BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

studioAT Airing over Christmas 2011 this adaptation of Dickens' classic novel is actually pretty good. It can't compete with the David Lean version, but there's a lot to be liked about it.Yes, it cuts out some moments, which is odd seeing as they had several episodes to tell it in rather than the 90 mins you'd have in a film, but all involved seem to suit their roles well and give good performances.It's not perfect, but there are lots of strong moments within this mini series and I rate it as being stronger than the film version that followed a year later.

ruigrande I don't consider myself as an expert on Charles Dickens' adaptations for the screen, as I recognize it on some other reviewers, but, not knowing other ones, I simply loved this one.In Portugal we were always flooded with Dickens's tales. We practically grew up on them. And this mini-series is a wonderful document for the new generation of youngsters that don't have patience to read. In fact, I believe that this kind of documents may lead them to search for more tales loke this and look at reading books at a different perspective and see the wonders of it. This is a masterpiece. The photography is superb and the actors play wonderfully their parts. Even Estella, but I agree that a bit more charm and beauty would better fit Dickens' idea. I recommend it to everyone.

davegp I've only watched halfway through the first episodes but as far as I can tell I'm yet to hear a single line from the original text. Dickens isn't Dickens without his perfect prose. I understand the need to condense the dialogue but surely they could've done better than this. Take this example from the first chapter of the original:"Now lookee here!" said the man. "Where's your mother?" "There, sir!" said I. He started, made a short run, and stopped and looked over his shoulder. "There, sir!" I timidly explained. "Also Georgiana. That's my mother." "Oh!" said he, coming back. "And is that your father alonger your mother?" "Yes, sir," said I; "him too; late of this parish."This has been vandalized into:"Where's your parents?" "Dead and Buried"I rest my case.From the little I saw Ray Winstone was impressive.

toxina90 I don't want to go into too much detail or else it will be thoroughly spoiled. I anticipated this adaptation for months, being a great Dickens fan, especially after the BBC's magnificent adaptation of Bleak House.Similar problems always arise in these adaptations, both suffered from an absence of some key characters (although the latter had more episodes, and didn't suffer as a result) so here as a result the character development is not as it should have been.I was impressed however by how much of the plot they fit into just 3 episodes over Christmas, and the pace was terrific. There were flaws in the script, where Bleak House took plenty of quotes from the novel, this didn't and therefore doesn't feel as fleshy or ultimately, Dickensian. Why change the best form?I commend the cinematographers. One really felt the setting as it was written. Now onto the major successes and faults; casting.Douglas Booth as the protagonist tried but came off as a bit too wooden. He also looked far too attractive (which of course is not an insult) but it didn't really work.It is nice to see Claire Rushbrook again. Not seen her since Secrets & Lies. She was very convincing as Mrs Joe. Shaun Dooley was excellent as Joe Gargery, as were Harry Lloyd as Herbert Pocket, Jack Roth as Orlick, David Suchet as Jaggers and Ray Winstone definitely brought great life and humanity to the dreaded Magwitch.My hat though must go off to Gillian Anderson, although many have thought her wrong for the part, let me explain why she was so good and right for the role.Although Miss Havisham has been typically played as elderly, and her age is never specified really in the book, she was almost married as a teenager, and the time passing would place her in her forties, to early fifties. This makes Anderson, if anything, TOO YOUNG for the role, and the original "best" Martita Hunt, was only some years older. Of course she has been aged by her style of existence. Anderson did look more worn and ethereal as the series progressed. People also seemed to have a problem with her voice.I see the childish voice as her being trapped in her 18 year old self, which presumably is the age she was jilted, so like the rest of the house, time stopped at that point, which is why she had a similar childish outburst when her relatives visited. I think Anderson's performance therefore is rather genius. One can really feel the angst, anger, regret she feels. I would have preferred a more dramatic apology to Pip in the end, but I suppose it was more subtle. Anderson again impresses in a Dickensian role, showing something completely different to her outstanding portrayal of Lady Dedlock.It is her impressive work which for me gives this a 7 over 6. Oh and the intro sequence was quite beautiful. Slightly disappointing but overall an engaging adaptation, with a brave effort by Anderson which should really be recognised by BAFTA.Dooley, Roth, Winstone and Lloyd should all create some buzz too.