I wouldn't call it the definitive version nor would I, for every conceivable criticism you could give this film, vote it low for not showing them cutting everyone's hair before beheading them as a previous reviewer did. As far as Dickens adaptations go, this is alright if you need a visualization of the novel. The actors all do good jobs, especially Peter Cushing as Doctor Mannette, Billie Whitelaw as Madame Defarge, and especially Alice Krige as Lucie Mannette, who makes the character feel a little more real than she was in the original novel. In the dual role of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, Chris Sarandon does alright. Obviously he has more to work with playing Carton, but I would not call either performance brilliant.The sets and costumes are good; obviously the production values are not sky high, seeing as this is a TV movie. The lighting is flat and dull, as was per usual in many TV productions during the 1970s and 1980s. The music is passable, but not memorable.Still, even at over two and a half hours, this film feels rushed. We never as close to the characters as we should be and Sydney's "last dream of my soul" line and most of his final speech being cut are criminal. I think the whole production could have benefited from an extra thirty minutes.Nothing special, but a nice way to illustrate the novel for an English class or for your own enjoyment. Just don't expect the definitive A Tale of Two Cities adaptation.

A Tale of Two Cities is my all time favorite book. However, it was quite abstruse and difficult to understand some parts, but this movie clearly explained everything. It was very romantic around the end and sad at the same time. My favorite passage from the book is when Sydney Carton says,"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." This movie really showed the true love between Carton and the seamstress, Carton and Lucie, and Darnay and Lucie. The director has done a tremendous job at this movie and I thank him greatly for this wonderful move that hie has made from the wonderful book that I do adore. I do not understand why anyone wouldn't like this movie or book. Of course the book was quite wordy, but it should be, it was written in 1859. Duh... Just kidding but it is a very beautiful book and presentation of the book.

Seeing as how this was made for television,we need to judge this particular production and the standards required for that medium.For the most part,the cast is very competent.Indeed,Peter Cushing does better as the doctor than ANYONE else that I've seen.Carton,Darnay,Lucy,and the supporting parts are all quite capable.And Kenneth More does a fine job as Mr. Lorry.(Has anyone ever commented on the fact that he's starting to sound and look like Basil Sydney?)Robson is a worthy successor to Oliver.I had trouble recognizing Suchet as Barsad.The actor playing Defarge come across as depressed and somber,and this isn't quite right.Defrage is a hulking,wounded,inarticulate animal,caught between love and loyalty to his former master,and devotion to his cause.And Madame Defarge is a fat,flabby,clumsy,nasty snake,lacking the fire of Blanche Yurka.Her scenes at the fight and fall of the Bastille were totally unconvincing.And why did they trim down the role of Jerry Cruncher?That sly, funny rogue is perfect for the talents of that splendid character actor George Innes.Still,it's a worthy effort,and a nice way to see a new slant on the story.

The actor for Carton and Darnay needed more emotion, in the movie you could notice his fake and really poor English accent. Carton towards the end should have more emotion. He is the protagonist in the movie. Other than that the other charecters do a good job especially the actors and actresses who play Lorry, Dr. Manette, Miss Pross, Lucie, and Mdme. Defarge. Also Mr. Defarge and the Marquis are too English. Mdme Defarge played by a Englishwomen acts in the character's rude French way. Pretty Good movie, does actually bring a tear or two.