries Lucy while Carton looks on forlornly.
After the French Revolution and the during the reign of terror, the lives of these people criss cross as Madame Guillotine looks on.
Directed by Jim Goddard who was prolific television director in various genres. This is an efficient, concise but stodgy mini series.
It is well acted but Sarandon is rather stiff, Krige is appealing. It isn left to the likes of Kenneth More, Flora Robson, Barry Morse, Billie Whitelaw and Cushing to bring life to a bland script.
Charles Darnay (Chris Sarandon) is a French nobleman with a dastardly uncle. He gives up his title and moves to England to become his own man. Back in Paris there is decadent drunk lawyer Sydney Carton (Chris Sarandon) who looks like Darnay.
Both men take a shine to Lucy (Alice Krige) an Englishwoman who came to France to be reunited with her father Manette (Peter Cushing) who was imprisoned for years in the Bastille. It is Darnay who marries Lucy while Carton looks on forlornly.
After the French Revolution and the during the reign of terror, the lives of these people criss cross as Madame Guillotine looks on.
Directed by Jim Goddard who was prolific television director in various genres. This is an efficient, concise but stodgy mini series.
It is well acted but Sarandon is rather stiff, Krige is appealing. It isn left to the likes of Kenneth More, Flora Robson, Barry Morse, Billie Whitelaw and Cushing to bring life to a bland script.
My thoughts on A Tale of Two Cities
aklawson_1319 February 2006
A Tale of Two Cities is my all time favorite book. However, it was quite abstruse and difficult to understand some parts, but this movie clearly explained everything. It was very romantic around the end and sad at the same time. My favorite passage from the book is when Sydney Carton says,"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." This movie really showed the true love between Carton and the seamstress, Carton and Lucie, and Darnay and Lucie. The director has done a tremendous job at this movie and I thank him greatly for this wonderful move that hie has made from the wonderful book that I do adore. I do not understand why anyone wouldn't like this movie or book. Of course the book was quite wordy, but it should be, it was written in 1859. Duh... Just kidding but it is a very beautiful book and presentation of the book.
A Reasonable Adaptation
schweinhundt196713 January 2005
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.
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.
A laughably lamentable limitation of Dickens' legacy
OrwellianWiress11 February 2022
This movie took me at least three days to get through because of its poor quality. The actors didn't seem to quite understand the true meaning of their characters, and many moments almost felt comedic in a strange way. At least my favorite character, Madame Defarge, was taken seriously. I will always remember this film, not as an adaptation, but as a parody.
Not perfect, but very good and very enjoyable.
rebekahrox4 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Marvelous adaptation of the Dickens adventure, which I discovered quite by accident. This was a Hallmark Hall of Fame production and produced in Great Britain.
Alice Krige is perfect as the angelic Lucy Manette, filmed one year before her breakthrough role in Chariots of Fire. She somehow manages to make the young Lucy sweet and innocent without making her insipid. I felt Chris Sarandon was rather mis-cast. His features are too dark and heavy for the role of a French Aristocrat masquerading as an gentlemanly but lowly English tutor. He fares a little better as Sidney Carton, but conversely he seems too "strong" for the role of dissolute but weak Sidney. He just does not convey that he could be so chastely yet so completely infatuated with the fainting prone Lucy. He rather muffs one of the greatest last words/hurrahs ever in English literature. Miss Pross, Lucy's loyal nursemaid who proves her mettle at the last is played by the great Flora Robeson and it is her next to last role. The rest of the cast does well, particularly Peter Cushing as Dr. Manette and Pre-Hercule Poirot David Suchet. Well scripted and adequately directed except for Sidney's last final scene.
2hrs 37 mins vs 2hrs 7mins
vsafeswm-6924913 September 2021
What's the point ? As Darnay, Sararandon should have been more hopeful. As Sidney he should have had a more hard edge to show the craftiness and cunning of a lawyer wanting to succeed in attaining his own redemption. Then also to provide a means of security for the future of an unrequited love that he sacrifices himself for. " I hold a sanctuary in the hearts of those that I care for " _" It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I ever have done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known. "
wanting to show the 1980 version in history class
thewmelvin16 January 2007
I really enjoyed this movie back in 1980. It was a required movie to watch for my history class. I see there are several others who enjoyed the mini-series also. I don't remember the name of the main character. All I really remember is that it was a Dickens' novel and that I did enjoy it. Actually seeing the movie made me realize what the French Revolution was about and why it is such an important part of our history. Now a teacher is wanting to show it to her world history class at school. They are beginning to study the French Revolution. This teacher would love to show it in class. Does anyone know how we can get hold of a copy of the 1980 version? Or if there's not a copy of it do you know how to have it put on TV again as mini series? I don't really know how or where to get a copy of this so any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you for your help
Characters Need MORE Emotion!
aznboi1877 November 2002
The actor for Carton and Darnay needed more emotion, in the movie you could notice his fake and really poor English accent. Carton towards the end should have more emotion. He is the protagonist in the movie. Other than that the other charecters do a good job especially the actors and actresses who play Lorry, Dr. Manette, Miss Pross, Lucie, and Mdme. Defarge. Also Mr. Defarge and the Marquis are too English. Mdme Defarge played by a Englishwomen acts in the character's rude French way. Pretty Good movie, does actually bring a tear or two.
Wonderful Version of a Wonderful Novel
ries-9395724 June 2022
Though it helps to have read the book before watching this or any other film version of Dicken's well-known and much-admired novel, this particular version stands solidly on its own. In fact, in some ways this 1980 made-for-television version integrates the plot more fluidly than the novel itself. It completely captures the spirit of the book and for the most part is faithful to the details, even to precise wording of dialogue. I watched after rereading the novel and enjoyed it even more than the renowned 1935 version, which I saw as a child. Ten unqualified stars!
Excellent Adaptation of Dicken's Classic
ldeangelis-7570831 January 2023
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
