I may be a lone voice, but I think this Tale of Two Cities is easily the worst of the four versions I have seen and is about as bad as Dickens gets. There is almost nothing in it I can recommend.The production design is poor. Everything and everybody is too clean and pristine. The sets of the Bastille, the wine shop and the room where Dr Manette is secreted are all too spacious. Every scene is over lit and under populated. It is the least atmospheric Dickens drama I can recall.The writing is worse. Arthur Hopcraft jumps straight into the book as Mr Lorrie and Lucie are nearing Paris, omitting the early scenes that set up the story and some of its key characters. As a result, Miss Pross doesn't appear for over an hour. He also omits the scene on the boat where Lucie and Darnay first meet, which plays a significant role in the plot. Then he labours over the murder of the Marquis d'Evremont and other scenes set in France. The two movie versions get through the plot in about two hours, without too much simplification. Hopcraft struggles to tell the story in a more generous three hours plus.Key aspects of the characters are underplayed or absent altogether. Miss Pross's fierce protectiveness towards Lucie only emerges slowly, as a result of her actions, rather than as their motive. We see nothing of the businesslike reserve under which Mr Lorrie hides his feelings and only get a weak sense of Dickens's deliberate contrast between Stryver's bustling self-promotion and Carton's resigned, careless self-neglect.Philippe Monnier's direction is wretched. The staging is uniformly poor, without pace, excitement or inventiveness. For example, the bursting of the wine barrel, the storming of the Bastille and the grave-robbing scenes are all listlessly thrown away. The first trial scene is a muddled dud and the two trials in Paris are polite and uninvolved, giving little sense of how justice is being perverted by a howling mob. Mostly, Monnier just points the camera at the actors as they wander aimlessly around the sets.Some of his decisions defy belief. When Carton coerces Barsad's aid he uses the analogy of a card game, contrasting the strength of his own cards with the weakness of Barsad's hand. This scene demands to be set in an Inn, with an actual deck of cards on hand, but we just get the two protagonists strolling in a public square.The actors are just left to fend for themselves. For example, when Carton is approached by the seamstress in the Bastille, there is no single point at which we suddenly see her recognise his heroic deception. Where was Monnier when this scene was being botched?The performances are universally lacklustre. Serena Gordon and Xavier Deluc are OK as Lucie and Darnay, but James Wilby's Carton is a gloomy, lovelorn moper, rather than the dissipated, self-destructive wastrel of the book. Jean-Pierre Aumont's Dr Mannette never even hints at the underlying anxiety that causes his temporary lapses into insanity, so his behaviour is even more unconvincingly schizophrenic than Dickens depicts it. It is as if Aumont never believed in the business of the cobbler's tools and said: "I'll do it if I have to, but that's what it is - 'cobblers'." John Mills just phones in his part. However, the acting depths are only finally plumbed by Karl Johnson's ineffectual, bemused-looking Barsad.It is rare for any movie to be so bad in so many different areas simply by accident or incompetence. Usually, it is because the movie makers have consciously adopted an approach to the material which is wildly mistaken and this follows through into every aspect of the production. I suspect that is what has happened here.Dickens wrote in very broad strokes. His characters are vivid and striking but are often one-dimensional, exemplifying a single human trait. Psychological complexity is not found in individuals so much as in the interplay between them. His plots are full of unlikely situations and improbable coincidences. More importantly, they are peppered with scenes of high emotion, in which Dickens loved to wallow - feelings he wants his readers to share. When he depicts injustice or petty malice, he wants us to be as apoplectic with rage and disgust as he is. When he depicts tragedy, he wants us to weep along with him. When he depicts good, he wants us to applaud with joy.A Dickens novel takes us into a world of heightened reality where we are invited to laugh and cry and thrill with suspense as we wind our way through the tortuous story towards to the eventual release of a happy ending. But they are not just escapist fantasy. We pay for our simple pleasures by having to confront the urgent social and moral issues that preoccupied Dickens throughout his career.It is this unique mix of the populist and the profound which makes Dickens different from most other great Nineteenth Century novelists.I believe that this production is so lame because the film-makers perversely decided that they wanted the profound without the populist. They didn't want it to look or sound like any other Dickens movie, so at every point they smoothed out the eccentricities of the characters and deliberately backed away from all the emotional highlights of the story. In their hands, an exuberant melodrama becomes a sober, tepid, low-key history lesson. But in trying to keep the high-brow and discard the low-brow they end up being resolutely middle-brow.This Tale of Two Cities is Dickens with the Dickens taken out. It dies of 'good taste'.

I thought this movie was horrible! The acting and directing was something that a four year old could do. I DID NOT like the way the movie was cast and the things they changed from the original book. First of all, Carton and Darnay looked NOTHING alike. Lucie was NOTHING how they described her in the book. Not to mention how horrible the actress was who played Madame Defarge. Not only was the acting terrible, but the directing and blocking was horrible too. But, I'd have to say the worst part was when Carton and the seamstress started making out randomly while they were at the Guillitine. I mean, come ON! You have got to be kidding me! This movie is probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I would not refer anyone to this movie.

I had to read A Tale of Two Cities for my English class this year, and found it to be not that bad of a read, and it got VERY exciting towards the end. After we finished the book, our class watched this movie...while I had fun watching it because its so terrible at points I couldn't stop laughing, it's really a travesty.The first problem is that almost all of the acting (perhaps with the exception of Darnay and Dr. Manette) is remarkably terrible. They have hired a whole movie's worth of low budget B-Actors, who simply can't be taken seriously. Their emotions are laughable, they deliver lines terribly, their accents are inconsistent, and they often overact trying to compensate for their own bad acting.The worst thing is probably the script itself. Since I have read the book I followed the movie very well, but to someone who hasn't, they would be completely lost. The movie never keeps on clear direction or narrative and jumps all over the place spastically. The story is hardly told at all, its almost as if the script is ATOTC highlights strung together into almost 4 hours of hell.So if you're DESPERATE for a movie version, give it a shot. But terrible acting and terrible script keep this from being all it could be.

I just want to say that this movie made a great difference in my life. Sydney Carton (James Wilby) touched my heart with the depth of the look of his eyes. Many times i felt just like him, drunken, wasted & that i did nothing good or useful to be remembered by, no one will weep for me so i guess i felt he's a part of me & that is all because of Wilby's wonderful performance. The music was really really great too. I felt it touched my soul. It made me cry a lot. Every time i see this movie i cry over & over again. Everyone played their roles perfectly that it could have never been better. This is my best movie ever. I just love it & feel it.