Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Bob Taylor I'm not able to say if this is the best BBC series ever, since I've seen few of them, but it must be close. The attention to casting, choice of locations, costumes and everything else is so impressive. They have really brought the Marshalsea to life by using Hampton Court, it looks just like the Hablot Browne illustrations. Andrew Davies is to be praised for using so much of Dickens's dia his script.The one real standout performance is that of Andy Serkis as Rigaud; he is commandingly evil and looks just like the illustration. You accept his presence everywhere in the story without asking questions, he is that impressive. Tom Courtenay as Dorrit is very good; he's one of the most self-deluding men in world literature, always telling everyone how he has suffered during those two decades in prison (others suffered more, but he won't recognize that). Maxine Peake, whom I knew only through Silk, does very well as ice-cold Miss Wade. Eddie Marsan is Pancks, absolutely: obsessed, snorting derisively at the Marshalsea prisoners, finally declaring independence to cheers all round. Claire Foy and Matthew McFadyen play the heroes convincingly.

johannes2000-1 This is yet another outstanding Dickens-adaptation by the BBC. It makes you wonder how they do it: making everything fall so exactly in its place! The casting is perfect, settings and costumes are flawless, the direction is impressive and the editing gives it all a wonderful pace, helped by cutting it into short pieces of half an hour, so that you are kept on your toes all of the time, simply craving for the next episode.To be honest, Little Dorrit is not my favorite Dickens. I when reading it, it impressed me as over-long, over-crowded with characters and with story-lines, and – I'm sorry to say – as a bit tedious in the last couple of hundred pages, especially after the family Dorrit came into their unexpected financial fortune and starts traveling. So the directors (apparently there were three of them) and the writers deserve the highest praise, to have turned the somewhat tough basic material into this wonderful, exciting and involving story of love, greed, social differences, mystery and (thank heaven) lots of vintage Dickensian comedy.The basic premise of a life almost entirely spent in a debtors prison (the notorious Marshalsea), without any hope of ever getting out, and where even your children are born and bred, is heartbreaking in itself. The rest of the story with all the turns and twists that Dickens composed is actually less important, it is at many points too complicated and unrealistic. Even in the end, when all the mysteries are unfolded and out in the open, you keep wondering if you have understood everything correctly. But don't bother too much about logic, just let yourself be immersed and enjoy the ride.It's hard to give credits to singular actors, they are all so wonderful. Of course Claire Foy and Matthew Macfadyen should be mentioned as the two leading characters Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam. Claire Foy succeeds in making Amy more than just a spotless and angelic Dickens-heroine, she's a real person of flesh and blood who can at times be hurt and angry, but who stands firm in her believes and especially in her loyalty to her overbearing father. Foy gets more beautiful in every episode and in the last happy shots she's virtually radiant. Macfadyen is as Arthur convincingly her match in every aspect, he plays this extremely sympathetic, modest and loyal man to perfection, and with a wonderful sense of humor. He's also very handsome in a puppy-like way and it isn't hard to see why Amy is totally in love with him from the moment she first meets him. Of course Tom Courtenay has to be mentioned. His portrayal of the complicated personality that father Dorrit is, cannot be sured. The arrogance and the insecurity, the ungratefulness towards his daughter and yet his deep love for her, his carefully groomed image of "the father of the Marshalsea" and yet his fear for the real outside world, it is all there, not with grand gestures but with the subtlety that only the most gifted actors have. When he finally feels himself slipping away into mental confusion he just breaks your heart.I need to mention two more actors. I was on the edge of my chair every time Ruth Jones as Flora Finching came into view, she's absolutely hilarious and she never failed to make me laugh out loud, clinching and flirting around her old love Arthur and calling him "Arthur, Doyce and Clennam" all the time (it doesn't sound like anything funny when you write it down, but you should see it!). Ruth Jones was a great surprise to me and I don't know how her career develops but she definitely should have her own television show or something like that.The last actor that I want to point out is Russell Tovey. He plays the awkward and clumsy John Chivery, literally hopelessly in love with Amy. His character is clearly put into the story as a comic relief (the counterpart of Flora Finching who in vain tries to win back Arthur), and his unstoppable sobbing and desperation when his love is rejected are comical indeed. But in several scenes Tovey succeeds in lifting up his character to an almost grandiose level. His reaction when Amy – ever so gently – turn his proposal down already is heartbreaking. But his last big scene, when he tells Arthur – his supposed rival - how Amy actually loves Arthur and not himself, is unforgettable, it moved me to the core and I'm again in tears just thinking about it. Tovey is an extremely gifted talent and I just hope he will get many chances to prove it again.In short: a great series, a treat to watch and a heartfelt 10 out of 10!!!

sbrumfit I watched the Christine Edzard film of Little Dorrit aged fourteen and was so enthused by it that I ended up doing work experience on her next film. For this reason I resisted watching this version for a long time. I relented recently having just read the book, but I was right to be wary. Watching this version reminded me how good the 1988 Edzard films were. This version has good production values and some very strong performances (although I still find Matthew McFadyen annoyingly wooden), but it lacks much of the book's depth and subtlety, while ironing many of his characters (who are always larger than life) into shadows of their written selves. The story has been 'distilled' and the stakes raised so that it has become a quest story, rather than a social satire with a quest element. Everyone seems about ten years too young for the parts they play, except Clare Foy, who is altogether too tall, too old and too knowing for Little Dorrit. They are also far too clean, as is London, and William Dorrit's room in the Marshalsea is so enormous it might qualify for the status of 'suite' when in fact the rooms in the Marshalsea were shared and less than ten feet square. Plus the language is far too modern and some of the details anachronistic (Clennam would NEVER have kissed his mother hello in 1826, even if she hadn't been a fearful old battle-axe). Most annoying of all, this version explains and signposts through scenes that have no place in the book, while cutting others (like the wonderful introduction of Flora Finching) back to the bone.The Edzard version takes a more consistent approach to the point of view issue by telling the story twice, once from Clennam's point of view and then again from Little Dorrit's (and in a sense this version, with its shifting perspectives, is truer to the book). The camera-work is far more engaging in this version; Edzard's camera is static, a cool observer, whereas this version employs a liquid, flowing approach that gives the geography of the city greater life and a more sinister edge. Nonetheless the film is far better cast and its use of the original dialogue is more authentic.The summary of Episode One in the DVD set describes Amy as an 'enterprising young woman'. This misses the point. She is a girl under pressure, a child, like so many in the developing world today, whose responsibilities are far greater than they should have to bear. It's Dickens's exploration of exploitation and imprisonment, in all its forms, that forms the essence of Little Dorrit. And I'm not sure this version does justice to any of these themes.

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.