AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

aramis-112-804880 Two things I never miss are Dickens adaptations and Tom Courteney movies. I've been a fan of Dickens since my sixth grade reading of OLIVER TWIST and I love a good Dickens adaptation as much as a good Dickens book. The longer, the better. And I've tried to catch everything Mister Courtenay has done since his sixties appearances in "Billy Liar" and "Dr. Zhivago" and "Otley" right up to recent readings of his autobiography on BBC radio to an awful radio play he did about a bus driver. And while Mister Courtenay is one of those actors who seem born to play Dickens (his malignant Quilp was the highlight of "The Old Curiosity Shop") he really is better made for Dickens' nice, decrepit characters like Newman Noggs in 2002's "Nicholas Nickleby." But Courtenay simply doesn't have the authority to play William Dorrit, little Dorrit's father.In 1987's "Little Dorrit" Alec Guinness (another perfect Dickens actor from his youthful turn as Herbert Pocket in "Great Expectations") was cast as William. The same quiet authority that made Guinness shine as the sage in "Star Wars" gave him the gravitas he needed as the fallen man who maintains his dignity in debtors' prison (one of Dickens' favorite settings) so that he could be called "the father of the Marshalsea." Had he been twenty years younger, Courtenay might have played Arthur Clennam (an almost invisible Mathew Macfayden; the role was much better done by Derek Jacobi in the 1987 version, where Jacobi was able to play the weak-willed son without getting lost altogether).As far as the rest of the flick, it evokes the the period much better than the 1987 version, which was obviously stage-set and done, despite the talent involved, on a shoestring. Though today's more weird focus on the dirt of Dickens' day rather than the shiny bits is a bit off-putting.The best thing about the movie, besides an otherwise strong cast (Alun Armstrong as Flintwinch, James Fleet as Frederick, Ron Cook as Chivery, etc.) is the introduction of Little Dorrit herself (Clair Foy), done in half-face. It's a beautiful image of little Dorrit, who even in Dickens is somewhat of a mystery character (though she is much more explicable here than in 1987, probably because Foy is a better actress).As for William, a stronger actor than Courtenay (a Burton or a Wolfit) would have come off as a phony while an actor tending toward the comedy in Dickens (a Broadbent, say) might have missed the gravitas.Courtenay is an excellent actor who deserves to be plugged in to every major Dickens adaptation going, but he comes off here as one thing William Dorrit was without showing it--desperate; and one thing William certainly was not--whiny.

TheLittleSongbird I admit I hadn't read the book for a long time, and I do remember finding it rather complicated. Reading it again, I found it an insightful piece of literature, but it isn't the easiest book to sink your teeth into at first. But along with 2005's Bleak House, this adaptation of Little Dorrit was absolutely brilliant, and by far one of the better dramatisations of 2008.What is worth of mention is the period detail. It was stunning and truly evocative! You can never go wrong with realistic looking sets,skillful camera work, lavish costumes and breathtaking scenery, and this adaptation scored highly in all four of these areas. The music from John Lunn was gorgeous, and the scripts were of exceptional quality. The plot, may be a little complicated at times, but I will say at 17 I was hooked from minute one. I think it was to do with how every scene was shot and executed. There are a handful of poignant, bleak and truly haunting moments throughout.Other than the overall closeness to the book and how it was filmed, what made this dramatisation was the quality of the performances. I don't think anybody gave a bad performance whatsoever. Claire Foy gives an appealing lead performance as Amy, and Matthew MacFadyen is charming and handsome. Tom Courtenay is truly heart-wrenching as Amy's father, in one of his best understated performances, and I do think Courtenay is in some ways undervalued as an actor, Allun Armstrong is as reliable as ever as Jeremiah and Andy Serkis steals every scene he's in in a truly sinister performance as Rigaud (who is a real creep). And I found his accent convincing, if anything he could have done with more screen time.Overall, I cannot sing my praises enough of this fine dramatisation of Dickens' book. 10/10 Bethany Cox

richieburt The first half was great. It was slow paced introducing great characters which little by little had their secrets and mysteries unravelled. However come the end it felt rushed. Some of the most interesting characters disappeared in the last 2 episodes, and it felt like the Star wars episode 3 where they left themselves too many loose ends to tie up in too little time. Whether this is how the book reads I cannot say, but this is not as good as Bleak house was. The Debtor's prison looks far too homely a place. That said it's still a pleasure to look at and the first 8 episodes are all excellent. The endings however don't satisfy the patience needed in the build up.

pawebster I really wanted to like this, hoping for something like the BBC's wonderful Bleak House of a couple of years back. It had the characters and some excellent acting (but see below), but what it lacked was a clear plot. About half way through I realised that I wasn't sure (a) what we were waiting to find out and (b) who was who in the lesser roles and (c) why I should bother trying to sort it all out.On the other hand, Claire Foy, Matthew MacFadyen and Russell Tovey stood out, along with several others. But will someone please tell me what Andy Serkis was up to with that ludicrous, atrocious fake French accent?