Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

fakeguyhere A great film. The best film adaptation of Charles Dickens with the possible exception of the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol. A Tale of Two Cities is perhaps the most overlooked classic film of the 30s. Dodsworth would be in that discussion too. Ronald Colma is brilliant as Sydney Carton, a clever but troubled barrister. Basil Rathbone is excellent as the heartless Marquis St. Evermonde. And even Isabel Jewel is good in the tiny part of a dainty, sacred, and condemned seamstress.I'm not sure why this movie is not as well-known as films such as Grand Hotel, The Thin Man, or My Man Godfrey. Maybe it has to do with the lack of big-name cast members. Or maybe the movie simply has to be given another 80 years before it's given its due. All I know is that I have I'm glad it's in my small film library.

DKosty123 Though Tale of Two Cities has been done since this film, in 2 hours and 10 minutes this one captures the book as well as any ever made. It is Ronald Coleman's signature performance. It features Reginald Owen who would later on be in the Dicken's classic A Christmas Carol and Basil Rathbone who would become Sherlock Holmes in the cast.It was the best of times in London and the worst of times in Paris as the French Revolution is in full swing with many people being sent to their deaths via a justice system gone wild. This story is how one man and his family manage to avoid their fate with circumstances and the ultimate sacrifice by a friend.This film is dated but MGM did a fine job bringing this classic to the screen and today the film is still a very effective drama.

richard-1787 I hadn't seen this movie in almost 50 years - I saw it once when I was a kid on TV. So I decided to see it again, and I'm glad I did. Dickens was not an author of subtleties, and Tale of Two Cities isn't subtle. There are the oh-so good characters, like Lucie Manette, who is boring, and her father, Dr. Manette, who is only slightly less boring. There is the evil Marquis d'Evremond, who is thoroughly evil, but not at all boring, especially as brought to life by Basil Rathbone in one of his many great performances. There are the caricatural secondary characters, such as Miss Pross, also wonderfully brought to life by the indomitable Edna May Oliver.And there is weary Sydney Carton, who sees nothing to live for and so drinks his life away. Yet Carton occasionally glimpses what his life could have been, and then, for a few brief moments, there is real depth to him. Fortunately, in a very unevenly cast movie, Carton here gets played by Ronald Coleman. And Coleman here gives a performance such as you will never forget. Yes, there is his wonderful voice with all the modulations of tone to suggest every nuance. And a face to match. While the other characters are either boring or funny or horrifying (Mme de Farge), Carton in his performance becomes a moving individual. Why Coleman didn't get at least an Oscar nomination for the part I cannot explain. (Paul Muni won it that year for playing Pasteur, a great performance, and the other four nominees were all deserving, but since in those days the nominees were not limited to 5 as they are now and since Coleman's performance is certainly as good as Spencer Tracy's in San Francisco, I do not see how Coleman got left out.)There are other things to recommend the movie as well. The storming of the Bastille is powerfully filmed. The trial scenes are grotesque and probably exaggerated, but memorable. But Coleman as Carton is remarkable, and if you haven't seen it and you enjoy a great performance, this is one to treat yourself to. The last lines (It is a far, far better thing ..., etc.) have been caricatured many times, but when Coleman recites them you won't laugh. It's truly very moving - though of course a very conservative view of the French Revolution.-----------------------I just watched this again tonight after the passage of a few more years. I'm reading the novel now to see what changes MGM made. I could go on about those, and they are interesting, but I haven't got the space necessary. The major ones come near the end, when everyone goes back to Paris. The two trials of Darnay are collapsed into one in the movie, and the reading of Dr. Manette's letter, which is VERY long in the novel, is shifted to Mme de Farge, giving Blanche Yurka the acting opportunity of a lifetime as she recounts her past and sways the jury/mob to condemn Darnay. The movie never reveals that the cowardly and opportunistic Barsad is Pross's long-lost brother. Etc.Repeated viewing makes this movie look even better. As was often the case with epic movies in the 1930s, the smaller roles here are brilliantly realized. Claude Gillingwater, the Jarvis Lorry in this version, appears well down the cast list, though his is a major role. He does a superb and, when necessary, very understated job here. Isabel Jewell, by overplaying the Seamstress in the final scene, sets off Ronald Colman's performance, which is so deeply moving for being so controlled. Blanche Yurka and Edna May Oliver, though very different, are both first rate. Pross comes off as a lovable caricature, it's true, but Yurka makes Mme de Farge a very real study in hatred. Only the romantic leads, Donald Woods (Darnay) and Elizabeth Allan (Lucie), are uninteresting. I don't know why MGM used her in both this and David Copperfield. She is so bland.But this movie is not bland, not by a long shot. I can't recommend it too highly.

drmality-1 Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" translates extraordinarily well to the big screen. I haven't seen a version of the tale yet that was not well done. The 1935, 1958 and 1980 versions all had something to recommend them and all were faithful to the original story. 1935 gave us the most polished and iconic of all the Sydney Cartons, Ronald Colman. Colman's performance here is extraordinary. Not as abrasive as Dirk Bogarde or Chris Sarandon, this Carton instead is consumed by a wistful depression and thoughts of worthlessness, filtered through the genteel sensibility of an Englishman. Much of Carton's wry gloominess and longing for a better life is transmitted by physical means alone...a sadness in the eyes, a resigned body language. When this physical acting is combined with Colman's wonderful voice, the result is outstanding. Colman insisted on playing ONLY Carton, whereas the same actor almost always plays both Darnay and Carton. I think this works to the film's advantage.The film deftly balances the more intimate human drama with the earth-shaking political upheaval of the French Revolution. You get quiet romance and drama, but also staggeringly huge scenes of the Revolution in full onslaught, including a thrilling march on the Bastille. We see the faults not only of the French aristocrats, but also of the mob of oppressed peasants who overthrow them. In a very strong scene, the aristocrats waiting to die at the hands of the guillotine seem to find the dignity and strength they lacked when in power. "God, forgive those who do not forgive us," begs one noblewoman soon to die. The righteous anger of the peasants, oppressed by the despicable likes of Count De Evremond, is flamed into a blood lust that even claims their own, such as the beautiful seamstress.I've not seen Blanche Yurka in any other part, but she is absolutely striking as Madame Defarge. Tragedy and injustice had turned her into a fanatical sword of vengeance. Her speech to condemn Darnay to the guillotine is an acting tour De force. Every tyranny creates "broken" people like this, who can be as dangerous as the tyrants themselves.The other cast is variable. Elizabeth Allen is gorgeous as Lucy Manette, but seems "precious" beyond belief. As Darnay, Donald Woods is a bland hero. These two are a concession to the "romantic couple" clichés which almost every 30's film demanded. Basil Rathbone is pure evil as Count De Evremond and Walter Catlett has a good turn as the mercenary Barsed. Probably the best of the supporting characters is Edna May Oliver, a real hoot as the starchy proper Englishwoman Miss Pross, who zings plenty of one-liners during the show. I'll bet the theater audiences cheered and roared when she physically stood up to Madame DeFarge.But it's really Ronald Colman who dominates the story, which is as it should be. If you love period films with romance, spectacle and heart, "A Tale of Two Cities" is a no brainer and the 1935 version is certainly worthy of your time.