I love this movie so much

Expected more

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

This is a straightforward version shot in black and white with some location shooting at Loire Valley in France. Pinewood Studios is used effectively enough, it is uniformly well acted and Bogarde gives an effective enough performance as the lead and a young Christopher Lee is a hiss-able French Aristocrat.The story deals with the strands of the two most notable characters in the novel by Charles Dickens. Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton. Darnay is a French aristocrat who turns his back to the life of wealth and privilege but falls victim to the indiscriminate wrath of the revolution when the reign of terror begins.Carton is an English barrister with a taste for drink who attempts to redeem his misspent life out of his unrequited love for Darnay's wife.There is not much humour in the film because of the subject matter but the pared down story does do the film justice.

Alas, this version is FAR FROM FAITHFUL. This version is so mixed up that any child who watched it in an effort to fake their way through a report without reading the tome would fail. Parts of the story are out of order, characters consistently appear in places they do not appear in the text, and Lucie does not meet Darnay on the Dover Mail in the text. Instead, she meets him on the packet from Calais, when she returns to England with her father after collecting him in St. Antoine. This misguided interpretation has her seeing Sydney long before the trial that opens Book the Second and mistaking him for Charles. Those are just a few of the large number of inaccuracies found throughout the film. As an English teacher who holds this as one of her favorite books of all time, I wish I had never watched this version. Go watch the one from 1935 or even the Masterpiece Theatre version from the 1989. No film interpretation is ever spot on, but those two have far fewer inconsistencies than this one.

Pretty boy Bogarde or movie star Coleman? I always thought Dirk Bogarde (Bogarde NOT Bogarte) was a lightweight actor with occasional flashes of excellence.I always thought Ronald Coleman was a great movie star who could act a bit.Having said that I prefer Coleman's version of 'Lost Horizon' to the others and I think his performance as Carton shades Bogarde. Bogarde's best performances were in 'The Night Porter' and 'The Victim'There was, however, a version of this movie (maybe made for TV) with John Mills playing Carton - easily the best.

This is my favourite Dickens book and my favourite Dickens dramatisation. I remember reading that there had been some doubts originally whether Dirk Bogarde matinée idol could manage this part. Instead it was presumably his first chance to show the inimitable quality of his acting. He is perfect in this part and I cannot imagine anyone else ever doing it better although I'd guess Ronald Coleman could equal it. I've seen one other, more recent version and although Carton's actor had a good go at it, it totally lacked the amazing charisma Bogarde provided for what is one of Dickens' most poignant characters - flawed, fascinating, cynical, damaged but wonderful.It's a crying shame this wasn't filmed in colour since the producers did consider doing so and then didn't. But the production and acting are so excellent that you soon don't notice it isn't colour as you become completely immersed in the movie. I suppose it's always possible the lack of colour actually enhances the drama, and for me this story is the most dramatic and poignant of all Dickens - a work of pure genius.