AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

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.

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.

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

screenman I have been a Dickens fan most of my adult life. Discouraged in childhood by a succession of Sunday evening serial adaptations of unremitting bleakness and gloom; I missed out on The World's Greatest Ever Writer until I had grown up a bit.Ironically; it was another TV adaptation, screened during the 1970's - this time of 'David Copperfield' - that caught my interest and imagination. I enjoyed it so much that when I saw a subscription book-club for his complete works, I signed-up at once.What a joy. He was the best investment I ever made. The books turned no profit but enriched my life beyond measure. I came to love Dickens and his characters so much and read the books so often that each volume became a treasured friend. I discovered that the 'David Copperfield' serial had been absolutely solid-gold spot-on. It was Dickens from first to last, with his deep and complex plotting, his unbelievable variety and imagination in character creation, and truly authentic and believable dialogue. But above all; there was his light hand of wit and minutely observed study of human nature: wicked, weird, spoilt, tragic and wryly comical. You have to read his books to enjoy the full extent of his comedy; there's no other way. So much of it is contained in the narrative - which, of course, cannot be easily represented on screen, and certainly not in the subtle language of his style.And as well as all of this, there is the profound thread of social commentary: his enormous intelligence, poking fun at the cynical and snobbish, contemptuous of high-office, compassionate for the poor and suffering of all. Dicken's huge outpouring worked as much as any other force to draw public attention and compel a change in official attitudes to the poor and dispossessed.I'm sorry about this lengthy preamble, but it needed to be said. Because I tell you truly that this serial (and another - earlier - rendering of 'Bleak House') is not Dickens at all.Oh-yes; it's BASED upon a Dicken's work. The serial bears his title. The various characters also possess their respective names. But that's it. There is non of the hilarious lampooning political and social commentary. There is non of the splendid mirthful dialogue. But most of all there is no empathy for good or ill with the characters. All of the minutely observed details with which Dickens twits his creations and their oh-so-human vices and foibles, mocking ourselves in the very same instant - because we are also guilty - all of this is absent. Never was a baby so comprehensively jettisoned with the bath-water.Instead we seem to re-live my childhood. We have a montage of staid, unimaginative, humourless characters steeped in sets as dull and dreary as my infant memory. Dickens has been squeezed out to make way for what is no more than a grim short-running soap-opera. His sly stroke of satire has been replaced by an insensitive corporate stamp.Whoever created this travesty must have worked upon the characterisation and scripting of 'Eastenders'. It's that bad. They can't possibly have read the book. Or if they have then they possess not a particle of humour. Or perhaps this is yet another example of the politically-correct BBC scourging our great national heritage once more, and dumming it down to their own miserable, resentful left-wing agenda. Dickens towers so mightily above anything that they can conceive - despite billions of pounds of tax-payers' money - that they pull down the edifice so that it no longer confronts and mocks them with their own pygmy-like creativity. The BBC is precisely the sort of arrogant, self-serving, tower of weakness that would have excited Dicken's ire. If you doubt me, read the book. Read his whole chapter about the 'Circumlocution Office' (Whitehall). And discover how 'the whole science of government' is defined by one abiding principle: 'HOW NOT TO DO IT'. Nothing has changed unto this day.The viewer has been cheated. It's as simple as that. I earnestly entreat anyone who is not familiar with 'The Master' to read his books and find out why Dickens will live on, long after the BBC and its squalid little munchkins have passed into history.