MamaGravity
good back-story, and good acting
Cooktopi
The acting in this movie is really good.
Madilyn
Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.
kathymonktrudy
I love this version of Little Dorrit. Whilst I have not read the book, and so cannot vouch for its following the storyline faithfully, I find it interesting enough to enjoy it immensely every time I watch it.Some characters are funny, some capricious, others are mercenary whilst a few are kind and good hearted. The juxtaposition of all the different personalities really does make good viewing, and the true Dickensian oddities are very funny and entertaining, like Mr. Panks or the extraordinary French gentleman!The story holds a lot of events and developments that both interest and satisfy the viewer. A classic tale of love, hardship and affluence, this film is like a ray of sunlight in a darkened room: murky and mysterious, yet somehow also rather quaint and sweet.
Neil Doyle
LITTLE DORRIT is an excellent British TV version of the Dickens novel, the kind of saga that almost makes David Copperfield's struggles look pale by comparison. Here, the leading characters are mystified by the secrets involving their past and the young man ends up in debtor's prison when he can't pay his creditors. Everything is eventually cleared up, but getting to the end of all the woes is quite a struggle.As usual, all of it has been given magnificent production values, great sets that look as though people really lived there in those times, and fine acting by an ensemble cast of fine British actors. MATTHEW MACFAYDEN and CLAIRE FOY are splendid in the leading roles and ANDY SERKIS does a fine job as the villainous Ragaud.I'm going to have to watch the replay to see the whole story, but what I saw has certainly whetted my appetite for catching the whole story from beginning to end. I can see why this production has been winning so many awards. Fine job.
mbrownshaw
Having never read "Little Dorrit", my review comes from the viewpoint of one unfamiliar with the source material. So, I'm not sure that my criticism is about this adaptation, or about the actual book.This is a LONG series and seems to wander pointlessly in many directions. I found myself wishing it would hurry up at points. I found hardly any of the characters to be endearing or enlightening. Too many of the characters are over-the-top caricatures of people and as such, I didn't find them believable or real. It felt too much like watching a 19th century soap opera.I really had a hard time with the Rigo character, or at least the portrayal of him. Every time he opened his mouth I thought I was watching a Pepé Le Pew cartoon.Although I felt it plodding onward, I stuck with it because I wanted to like it and was hoping there would at least be a good payoff in the end. My hope on this score was in vain. Without detailing all the flaws, suffice it to say that the final episode was a big disappointment, very melodramatic, and just plain silly, on top of being hard to follow on one viewing only.I give it a 5 for good production values and for the level of entertainment it offers.
alfa-16
I may have been looking forward to this too much. Period drama has been hitting new heights recently but I'm not surprised that there hasn't been a rush to comment on the latest BBC/Andrew Davies Dickens adaptation. 18 months ago, Bleak House, with its dark shadows, glacial foreboding and taut narrative storyline gripped the nation. Not so Little Dorrit.What's the problem? Surely with a winning formula, a great cast and a brilliant novel, we must be guaranteed some sort of success? The three leads are very successfully cast. McFadyen and Courtenay are both living their parts and taking every opportunity that comes their way. Amy has just the right combination of winsomeness, vulnerability and moral strength and can bring a tear to the most jaded eye. But here's where the problem starts. She's so tall, fit and healthy that if someone told you she was the British All-Comers keepie-up champion you wouldn't be surprised.And the whole series is like that. London looks spruce and modern, the Marshalsea looks more inviting than any accommodation I ever had in London, everyone is clean and fettled and no one seems to have a problem worthy of the name. Parts of it,like everything associated with the Meagles at Twickenham, are actually boring and defective.Apart from that, the planning that went into the storyline of Bleak House to come up with a strong narrative thread supporting two half hour episodes a week is missing here. Characters constantly seem to be rushing off stage. Andy Serkis, as Rigaud, is a delicious villain and would be a much-needed, hugely oppressive presence if only they'd give him more than a minute an episode.I can't see myself falling in wholeheartedly love with this production, especially when there is a much more imaginative (and even better acted) adaptation already on DVD, from Christina Edzard.I love Panks and the Bleeding Heart Yard crew, and the Clennam household is a tremendous success. I'd watch Judy Parfitt mowing her grass, she's beautifully paired with Alun Armstrong and Sue Johnston is perfect as Affery.But whilst it scores, it also continues to disappoint. I just don't think enough hard work went into it at the planning and scriptwriting stages.
