Why is it that reviewers insist on complaining that a film is less worthy because it does not exactly stick to the book upon which it is based? There are differences between this film and Dickens's novel and other film adaptations. That does not matter. A film is a film and a book is a book and they are different works of art. What matters is whether the film as a work of art, or entertainment, or narrative, works in its own right and on its own merits. I would contend that this film certainly succeeds on that basis. The narrative is coherent and convincing, despite the unlikely premise of the ending of the story - and you can blame that on Dickens. The film is beautifully shot in black and white just at the time when most features were being filmed in colour and, in my view, this adds to the film. The script is well written, the actors well cast and the performances are convincing. Another reviewer has complained that Darnay and Carton were not played by the same actor. That would be a serious mistake, just as to have Viola and Sebastian played by the same actor in Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night' is a mistake. Much of the dramatic tension comes from having just enough similarity but not too much. In this way, the different characters of the protagonists are emphasised. Bogarde puts in his customary well-balanced performance and the sympathy between him and Lucie Manette is clear to see without being overplayed. The excellent Dorothy Tutin puts in a convincing performance as the beautiful Lucie and the supporting cast is generally very good. The slight exceptions would probably be M. and Mdme Defarge who are not entirely convincing. He is too weak and she is too histrionic.

Though I gave the 1935 version of Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" a higher rating (before seeing this version), I'd have to say that this film, directed by Ralph Thomas, is probably better for the most part. This movie, done in black and white, captures the atmosphere of the Dickens novel - the filth and the cruelty - beautifully. No Hollywood gloss here. The cast is strong: Dirk Bogarde, Dorothy Tutin, Donald Pleasance, Ian Bannen, Christopher Lee, Alfie Bass.Though Sydney is one of Ronald Colman's great roles, it also proved to be a great role for Dirk Bogarde. As much as I love Ronald Colman, he can't quite help but come off as noble, whereas, you really could believe that Bogarde was a drunk and a waste before his final moments. Both men had the great gentleness required for the role. The end of this particular adaptation is very simple and beautiful.I highly recommend both versions. This one, I think, is closer to the Dickens novel.

Summary: Ralph Thomas' direction makes this the best adaptationThe English 1958 interpretation of Charles Dickens' great novel "A Tale of Two Cities", directed by Ralph Thomas, is a really terrific picture, capturing the essence of Dickens' tale deftly. Thomas' craftily directed black and white adaptation lends itself quite tangibly and nicely to the purposes of the story, I would say more succinctly than the 1935 interpretation directed by Jack Conway. The earlier adaptation featured as many fine performances (Ronald Coleman, Edna Mae Oliver, Basil Rathbone, Blanche Yurka, etc), and succeeded in special effects and cinematography a little better, perhaps, than THIS picture, but Thomas' directing emphasizes the key points of the original story, and this becomes the better picture as a result.Dirk Bogarde playing Sydney Carton is quite perfect here, and a young Christopher Lee as the conceit driven supercilious Marquis St. Evremonde is fantastic, as is Rosalie Crutchley as the cruel hearted revenge laden Madame Defarge. Cast-wise, both pictures do a great job, and Edna Mae Oliver's performance in the earlier picture is missed here. But the director uses a lighter brush to get many of the complexities of the story in this English version. In one scene, during the climactic period of the story in the dungeon of the Bastille, Barsad (Donald Pleasence), a character of low repute working for whichever side will use him, finally catches onto the heroism of Mr Carton and holds his hand out for a respectful shake. . . with no reply for several seconds. Then, just as he turns to open the door to have the guard take out Mr Carton, who by then is really a passed out Charles Darnay made to look like the supposed drunken Carton . . .the real Mr Carton (Dirk Bogarde) touches his shoulder, just enough to convey that a good angel is bringing hope to the world, even to low characters like Basard. It is very touching. This scene is handled with master craftsmanship by the director. And this sort of directing pervades the film's entirety, which is the primary reason why this movie IS the better of the two, in my opinion.

As an avid admirer of nineteenth century novelist Charles Dickens' work, with an interest in the French Revolution, then I felt compelled to watch this Rank adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities, directed by Ralph Thomas. Although I have not yet read the original novel, I got the impression that this film adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities stuck as much as possible to the original novel as Dickens intended it to be.We see in this film adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities the social origins which culminated in the French Revolution. It illustrates the traditional aristocratic 'ruling class's' demise. The demise of the French aristocracy resulted in a reaction by them, where their fears and anxiety pertaining to their precarious position in society culminated in the mistreatment of the ordinary people of France, otherwise referred to as; 'serfs'. Encouraged by the American War of Independence, and influenced by the intellectual elite of The Enlightnement movement culminated in the French Serfs rebelling against the causes of their imposed position within an undemocratic, feudal society, which permitted their mistreatment by the aristocracy. It is the factors of mistreatment and being restrained by their inability to change their situation via the democratic processes we have today, which caused the French serfs to overthrow the aristocratic ruling class at that time in the Eighteenth Century. The over-throwing of the French aristocracy subsequently made way for a new elitist ruling class to emerge in the form of industrialists and businessmen, thereby creating a new type of class consciousness for modernity.As to the acting in the film, it is an eclectic bunch of British character actors playing the parts. This is exemplified by the part played by Dirk Bogarte, who makes the character he plays a portrayal of himself, as opposed to immersing himself into the character, and becoming it! Bogarte illustrates that he is able to become the character he plays in such films as; The Blue Lamp' (1950), where he acts the part of villain Tom Riley with a real and definite intensity. If there was to be any accolades for acting in; A Tale of Two Cities, it would go to the actor, Christopher Lee who played the part of the bombastic French nobleman,Marquis St. Evremonde .If the film is going to be defined as worthy of watching, it is due to the director's ability to keep close to the original Dickens novel.