Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Clevercell Very disappointing...

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

mwalker-61 I'll not comment on the casting or acting, nor on the photography, lighting, or other technical aspects of the production. For me, the most important aspect of any adaptation of a Dickens novel is the degree to which the adaptation is faithful to the novel. And, in that respect, this production fails miserably. Many of the characters are portrayed in a way that is very different from the way they are depicted in the novel, including Herbert Pocket, Mr. Jaggers, Miss Havisham, Uncle Pumblechook, and especially Joe. And, while it cannot be expected that every event in the novel could be crammed into a three-hour production, some important events are missing, and others are shown out of order; for example, Herbert Pocket marries and departs for Egypt before Magwich arrives, even though, in the novel, Pip is assisted in his effort to spirit Magwich out of the country by Herbert and Startop (a minor character who is omitted from most productions). One of worst aspects of the production is the insertion of scenes that are not in the novel, and which are wholly out of harmony with Dickens' writing, such as the scene where Pip goes to a brothel with Drummel. Worst of all, though, is the almost total replacement of Dickens' words with new dialogue. It is almost as if the screenwriter was thinking, "I can do a better job of telling the story than this Dickens guy." The bottom line is, if you love Dickens' work in general, and Great Expectations in particular, you would do well to skip this version.

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!

Leofwine_draca Another example of BBC scriptwriters attempting to 'improve' on classic works of fiction, hence the existence of previous Christmas failures like THE TURN OF THE SCREW and WHISTLE AND I'LL COME TO YOU. GREAT EXPECTATIONS follows in the footsteps of those unwise productions and turns out to be another utterly forgettable adaptation.This miniseries is laid out over three hour-long episodes and yet contains less depth and material from the book than the shorter David Lean version. Much of the comedy from the book (like the bit with Joe not knowing where to put his hat) is excised, leaving this a maudlin, pretentious experience. New, endless scenes of characters arguing or sitting around tables are not a substitute for genuine penmanship.Although the production looks good, with some excellent atmospheric shots of Romney Marsh at the opening, like THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL the whole of the action takes place in only a handful of locations, which soon becomes repetitive. Where's the hustle and bustle of Victorian London, the feeling of another era brought to life? Not here, certainly.Of the cast, there's little to write home about. Douglas Booth (PILLARS OF THE EARTH) is adequate as Pip and Ray Winstone makes an excellent Magwith and deserves more screen time. Gillian Anderson's Miss Havisham is horrible, and not in a good way. She seems to be channelling the White Witch, talks in a silly little girl-voice and is about twenty years too young for the part. It's a pantomime performance and the worst I've seen of this actress. Vanessa Kirby's Estella is certainly not the woman that "any man would want to marry" and David Suchet and Mark Addy are both wasted in nothing roles.A distinctly lacklustre Dickens that takes away the very life and voice of the author, leaving only bland characters going through the motions.

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.