Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Cortechba Overrated

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

bkoganbing I count a dozen versions of Charles Dickens' beloved classic Great Expectations made for the big and small screen, but this version from the BBC in 1984 stands up with the best of them. The best being the one that David Lean did in 1946. Curiously enough I was watching some legislative hearings on the foster care system and it occurred to me watching this that Dickens was making some kind of commentary on it that's still relevant today. Mostly through the lawyer Jaggers played here by Anthony Quayle. Both the characters of Pip and Estella are in what we would consider foster care placements for good and evil. Jaggers tried to save two children from what at that time was a damned existence on earth by placing them in good surroundings. Unfortunately the strict class system being what it was both have to go through some trials before gaining a measure of happiness.Michael York and Sarah Miles pretty well fit my conception of what Pip and Estella should be. Margaret Leighton is one batty old Miss Favesham. I lived with a relative while I was growing up who could have been a Miss Favesham, taking it out on the world around her for a miserable childhood. I knew another whom I worked with who also was left a bride at the altar and also behaved quite weirdly after that for her 90 plus years.The convict Magwitch is a bit of offbeat casting for James Mason. I'm used to that polished and precise speech whether a good guy or a villain. Here Mason shows he's got the acting chops to stretch his casting persona as the rough and crude Magwitch who provides Pip with his Great Expectations.I'm sure we'll see more and more versions of this classic in the future. This production can certainly hold its own with the others.

HobbitHole With one noted exception to date, it seems that all who rated this only noticed at a later time after viewing that this film was made for TV. Perhaps people in other places are unfamiliar with conditions in 1974 and British TV.I have heard that budgets at BBC in the early to mid-70s were small and therefore special effects and expensive location shoots had to be dispensed with in favor of trying to use imagination and get the great story across with small budgets.I got "Great Expectations" on a very inexpensive DVD copy, had looked it up here and saw it was made for TV and enjoyed the work of the cast, so I gave it a shot.I thought the music and some of the things they did with the sets outdid what most TV films and serials were able to do was remarkable compared to other things on TV from the same time period on the BBC.It was a wholesome family friendly adaptation and the chief complaint is that it was too short! Yes, it was difficult because it had to cut out so many parts of the incredible Dickens book, but you try to adapt a huge novel into a made-for-TV film that has to fit in less than 2 hours (to accommodate commercials) and see how much better of a job you can do! Many of the best Dickens adaptations whether for the big screen or small are MUCH LONGER and have a MUCH BIGGER BUDGET. Is it the best Dickens adaptation? No, of course not.Is it on the other hand unwatchable and piece of junk? Not at all.For TV fare, it is above average and for the time period, it is a real treat to see one of the later great performances from the legendary James Mason, and very good performances by much of the cast.I disagree that Michael York did a poor job. He purposely underplayed a boy who was by nature not a pushy, scheming character like Miss Havershim, his uncle Pimblebrook(sic?), the relatives of Miss Havershim, the guy that marries Pip's true love-Estelle, and so many more.Perhaps it was also difficult coming off playing D'Artanian (sic?) in 'The Three Musketeers'.Maybe he wanted not to play a fearless, reckless youth, but an honest, caring youth, that sometimes made big mistakes - lying to his family about Miss Havershim's activities, telling a snooty London 'friend' that Joe was his blacksmith, etc.But Pip (when GROWN played by York) was a young man that learned lessons from the heart and never lost sight of his love of Estelle, his uncle and surrogate father Joe, his teacher and later 'stepmom'.He nearly got caught up in the 'gentleman's snobbery' towards Joe and his benefactor, but showed in the end that both had not wrongly encouraged and put their trust that Pip would turn out alright, each investing in Pips life in their own way to help him not to have to have the struggles that they had.Joe brought Pip up due to his parents dying, and Joe's first wife was Pip's sister. After Pip's ill-tempered sister died, even though not a blood relation or true father, Joe still regards Pip as a son and marries Pip's kind reading teacher who brings more of a steady and mother-like influence to Pip.Joe was also well done by Joss Ackland, an underrated British actor who also played C.S. Lewis in the original 'Shadowlands' ((also done for TV and MORE accurate in that it portrayed Joy Gresham with TWO sons...the later film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger (nominated for Academy award in the role of Joy Gresham) was adapted from the television screenplay in the movie version...imagine that?)).Many years later Ackland also played in the fun family film 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' as King Arthur.I think it would be great if someone remade Great Expectations for regular film today, just as there was a more recent version of Oliver Twist (which overall was well done though there were parts I didn't like either...) No director can please everyone and NO FILM EVER 100 percent represents a book, unless the author wrote a screenplay and not a book! To those who haven't: read the book! It's the best source of the story in all cases.To those that prefer lavish productions, big budgets and Lord of the Rings style all out efforts of a book (though fans of the books point out flaws in those too...no director can win with the die hard book folks that can't seem to separate the mediums and, like me, sometimes enjoy both...differently!), then watch one of those versions or films.For a family friendly couple hours (for those with kids old enough to watch something more than animation), check it out! It's much better than even much of the 'made for cinema' movies put out on cheap DVD release in Europe and the USA.

frankiehudson I got this film a tiny price in the Silver Classics series from Woolworths, at £2.79 cheaper than the local video shop (even if it were available, which is unlikely) and it surprised me.Michael York as superb as the adult Pip, as is Joss Ackland as the humble Joe Gargery and Anthony Quayle as Jaggers, the rather cynical London lawyer. James Mason is good as the well-meaning convict, Abel Magwitch.There don't appear to be any outside shots - all studio work - which is a shame, but the sets are brilliantly done, particularly the Blue Ball inn back by Romney and the marshes, and the stage coach office with its sign for 'Newhaven, Dartmouth, Plymouth'.Of course, Sarah Miles has always been a remarkable beauty and she doesn't fail here either as Estella, boxed up in Satis House.Overall, I would prefer the famous David Lean version, but this is still well worth watching.

Agent12358 The story is hardly any close to what the book has. The acting is pretty dull, not interesting at all. Even Pumblechook and Jaggars (who seemed to be put in as a comical figure then a shrewed one) bored me with their performance. The only character that stuck to the book was Miss Havisham. Michael York's performance is not a good one but the way Estella, Biddy and Joe are portrayed is hardly any better. Those three characters are completely against the characters in the book- they are much older then they should be.For those of you who might want to watch this movie instead of the book for a class, don't even bother. The plot is so far off and you miss tons of important events. You're also probably going to have much better time reading the book then watching this movie. The movie is just as tedious and wordy as the book and the plot is way off.