Steineded How sad is this?

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Armand maybe it is not the best adaptation. but it has the flavor of novel. Douglas Booth is , maybe, a too modern Pip, more interesting as Romeo or Lancelot but almost strange for this role. the good part - Gillian Anderson who is the inspired choice for Lady Havisham and a huge surprise for many viewers. a series who is more than seductive or beautiful. it is not exactly an adaptation but useful support for remember parts from book. that is its basic virtue - a film like a travel. not just extraordinary but special. not only for atmosphere but for a kind of flavor who is not only part of a great cast or script innovations. a film for remember. that could be the definition. beautiful and correct.

bagoblues-345-190196 I cannot get the time back that I wasted watching this horrible piece of garbage, but I hope these actors (particular Gillian Anderson) got paid a lot of money to appear here! Not only did they rush through crucial parts of the story, but by rushing through these parts, they added dialog that didn't exist in the book, and deleted extremely important (and well known) dialog from the film.The rushed nature of the film (considering the fact that these are the same people who took five episodes to complete "Bleak House") is mind boggling! "Great Expectations" is one of the Dickens novels that someone unfamiliar with Dickens might watch in adaptation, and yet "Bleak House...?" The psychological games played between characters is far too sinister for the story. The back-story does have intrigue, but nothing so diabolical as implied... oh, why am I bothering. Don't soil your eyes with it!

Imhotep77 I actually just finished the book a month ago so it might have adversely affected my opinion since this adaptation is so very different than the book. Without going into details and risk spoilers, I just have to say the casting is subpar, except for Gillian Anderson as Miss Havisham. The streamlining and changes in plots are questionable, the loss of some characters and changes to their actions and personality render them un-Dickensian. There should be enough time in 3 hours to tell a closer story to the original but the 3 hours felt like 6, I was bored and unmoved. I remember watching Bleak House, also with Gillian Anderson, and couldn't get enough, this one, I couldn't wait for it to end.

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.