Great Expectations is one of my favorite novels and I have seen every screen adaptation to date. None has made more impact on me than the David Lean version. I was so looking forward to Mike Newell's version which seemed to have the perfect casting. I was though quite disappointed. Granted that it is very difficult to tell this story in a couple of hours of screen time, but that is no excuse for making a film which rushes through the events in the book without providing sufficient depth of the characters and motivation for their actions for the audience to feel empathy with them. Such a story deserves a longer screen time or alternatively cut out some of the secondary characters and provide more focus on the main characters. The film has a very "Harry Pottery" look which is no surprise since Newell made one of the films in that series. Performances are generally fine, with Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter predictably stealing the main honors.
53 Reviews
Expectations that are not really met
TheLittleSongbird4 September 2013
Far from a terrible film but rather disappointing too, seeing as this did have a lot going for it. Plus the trailer actually looked really good. There are certainly some good things, even when a film or series doesn't quite work there are not many times where there is nothing redeeming about it. This Great Expectations does have a fair few merits and the best of these merits actually come off quite well. The costumes and sets are both beautiful and evocative, and the reuniting of Pip and Estella has some very clever lighting, there is great atmosphere and poetry in this moment. The music is haunting, is fitting for the tone of the film and doesn't overbear things too much. The opening scene is very atmospherically effective also, though the adaptation that did this scene best and quite possibly without equal is David Lean's.
And while the acting is inconsistent, there are some very good performances, and actually most of the performances fall into the very good category. The star was Ralph Fiennes, his Magwitch was both creepy and tragic, in the earlier scenes Fiennes is chilling but later on he is very likable and you feel pity for the character. Helena Bonham Carter really gives her all to Miss Havisham, wonderfully bitter and dramatic, if physically a little too on the voluptuous side for a character that is described the complete opposite in the book. Jason Flemying is an excellent and dignified Joe, Robbie Coltrane is firm and somewhat larger than life as Jaggers and Olly Alexander's Herbert Pocket is eccentric and quaint as well as earnest and upbeat, a very engaging performance of a potentially dull character.
Jeremy Irvine looks the part for Pip but his acting style came across as too overwrought and too innocent, while Holly Grainger looks radiant but not cold enough for Estella. They are marginally better than the miscast leads in the respectable but flawed 2011 BBC adaptation, but only just. David Walliams mugs his way through the role of Uncle Pumblechook and painfully so, it may work for Little Britain but it is completely wrong here. Toby Irvine and Helena Barlow are very competent and work well together, if lacking that extra spark to make them truly memorable, Barlow also could have a little more spiteful.
Aside from these problematic casting choices there are other reasons why this adaptation of Great Expectations fell short. It is a very difficult story to adapt, Dickens generally is difficult to adapt, but the story is not very engaging here, though there are some bright spots like the opening scene. The pacing can get tedious while some of the details are rushed through and under-explained, the Pip, Estella and Miss Havisham scenes veer towards the absurd rather than the tense and the scenes between Irvine and Holliday don't have that much pulse. The ending is also very badly bungled.
The script can get rather trite and wordy with some awkward tonal shifts. And while the period detail is great and there are moments where the lighting is clever, the way the film looks is rather too grim, too much of the Harry Potter and Tim-Burton-at-his-most-Gothic vibe. Mike Newell does deserve some credit for bringing out the story's dark approach but too often it is too emphasised so the film generally lacks life, and consequently the dark obsession that is at the heart of this great story comes across as rather flat. Overall, a long way from bad but not as great as it could have been, personally this was a mixed feelings sort of reaction towards the film. 5/10 Bethany Cox
And while the acting is inconsistent, there are some very good performances, and actually most of the performances fall into the very good category. The star was Ralph Fiennes, his Magwitch was both creepy and tragic, in the earlier scenes Fiennes is chilling but later on he is very likable and you feel pity for the character. Helena Bonham Carter really gives her all to Miss Havisham, wonderfully bitter and dramatic, if physically a little too on the voluptuous side for a character that is described the complete opposite in the book. Jason Flemying is an excellent and dignified Joe, Robbie Coltrane is firm and somewhat larger than life as Jaggers and Olly Alexander's Herbert Pocket is eccentric and quaint as well as earnest and upbeat, a very engaging performance of a potentially dull character.
Jeremy Irvine looks the part for Pip but his acting style came across as too overwrought and too innocent, while Holly Grainger looks radiant but not cold enough for Estella. They are marginally better than the miscast leads in the respectable but flawed 2011 BBC adaptation, but only just. David Walliams mugs his way through the role of Uncle Pumblechook and painfully so, it may work for Little Britain but it is completely wrong here. Toby Irvine and Helena Barlow are very competent and work well together, if lacking that extra spark to make them truly memorable, Barlow also could have a little more spiteful.
Aside from these problematic casting choices there are other reasons why this adaptation of Great Expectations fell short. It is a very difficult story to adapt, Dickens generally is difficult to adapt, but the story is not very engaging here, though there are some bright spots like the opening scene. The pacing can get tedious while some of the details are rushed through and under-explained, the Pip, Estella and Miss Havisham scenes veer towards the absurd rather than the tense and the scenes between Irvine and Holliday don't have that much pulse. The ending is also very badly bungled.
The script can get rather trite and wordy with some awkward tonal shifts. And while the period detail is great and there are moments where the lighting is clever, the way the film looks is rather too grim, too much of the Harry Potter and Tim-Burton-at-his-most-Gothic vibe. Mike Newell does deserve some credit for bringing out the story's dark approach but too often it is too emphasised so the film generally lacks life, and consequently the dark obsession that is at the heart of this great story comes across as rather flat. Overall, a long way from bad but not as great as it could have been, personally this was a mixed feelings sort of reaction towards the film. 5/10 Bethany Cox
An at times gripping but overall meandering retelling
niomithegirl22 October 2012
This adaptation of Great Expectations did enchant me at some points. There was a definite highlight in the relationship between Magwitch (played by Fiennes)and Pip (Irvine). The issue, however, comes with a certain lack of focus in the film: it could have centered on the gripping dynamic of those two, but instead wandered between hopeless Estella-loving Pip and confused gentleman-aspiring Pip, not choosing to dwell on the excellent depictions of rough father figure Magwitch and reluctant son Pip. The best moments involved them - from the disbelief when Pip realizes who Magwitch is to the suspense and melancholy of their later scenes.
In short, the acting was spot-on, but the story wavered. Director Newell walked a very fine line between kitschy and touching in depictions of Havisham, Estella and Pip's relationship. With Estella and Pip's main confrontation, for example, I found myself drawn in and absorbed by their emotions - but the over-the-top display of melodrama, with Estella over-symbolically torn between Havisham and Pip, quickly cut through the tension and made it veer toward the more absurd. Bonham Carter as Havisham was a good choice, but it seemed almost too obvious: she plays the part as if straight from Tim Burton's CORPSE BRIDE, a film she herself has compared her character to.
It was worth it to watch the excellent acting by Irvine and Fiennes. There were laughs and tension but it was all quite formulaic; and the meandering film focus, finally leading to a spotlight on Estella/Pip but without a satisfying kick in the end, did not add up to a particularly memorable film. 6/10.
In short, the acting was spot-on, but the story wavered. Director Newell walked a very fine line between kitschy and touching in depictions of Havisham, Estella and Pip's relationship. With Estella and Pip's main confrontation, for example, I found myself drawn in and absorbed by their emotions - but the over-the-top display of melodrama, with Estella over-symbolically torn between Havisham and Pip, quickly cut through the tension and made it veer toward the more absurd. Bonham Carter as Havisham was a good choice, but it seemed almost too obvious: she plays the part as if straight from Tim Burton's CORPSE BRIDE, a film she herself has compared her character to.
It was worth it to watch the excellent acting by Irvine and Fiennes. There were laughs and tension but it was all quite formulaic; and the meandering film focus, finally leading to a spotlight on Estella/Pip but without a satisfying kick in the end, did not add up to a particularly memorable film. 6/10.
Appropriate adaptation about the humble orphan suddenly graced and become a gentleman with the help of a mysterious benefactor
ma-cortes16 May 2014
Acceptable translation of classic Dickens book with a competent direction by Mike Newell . The movie deals with an orphan child called Pip (Jeremy Irvine, though Alex Pettyfer turned down the role) meets on the dark moor an escaped convict hiding out in the Victorian English countryside called Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes) and helps him . A kindness that will change the course of Pip's life , though he doesn't realize it . Magwitch escapes and is aided by young orphan Pip ; then Magwitch discovers a fortune , which he decides to use to make him into a gentleman . Later on , at a musty mansion Pip meets an old woman , Miss Havershan (Helena Bonham Carter , though Meryl Streep was approached for the role, but turned it down due to scheduling conflicts), and a beautiful girl called Stella (grown-up, a haughty beauty Holliday Grangier , though Rooney Mara turned down the role) who has been raised by the eccentric Miss Havershan . Pit suddenly becomes a gentleman with the support of an unknown benefactor and his advocate (Robbie Coltrane) . But his enemies would like to get Pip's inheritance for themselves . Meanwhile , Pip befriends Herbert Pocket (Olly Alexander) and Pip's likable flatmate .
The film is an alright adaptation based on Charles Dickens's novel , being pretty well directed by the nice director Mike Newell . In the movie there is intense drama , a love story , emotion , tragedies and is pretty entertaining , though has more style than substance . Although the images and settings are compelling , the filmmaker should have learned that beauty on the surface isn't all essential . This is a respectable but sometimes dull recounting about notorious novel , being finely performed , splendidly staged with adequate sets , stunning visuals and interesting drama of a well known story . Newell's professional retelling of Dickens tone but easily dwarfed by the classic 1946 David Lean's version . Well-acted by all , but especially by Helena Bonham Carter's slightly pathetic and mad Miss Havishan decided to wreak havoc on the male gender ; Helena stated in an interview that she wore only one shoe for the shooting , as Dickens described Miss Havisham as wearing only one shoe . Jeremy Irvine's enjoyable acting as starring , he's romantic , sympathetic , attractive but also vulnerable and memorable . Robbie Coltrane as the agreeable lawyer is top notch , and secondary cast as Ewen Bremner , Olly Alexander , Sally Hawkes , Jason Fleming , among others , are excellent . Special mention to Ralph Fiennes as the unknown benefactor who becomes Pit into a well-heeled gentleman . Atmospheric as well as colorful cinematography by John Mathieson . Evocative and sensitive musical score by Richard Hartley . Rating : Above Average . Well worth seeing for Charles Dickens lovers .
There are many adaptations about this famous novel , they result to be the followings : ¨Great expectations¨ (1943) by Stuart Walker with Phillips Holmes , Henry Hull , Jane Wyatt , Francis L Sullivan ; ¨Great expectations¨ (1946) by David Lean , considered to be the greatest version of the Charles Dickens novel with John Mills , Finlay Currie , Martita Hunt , Valerie Hobson , Alec Guinnes , Jean Simmons , Francis L Sullivan , possibly the best Dickens on film . The modern rendition by Afonso Cuaron featured by Ethan Hawke as Pit , Gwyneth Paltrow as Stella and Anne Bancroft as Miss Havershan is deemed average . And several TV adaptations and miniseries such as : 1981 with Bratford Jones and John Hickson ; 1987 The untold story with John Stanton , Sigrid Thornton , Anne Louise Lambert , 1989 by Kevin Connor with Anthony Hopkins , Jean Simmons , John Rhys Davies , 1999 by Julian Jarrold with Ioan Gruffud , Justine Waddell , Charlotte Rampling and Bernard Hill .
The film is an alright adaptation based on Charles Dickens's novel , being pretty well directed by the nice director Mike Newell . In the movie there is intense drama , a love story , emotion , tragedies and is pretty entertaining , though has more style than substance . Although the images and settings are compelling , the filmmaker should have learned that beauty on the surface isn't all essential . This is a respectable but sometimes dull recounting about notorious novel , being finely performed , splendidly staged with adequate sets , stunning visuals and interesting drama of a well known story . Newell's professional retelling of Dickens tone but easily dwarfed by the classic 1946 David Lean's version . Well-acted by all , but especially by Helena Bonham Carter's slightly pathetic and mad Miss Havishan decided to wreak havoc on the male gender ; Helena stated in an interview that she wore only one shoe for the shooting , as Dickens described Miss Havisham as wearing only one shoe . Jeremy Irvine's enjoyable acting as starring , he's romantic , sympathetic , attractive but also vulnerable and memorable . Robbie Coltrane as the agreeable lawyer is top notch , and secondary cast as Ewen Bremner , Olly Alexander , Sally Hawkes , Jason Fleming , among others , are excellent . Special mention to Ralph Fiennes as the unknown benefactor who becomes Pit into a well-heeled gentleman . Atmospheric as well as colorful cinematography by John Mathieson . Evocative and sensitive musical score by Richard Hartley . Rating : Above Average . Well worth seeing for Charles Dickens lovers .
There are many adaptations about this famous novel , they result to be the followings : ¨Great expectations¨ (1943) by Stuart Walker with Phillips Holmes , Henry Hull , Jane Wyatt , Francis L Sullivan ; ¨Great expectations¨ (1946) by David Lean , considered to be the greatest version of the Charles Dickens novel with John Mills , Finlay Currie , Martita Hunt , Valerie Hobson , Alec Guinnes , Jean Simmons , Francis L Sullivan , possibly the best Dickens on film . The modern rendition by Afonso Cuaron featured by Ethan Hawke as Pit , Gwyneth Paltrow as Stella and Anne Bancroft as Miss Havershan is deemed average . And several TV adaptations and miniseries such as : 1981 with Bratford Jones and John Hickson ; 1987 The untold story with John Stanton , Sigrid Thornton , Anne Louise Lambert , 1989 by Kevin Connor with Anthony Hopkins , Jean Simmons , John Rhys Davies , 1999 by Julian Jarrold with Ioan Gruffud , Justine Waddell , Charlotte Rampling and Bernard Hill .
Well-Planned Adaptation That Loses its Way a Little Towards the End
l_rawjalaurence28 February 2014
Thematically speaking, Mike Newell's GREAT EXPECTATIONS depicts a world in which money talks: where rich n'er-do-wells such as Bentley Drummle (Ben Lloyd-Hughes) manage to find the girls of their choice, while fundamentally good people such as Pip (Toby/ Jeremy Irvine) end up unlucky. To survive in this world, Pip has to shed his humanity; this is especially evident in his offhand treatment of Joe Gargery (Jason Flemyng), when the blacksmith comes to visit him in London. Likewise Estella (Helena Barlow/ Holliday Granger) is brought up in a world where any display of emotion or human feeling is considered weak; hence she believes it is her destiny to marry Bentley, even though the couple are not in love with one another. The quintessential representative of this rapacious world is Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane), who believes that everything - including human beings - are to be bought and sold for money. Hence Joe Gargery should be happy to accept twenty-five guineas in exchange for Pip. Unless you've got money, you'll not have any Great Expectations. Newell's film is also very good at depicting the relationships between Pip, Estella and Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter) - although somewhat young for the role, Bonham Carter comes across as a fundamentally vindictive person, who enjoys playing with Estella and Pip's feelings in revenge for her own frustrations at being jilted on her wedding-day several years previously. As with most BBC- inspired costume dramas, the sense of place is beautifully evoked, even though Jim Clay's production designs; nineteenth-century London is a teeming, threatening world in which self-interest prevails. This is contrasted with the rural Kent coast where Joe and his sister (Sally Hawkins), a lonely world of sprawling landscapes and russet sunsets. Perhaps the only criticism that might be leveled at this adaptation is the fact that David Nicholls' screenplay runs out of steam somewhat: the plot-details are rather hurriedly wrapped up in the last half-hour at the expense of characterization and atmosphere. This is a shame, as it deflects out attention from the developing relationship between Pip and Abel Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes), which proves beyond doubt that compassion is far more significant than money to ensure human survival.
Was This Remake Necessary?
g-bodyl4 January 2015
It seems like every year we get a new film based on the classic take by Charles Dickens, Great Expectations. There are so many versions, it is pointless to make another one. Apparently people disagreed though as we have another update, this time starring Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes. I adored the 1998 version even though it was critically panned. I cannot say the same about this movie. The performances were excellent and it has a majestic scope, but the narrative is just a little uneven for my taste.
By now, we should all know the plot to the film. But in case this was someone's first big-screen adventure into the story, Mike Newell's film is about a boy named Pip who is given a chance at a gentleman's life in London thanks to a mysterious benefactor.
As said before, the film does have excellent performances namely by our two British veterans in Carter and Fiennes. Carter makes an excellent Miss Havisham and she is delightfully weird, just like in most Tim Burton movies. Fiennes also gives all he got as the convict Pip meets in the beginning. Jeremy Irvine, known for his role in War Horse, does a solid job and same goes for Holliday Granger as Estella, Pip's romantic interest. I also thought Jason Flemying was excellent as Joe, and the scenes between Joe and Pip were quite powerful.
Overall, the latest Great Expectations remake tries it very best to succeed thanks to the lavish production design and it excellent performances, but it fails to live up to previous films. It is certainly not bad, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. That being said, it still is good to watch. They do a good job in recreating nineteenth century London and the countryside. It shows how different life was compared to today. Not a bad film, but not a great one either. Perhaps no more adaptations in the near future, studios. I rate this film 7/10.
By now, we should all know the plot to the film. But in case this was someone's first big-screen adventure into the story, Mike Newell's film is about a boy named Pip who is given a chance at a gentleman's life in London thanks to a mysterious benefactor.
As said before, the film does have excellent performances namely by our two British veterans in Carter and Fiennes. Carter makes an excellent Miss Havisham and she is delightfully weird, just like in most Tim Burton movies. Fiennes also gives all he got as the convict Pip meets in the beginning. Jeremy Irvine, known for his role in War Horse, does a solid job and same goes for Holliday Granger as Estella, Pip's romantic interest. I also thought Jason Flemying was excellent as Joe, and the scenes between Joe and Pip were quite powerful.
Overall, the latest Great Expectations remake tries it very best to succeed thanks to the lavish production design and it excellent performances, but it fails to live up to previous films. It is certainly not bad, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. That being said, it still is good to watch. They do a good job in recreating nineteenth century London and the countryside. It shows how different life was compared to today. Not a bad film, but not a great one either. Perhaps no more adaptations in the near future, studios. I rate this film 7/10.
The Best Great Expectations Film Ever!
amypullen199928 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This production of the film is accurate to the book and follows the story the way it was written. The acting is average but the story line is the best I've seen. Magwitch is played brilliantly and gives the audience a feel of pity for him. I would recommend this to anyone that loves films such as Pride and Prejudice, Anna Karina and Jane Eyre. The dresses are stunning. If you are debating getting it, just go for it. The actor of Pip is alright but have seen better actors before. The boat chase to the ship is brilliant and really puts you on edge. In the film, the part played by Jo is fantastic and is acted the way in the book. If you are a Charles Dickens Lover, then this should suit you as it is much like the original book. I saw the mini TV series at Christmas last year and felt that this film is a 100x better. JUST GO GET IT!
Superfluous
johnmcc15012 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes you sit through a film you have seen before and enjoy it, even though you know the plot. This time I sat through a film I hadn't seen before and I didn't get that much out of it.
It may be partly because the BBC had done an excellent adaption only one year ago. The serpentine plotting of Dickens was also better suited to the longer format of three episodes rather than a two-hour film. There are limits to how much plot you can cram in and the film probably exceeded them.
In both versions the acting was good, but I query the casting in the new film. I would say I preferred Ray Winstone as a true Cockney Magwitch and David Suchet as a creepier Jaggers. Estella is also supposed to be someone who captivates Pip. Even though Holliday Grainger acted well, I couldn't see her as a woman who could drive someone to distraction with her stunning beauty.
The sets were obviously intended to outdo any previous versions. Satis House was straight out of Gormenghast while London looked more mediaeval than it probably was in 1860.
If it hadn't been done so soon before, it would probably be rated as a better film.
It may be partly because the BBC had done an excellent adaption only one year ago. The serpentine plotting of Dickens was also better suited to the longer format of three episodes rather than a two-hour film. There are limits to how much plot you can cram in and the film probably exceeded them.
In both versions the acting was good, but I query the casting in the new film. I would say I preferred Ray Winstone as a true Cockney Magwitch and David Suchet as a creepier Jaggers. Estella is also supposed to be someone who captivates Pip. Even though Holliday Grainger acted well, I couldn't see her as a woman who could drive someone to distraction with her stunning beauty.
The sets were obviously intended to outdo any previous versions. Satis House was straight out of Gormenghast while London looked more mediaeval than it probably was in 1860.
If it hadn't been done so soon before, it would probably be rated as a better film.
A great love story that shouldn't be missed!
filmobsession9410 June 2014
Before the review starts I must say that it might be a little biased. Coming from another country, before I saw the movie I had never heard of the book (maybe the title once or twice in a different translation) or any of the movie adaptations. For everyone else I suspect it wasn't as interesting as it was to me.
The movie is about a boy, Pip, who gets in the possession of some money and coming from a poor background, goes on to become a gentleman in London.
The movie is filled with a very well-known cast, e.g. Helena Bonham Carter and Jeremy Irvine, and directed by Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). As seen from previous movies, everyone delivers a remarkable performance, especially Carter with the wounded character of Miss Havisham (there's a good twist around the end involving her). Another great stand out was Holliday Grainger in the role of Estella. I loved her, and will be definitely looking at what projects she chooses in the future. It was a nice surprise when she appeared in Anna Karenina (2012), and although just for a couple of seconds, she played her part there very well too.
The story, although I've never heard of it, is a classic. It's handled very well, and the love story too. Two people that were never meant to be together. Even though Estella is trying to push Pip away, Pip always comes back. There is definitely chemistry between the two.
The sets and costumes were another high point of the movie. The women's wear in particular worked very well for the time period in which the story is set. The depiction of 1980s London was very graphic and very well done. Nothing seemed CGI, and all the sets looked very realistic.
Every movie has a flaw, and nearly every time it's the pace. The movie did slow down around the middle, after Pip arrives in London and settles down. Not much happened.
I recommend this to most movie fans looking for a good drama. Fans of the story will probably dig the new adaptation too. Enjoy.
Acting - 10/10 Costumes - 10/10 Pace - 8/10 Sets - 10/10
Overall - 9/10
The movie is about a boy, Pip, who gets in the possession of some money and coming from a poor background, goes on to become a gentleman in London.
The movie is filled with a very well-known cast, e.g. Helena Bonham Carter and Jeremy Irvine, and directed by Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). As seen from previous movies, everyone delivers a remarkable performance, especially Carter with the wounded character of Miss Havisham (there's a good twist around the end involving her). Another great stand out was Holliday Grainger in the role of Estella. I loved her, and will be definitely looking at what projects she chooses in the future. It was a nice surprise when she appeared in Anna Karenina (2012), and although just for a couple of seconds, she played her part there very well too.
The story, although I've never heard of it, is a classic. It's handled very well, and the love story too. Two people that were never meant to be together. Even though Estella is trying to push Pip away, Pip always comes back. There is definitely chemistry between the two.
The sets and costumes were another high point of the movie. The women's wear in particular worked very well for the time period in which the story is set. The depiction of 1980s London was very graphic and very well done. Nothing seemed CGI, and all the sets looked very realistic.
Every movie has a flaw, and nearly every time it's the pace. The movie did slow down around the middle, after Pip arrives in London and settles down. Not much happened.
I recommend this to most movie fans looking for a good drama. Fans of the story will probably dig the new adaptation too. Enjoy.
Acting - 10/10 Costumes - 10/10 Pace - 8/10 Sets - 10/10
Overall - 9/10
Poor Executions
cnycitylady16 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of Dickens most beloved novels, but it always seems to flail about in the unmoving to just straight up disappointing area when adapted to the screen, and this lavish, expensive, new telling of it seems to sadly fall into the same category.
The story is supposed to be about the life and struggles of Phillip Pirrip (or Pip) as he wrestles with who he is, who he was born to be and who he desperately wants to be. And perhaps it is this overly dramatic and meticulous plot of the novel that ultimately dooms any and all film versions of it. This movie does try to show you his character struggles, but it bounces between that plot line and the should-be romance between the determined Pip and the lost Estella. You see the two interact briefly between the other storyline and you get the feeling that the writers wanted their romance to be the main attraction of the film but were overruled.
The acting is as inconsistent as the story it is trying to tell. Jeremey Irvine (Pip) falters and leaves you underwhelmed with his portrayal of the somewhat selfish character. He spectacularly looks the part but, try as he might, just cannot compete with the far more superior actors he was cast alongside of. Where his costars go for subtlety he goes for blatant and the clashing portrayals leave you worn out and tired. Holliday Grainger was perhaps the only person in Hollywood who could have given just the right amount of emotion to the cold and calculating character that is Estella. Her personification of a character so loathed and adored as she was radiant. With her at the reigns of the character you could understand why Pip would forgo friendship and nature for wealth. Their chemistry was spotty at best; sometimes you believed their desire for one another, but other times it felt forced and it didn't seem like they wanted each other at all. Boham Carter was a good Havisham but her flair for the dramatic made it nearly impossible for you to sympathize with the cruel and frantic woman.
Even to those of you who know nothing about the book plot line and are just into viewing period piece films, this movie will still lag. The pacing was tedious at best and the character development of Pip took way too long without really divulging anything of remote interest. The movie, on top of a crippled script and wayward overwrought acting looked as if it was bootlegged. The director is a fan of grainy, dirty looking cameras apparently. The whole time I was viewing it I thought that I had purchased an illegal copy from some homeless gentleman. This movie disheartened me greatly, and I can only say that it will disappoint you too. 5.5/10
The story is supposed to be about the life and struggles of Phillip Pirrip (or Pip) as he wrestles with who he is, who he was born to be and who he desperately wants to be. And perhaps it is this overly dramatic and meticulous plot of the novel that ultimately dooms any and all film versions of it. This movie does try to show you his character struggles, but it bounces between that plot line and the should-be romance between the determined Pip and the lost Estella. You see the two interact briefly between the other storyline and you get the feeling that the writers wanted their romance to be the main attraction of the film but were overruled.
The acting is as inconsistent as the story it is trying to tell. Jeremey Irvine (Pip) falters and leaves you underwhelmed with his portrayal of the somewhat selfish character. He spectacularly looks the part but, try as he might, just cannot compete with the far more superior actors he was cast alongside of. Where his costars go for subtlety he goes for blatant and the clashing portrayals leave you worn out and tired. Holliday Grainger was perhaps the only person in Hollywood who could have given just the right amount of emotion to the cold and calculating character that is Estella. Her personification of a character so loathed and adored as she was radiant. With her at the reigns of the character you could understand why Pip would forgo friendship and nature for wealth. Their chemistry was spotty at best; sometimes you believed their desire for one another, but other times it felt forced and it didn't seem like they wanted each other at all. Boham Carter was a good Havisham but her flair for the dramatic made it nearly impossible for you to sympathize with the cruel and frantic woman.
Even to those of you who know nothing about the book plot line and are just into viewing period piece films, this movie will still lag. The pacing was tedious at best and the character development of Pip took way too long without really divulging anything of remote interest. The movie, on top of a crippled script and wayward overwrought acting looked as if it was bootlegged. The director is a fan of grainy, dirty looking cameras apparently. The whole time I was viewing it I thought that I had purchased an illegal copy from some homeless gentleman. This movie disheartened me greatly, and I can only say that it will disappoint you too. 5.5/10
Dismal, unfortunately!
fkkemble6 January 2014
I love the writings of Charles Dickens and this is one of my favourite stories. I expected a riveting performance but was just plain disappointed. There were lots of great talent, Helena Bonham Carter, David Wallliams, Scottish fellow and Ralph Fiennes among others; some lovely photography but for some reason this just didn't work. I had also watched the version that included David Suchet, Ray Winstone and Gillian Anderson, an unlikely cast and yet it really worked and I was in raptures. Maybe it was because this version was a condensed cinematic version and some of the original story had to be discarded but I had the sense that an intimidating cast list and terrific photography would carry the day but it really didn't. I like all of the actors in this but I really felt that they were utterly miscast. You know, Robbie Coltrane would have been a far better Bumblechook. Helena Bonham Carter just should not have been employed. Too bad- I so wanted this to be good.
Great expectations just about met
Emma_Stewart14 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The past few years have seen an increase in creative adaptations of classic novels. Mike Newell's Great Expectations may seem uninspired compared to challenging and inventive films like Anna Karenina or Wuthering Heights, down to the easy casting of Helena Bonham Carter as a crazy old woman and a score that sometimes sounds lifted piece by piece from Pride & Prejudice. Newell surprises, though, and has imagined a solid and remarkably captivating and evocative counterpart.
For those who never took freshman year English, Great Expectations is the story of a common orphan, Pip (Toby and Jeremy Irvine), who lives with his horrid shrew of a sister (Sally Hawkins)and kind-hearted father figure husband (an excellent Jason Flemyng). One day, Pip runs into an escaped convict (Ralph Fiennes) who terrifies him into stealing food and a file; the convict takes a liking to him before he is recaptured and taken away.
Pip is later selected by neighborhood freak Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter, stretching herself) to play with her adopted daughter Estella (Helena Barlow and Holliday Grainger). He believes Miss Havisham wants to mold him into a gentleman so he can marry and provide for Estella, until she helps him become a blacksmith and bids him goodbye. Years later, Pip falls into a large fortune from an anonymous benefactor, and after making himself presentable, he returns to Estella.
I've been careful to limit my excitement since Newell's involvement was announced. 20 years ago he would have been the perfect choice, but after he attempted to make an action scene out of every dramatic beat in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and bastardized the poetic beauty of Love in the Time of Cholera, I'd lost faith. Great Expectations, though, is a return to form for a once-upon-a-time master of the genre. While it occasionally suffers from genre confusion (Bonham Carter's scenes play out more comedically than they perhaps should have), his habit of making things more action-y than they really are actually enhances the material here - the fire and boat scene are a thousand times more adrenaline- packed than in the novel - and the enthralling pacing, expertly crafted visuals, and lively dialogue and performances add up to a very fine film.
The visual aspects deserve special mention for how much they bring to the movie. It feels as if the cinematography and art direction are working to illustrate and expand on the writing, rather than simply constructing a picturesque background (which Newell was guilty of in Cholera). Scenes at Pip's home look heavenly, with golden lightning and wide shots making his world look endless and welcoming. By contrast, when he becomes a gentleman, close-ups, dreary costumes and dark, windowless rooms contribute to a more claustrophobic and icy atmosphere. The cleverness of the lighting is particularly pronounced when Pip and Estella reunite after years: we see a close-up of Irvine, with only darkness behind him, then one of Grainger in a hallway lit by brassy lanterns, positioned almost as if they are lighting a path for him to follow. The last time we see Estella, as a changed woman open to Pip's affections, is the first time we see her in a wide open space. These visual cues are simple and unintrusive, but enhance subtext and recreate the poetry of Dickens' novel.
Irvine is a capable and likable enough lead, but the film belongs to the supporting cast. Bonham Carter's interpretation of Miss Havisham is intriguing, if not perfectly executed. It recalls her performance in Big Fish, where she toes the line between outlandish and pathetic. Grainger's Estella is beautifully acted - her delivery of "I am what you made me" is chilling. Jessie Cave and particularly Jason Flemyng give adorably heartfelt and rustic performances, while Olly Alexander is hilarious and brings heaps of life to a normally dull character. The true star, though, is Ralph Fiennes. It's a shame this didn't get an Oscar push, because with a strong narrative and a proper campaign, he could have been a serious threat. Fiennes completely sinks into his character; there isn't a trace of his past performances as well-groomed, eloquent gentleman. He's frightening and savage, but oddly sympathetic, and in his more intimate scenes he absolutely devastates. There are memories of an entire life behind his eyes. Without a doubt this is one of his best performances and sadly it seems it will go unrecognized.
It's not quite a perfect film - it's very short and so some characters and themes get lost in the shuffle, and certain tonal shifts feel jarring and inappropriate - but it's a damn good one. Newell seems to have finally found a functional dynamic for a period piece, a happy balance between contemplative and spirited. Due as well to his phenomenal cast and production team, he's done a wonderful job of bringing a difficult and gloomy novel to life.
For those who never took freshman year English, Great Expectations is the story of a common orphan, Pip (Toby and Jeremy Irvine), who lives with his horrid shrew of a sister (Sally Hawkins)and kind-hearted father figure husband (an excellent Jason Flemyng). One day, Pip runs into an escaped convict (Ralph Fiennes) who terrifies him into stealing food and a file; the convict takes a liking to him before he is recaptured and taken away.
Pip is later selected by neighborhood freak Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter, stretching herself) to play with her adopted daughter Estella (Helena Barlow and Holliday Grainger). He believes Miss Havisham wants to mold him into a gentleman so he can marry and provide for Estella, until she helps him become a blacksmith and bids him goodbye. Years later, Pip falls into a large fortune from an anonymous benefactor, and after making himself presentable, he returns to Estella.
I've been careful to limit my excitement since Newell's involvement was announced. 20 years ago he would have been the perfect choice, but after he attempted to make an action scene out of every dramatic beat in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and bastardized the poetic beauty of Love in the Time of Cholera, I'd lost faith. Great Expectations, though, is a return to form for a once-upon-a-time master of the genre. While it occasionally suffers from genre confusion (Bonham Carter's scenes play out more comedically than they perhaps should have), his habit of making things more action-y than they really are actually enhances the material here - the fire and boat scene are a thousand times more adrenaline- packed than in the novel - and the enthralling pacing, expertly crafted visuals, and lively dialogue and performances add up to a very fine film.
The visual aspects deserve special mention for how much they bring to the movie. It feels as if the cinematography and art direction are working to illustrate and expand on the writing, rather than simply constructing a picturesque background (which Newell was guilty of in Cholera). Scenes at Pip's home look heavenly, with golden lightning and wide shots making his world look endless and welcoming. By contrast, when he becomes a gentleman, close-ups, dreary costumes and dark, windowless rooms contribute to a more claustrophobic and icy atmosphere. The cleverness of the lighting is particularly pronounced when Pip and Estella reunite after years: we see a close-up of Irvine, with only darkness behind him, then one of Grainger in a hallway lit by brassy lanterns, positioned almost as if they are lighting a path for him to follow. The last time we see Estella, as a changed woman open to Pip's affections, is the first time we see her in a wide open space. These visual cues are simple and unintrusive, but enhance subtext and recreate the poetry of Dickens' novel.
Irvine is a capable and likable enough lead, but the film belongs to the supporting cast. Bonham Carter's interpretation of Miss Havisham is intriguing, if not perfectly executed. It recalls her performance in Big Fish, where she toes the line between outlandish and pathetic. Grainger's Estella is beautifully acted - her delivery of "I am what you made me" is chilling. Jessie Cave and particularly Jason Flemyng give adorably heartfelt and rustic performances, while Olly Alexander is hilarious and brings heaps of life to a normally dull character. The true star, though, is Ralph Fiennes. It's a shame this didn't get an Oscar push, because with a strong narrative and a proper campaign, he could have been a serious threat. Fiennes completely sinks into his character; there isn't a trace of his past performances as well-groomed, eloquent gentleman. He's frightening and savage, but oddly sympathetic, and in his more intimate scenes he absolutely devastates. There are memories of an entire life behind his eyes. Without a doubt this is one of his best performances and sadly it seems it will go unrecognized.
It's not quite a perfect film - it's very short and so some characters and themes get lost in the shuffle, and certain tonal shifts feel jarring and inappropriate - but it's a damn good one. Newell seems to have finally found a functional dynamic for a period piece, a happy balance between contemplative and spirited. Due as well to his phenomenal cast and production team, he's done a wonderful job of bringing a difficult and gloomy novel to life.
Ralph Fiennes Really looks like Liam Neeson
fatcat-7345027 July 2022
You can call this a more or less faithful abridged adaptation of the book. They had to make some minor changes here and there to fit the serialised novel into the 2 hour time limit, but everything was done tastefully.
But that doesn't make it particularly good. No, since it's trying to remain faithful to a full-length novel, instead of focusing on a little here and there, the plot rushes from scene to scene to try to cram everything in. Some of the drama and richness of the characters is lost in the celerity of the presentation.
It preserves the Victorian setting very nicely, which I appreciate, so I like it better than the 2007 version. However, it really didn't need to exist. The acting or casting isn't particularly brilliant and, as I said, it's different from the book in only minor points. As it stands, it's like a poorer version of a well-known song. You'll get possibly more out of a radio drama, the cliff's notes, the South Park recreation, the TV show, or the old movie. Gratuitous and unnecessary.
If you read the book, you could have some fun seeing the characters brought to life and picking out the differences between book and film. If not, you might be confused about what's going on.
Honourable Mentions: The Grey (2011). Liam Neeson gets lost in a forest in Canadia or Alaska or something and has to fight off some wolves with his fists. If you were going to watch this movie because you thought the guy on the cover was Neeson, there's a good consolation prize for you.
But that doesn't make it particularly good. No, since it's trying to remain faithful to a full-length novel, instead of focusing on a little here and there, the plot rushes from scene to scene to try to cram everything in. Some of the drama and richness of the characters is lost in the celerity of the presentation.
It preserves the Victorian setting very nicely, which I appreciate, so I like it better than the 2007 version. However, it really didn't need to exist. The acting or casting isn't particularly brilliant and, as I said, it's different from the book in only minor points. As it stands, it's like a poorer version of a well-known song. You'll get possibly more out of a radio drama, the cliff's notes, the South Park recreation, the TV show, or the old movie. Gratuitous and unnecessary.
If you read the book, you could have some fun seeing the characters brought to life and picking out the differences between book and film. If not, you might be confused about what's going on.
Honourable Mentions: The Grey (2011). Liam Neeson gets lost in a forest in Canadia or Alaska or something and has to fight off some wolves with his fists. If you were going to watch this movie because you thought the guy on the cover was Neeson, there's a good consolation prize for you.
Should've been great. Sadly it's not
studioAT24 January 2017
When you look at the cast list for this film you expect something that maybe won't topple David Lean's version of Dickens' classic novel, but at least will be equal to it.
It's even more disappointing then at just how far short this adaptation falls. From some examples of poor casting, to some odd story additions/cuts, this version did not do a lot of me.
Even the seemingly perfect casting of Helena Bonham Carter falls short, and that was the main selling point for this version going in. I did like that this version didn't make the same mistake as the 2011 TV series did and cut Biddy though.
It's a real shame, because this could and should've been great.
It's even more disappointing then at just how far short this adaptation falls. From some examples of poor casting, to some odd story additions/cuts, this version did not do a lot of me.
Even the seemingly perfect casting of Helena Bonham Carter falls short, and that was the main selling point for this version going in. I did like that this version didn't make the same mistake as the 2011 TV series did and cut Biddy though.
It's a real shame, because this could and should've been great.
Not the best adaptation we've seen
Alba_Of_Smeg30 August 2020
How many retellings of the same Dickens story do we really need? Especially since none of these new adaptations do anything that David Lean's version couldn't. I'll still watch them though in the hope that they do one that does the great classic tale proud or surpasses the 1946 version.
Great Expectations (2012) comes hot off the heels of the BBC's praised 2011 three-part miniseries. This one starring Jeremy Irvine, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, Holliday Grainger and Helena Bonham Carter. I actually watched this mistakenly thinking it was staring Ray Winstone but was pleasantly surprised to see Fiennes in the role instead. This version got a bit of a poor reception from what I remembered so I wasn't expecting too much to be honest, but to my surprise it was alright.
A decent effort with some moments that Lean's version didn't even include from the novel but there's something about the whole film that seems a bit made for tv movie. The acting in particular from Jeremy Irvine and Holliday Grainger is just very flat and devoid of life. Very boring performances. Helena Bonham Carter in a role that seemed almost made for her. I was sure she would impress here but didn't. She wasn't bad by any means but she didn't add anything to the Miss Havisham character. It could've been anyone else in the role and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Ralph Fiennes was excellent as expected, as always. Robbie Coltrane was a great choice for Jaggers and played the part well. Ewan Bremner shines as Wemmick. Real shame this wasn't better.
Rather so-so.
Great Expectations (2012) comes hot off the heels of the BBC's praised 2011 three-part miniseries. This one starring Jeremy Irvine, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, Holliday Grainger and Helena Bonham Carter. I actually watched this mistakenly thinking it was staring Ray Winstone but was pleasantly surprised to see Fiennes in the role instead. This version got a bit of a poor reception from what I remembered so I wasn't expecting too much to be honest, but to my surprise it was alright.
A decent effort with some moments that Lean's version didn't even include from the novel but there's something about the whole film that seems a bit made for tv movie. The acting in particular from Jeremy Irvine and Holliday Grainger is just very flat and devoid of life. Very boring performances. Helena Bonham Carter in a role that seemed almost made for her. I was sure she would impress here but didn't. She wasn't bad by any means but she didn't add anything to the Miss Havisham character. It could've been anyone else in the role and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Ralph Fiennes was excellent as expected, as always. Robbie Coltrane was a great choice for Jaggers and played the part well. Ewan Bremner shines as Wemmick. Real shame this wasn't better.
Rather so-so.
Faithful version - good despite some casting mistakes ie Helena Bonham Carter
phd_travel3 June 2013
It's time a big screen faithful color version of Great Expectations was made as an update to the Black & White David Lean classic and supersede the mediocre television adaptations. Forget about the Gwyneth Paltrow nonsense. Comparisons with the previous versions are inevitable. David Lean's version is the most magical with the wide eyed John Mills and the beautiful Jean Simmons and remains the best. The worst was the 2011 BBC version with youthful Gillian Anderson as Ms Havisham and an Estella that wasn't pretty and a Pip that was too pretty.
In this version, Ralph Fiennes was intense and watchable if not the most convict like. Pip was well cast. Jeremy Irvine is earnest and pleasant looking while not being too handsome which would have been wrong. Jason Fleyming was bit too dignified and not blue collar enough for blacksmith Joe Gargery. They went very wrong with the women. Helena Bonham was too perky and silly looking. She acted as she does in Tim Burton's movies snapping her dialog out in her clipped way. She made a joke of the role. Some one older like Helen Mirren or Cate Blanchett would have been better. Estella wasn't well cast. The younger Estella was a bit common looking and her ginger hair was jarring. Holiday Grainger was too round faced. While she is pretty from some angles, she wasn't haughty enough. Her looks are more Renaissance - hence the Borgias, than 19th Century.
As far as direction, there is a more intense in your face feel which was a bit too crowded sometimes. Some of the action is too much in shadows and crucial dialog rushed. The screenplay is good - faithful and fairly complete. Cinematography is good in the rural areas but scenes of London were too ugly.
Overall it's worth a watch despite the miscasting.
In this version, Ralph Fiennes was intense and watchable if not the most convict like. Pip was well cast. Jeremy Irvine is earnest and pleasant looking while not being too handsome which would have been wrong. Jason Fleyming was bit too dignified and not blue collar enough for blacksmith Joe Gargery. They went very wrong with the women. Helena Bonham was too perky and silly looking. She acted as she does in Tim Burton's movies snapping her dialog out in her clipped way. She made a joke of the role. Some one older like Helen Mirren or Cate Blanchett would have been better. Estella wasn't well cast. The younger Estella was a bit common looking and her ginger hair was jarring. Holiday Grainger was too round faced. While she is pretty from some angles, she wasn't haughty enough. Her looks are more Renaissance - hence the Borgias, than 19th Century.
As far as direction, there is a more intense in your face feel which was a bit too crowded sometimes. Some of the action is too much in shadows and crucial dialog rushed. The screenplay is good - faithful and fairly complete. Cinematography is good in the rural areas but scenes of London were too ugly.
Overall it's worth a watch despite the miscasting.
Good effort, but it somehow didn't hit home with me.
l_r_268 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Good effort, but it somehow didn't hit home with me. I don't know exactly why. I think it might be because I already watched 2 versions of this same movie, and it was "just a retelling". It wasn't fresh. So, maybe new viewers will rate it better. But the movie is well made. Good actors good production. You can see there was lots of effort put into this movie.
***SPOILER ALERT*** I like how it ended. Because it is very unnatural and evil for a girl to act the way she did. So, it is at least redeeming that she is in the end broken from the chains of destructive behavior.
This movie needed way more romantic scenes. And way less side stories. It's hard to tell so much in just 2 hours and so , things were not presented as strongly as they could have been.
Real rating: 7.0
MY RATING SYSTEM:
9.4 - 10 = rating 10 ***** 8.9 - 9.3 = rating 9 ***** 8.3 - 8.8 = rating 8 ***** 7.7 - 8.2 = rating 7
7.0 - 7.6 = 6 6.0 - 6.9 = 5 5.0 - 5.9 = 4 4.0 - 4.9 = 3 3.0 - 3.9 = 2 1.0 - 2.9 = 1
***SPOILER ALERT*** I like how it ended. Because it is very unnatural and evil for a girl to act the way she did. So, it is at least redeeming that she is in the end broken from the chains of destructive behavior.
This movie needed way more romantic scenes. And way less side stories. It's hard to tell so much in just 2 hours and so , things were not presented as strongly as they could have been.
Real rating: 7.0
MY RATING SYSTEM:
9.4 - 10 = rating 10 ***** 8.9 - 9.3 = rating 9 ***** 8.3 - 8.8 = rating 8 ***** 7.7 - 8.2 = rating 7
7.0 - 7.6 = 6 6.0 - 6.9 = 5 5.0 - 5.9 = 4 4.0 - 4.9 = 3 3.0 - 3.9 = 2 1.0 - 2.9 = 1
To be guilty, and to be found guilty, are different things.
Sylviastel26 June 2018
Charles Dickens' novels are always adapted into movies. This film is no exception with Helena Bonham Carter as the unforgettable Mrs. Havershan, the jilted bride and heiress. The story about young Pip who becomes a wealthy gentleman and his love for Estella is quite told in about two hours. The story behind his wealth is quite fascinating as is Mrs. Havershan. Pip is an orphan child who meets up with Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes). The cast are quite talented to pull this difficult novel off to tell rather an unusual story of an unusual orphan who becomes a wealthy gentleman. The film is about two hours. Some adaptations of this novel have been longer. The director and screenwriter were wise to keep the time to tell the story in about two hours. The cast and crew are first rate.
Long way/walk
kosmasp13 September 2013
Clocking in over 2 hours, the movie does feel like it's too long. And since it is a period piece, you get the old "repression" and not being able to get what you want thing. But the movie does have a spin of course and that spin is Ralph Fiennes character. Of course there have been quite a few versions of the book (that I haven't read I'll admit right here), I can't compare it to them (or the book obviously).
Fiennes lends the movie some well needed gravitas and while it might have been a different movie with other actors in it (see "Did you know section" here on IMDb), it still is worth watching for anyone who likes his period pieces a lot. Drama and thrill combined with a little twist here and there always works. Jason Flemyng and other characters get less time than you wish they had and the movie ends like you'd expect it to ... though it is rather difficult to feel exactly what our protagonist is going through all the time, it still works most of the time.
Fiennes lends the movie some well needed gravitas and while it might have been a different movie with other actors in it (see "Did you know section" here on IMDb), it still is worth watching for anyone who likes his period pieces a lot. Drama and thrill combined with a little twist here and there always works. Jason Flemyng and other characters get less time than you wish they had and the movie ends like you'd expect it to ... though it is rather difficult to feel exactly what our protagonist is going through all the time, it still works most of the time.
A Masterpiece: Mike Newell's Sumptuous Adaptation Fulfilled My Expectations
msecaur8 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As someone who loves Charles Dickens and the work of director Mike Newell, I have been eagerly anticipating this film since its release in England last fall. I was fortunate enough to attend its Arizona premiere at the Scottsdale International Film Festival on October 7th, and I have to say that all my anticipation was well justified. It is more than just a good film or a faithful adaptation of one of the 19th century's greatest novels; it is a masterpiece.
I can't understand why so many reviews, both critics and the public alike, are so negative. It is a good watch whether you've read the novel or not. Literary purists will enjoy it for the fact that it stays so close to the book, and casual film buffs will appreciate that the twisting Dickensian plot is made comprehensible enough so that they can follow along as well. Having watched other adaptations including the much-lauded 1946 Lean film version, which was, incidentally, the last time this story made it to the silver screen, others pale in comparison. There is not a thing about it that I would change or want any different. It is probably the best film I've seen all year.
Hats off to screenwriter David Nicholls, who manages to successfully translate a 450+ page novel into the perfect 2-hour film. He kept it to just the right length--long enough to avoid feeling butchered, but short enough so that things weren't dragged out longer than necessary. The pacing was good, and I never felt like something had been "cut out", a rare feeling in a production like this. The preservation of Dickens' own dialogue and his occasional touches of humor lends an authenticity rarely felt in adaptations of his work (ref. BBC's disastrous 3-hour miniseries).
The visual look is lush of the film is lush and gorgeous, with evocative landscapes of the Kentish coast and Gothic interiors looking equally appropriate. The choice of costumes and hairstyles is intriguing, a stylized mash- up of 19th century with a pseudo-theatrical flair, particularly those of Estella's, which was the only element that seems out of place in the story's time period, but overall it works in this film.
What I found to be the most pleasant surprise was how well acted this film was. So many actors seem to fall into the trap of allowing over-the-top theatricality and quirkiness overpower the human side of their performance and all but ignore the fact that Dickens intended his characters to come off as real people, but that trap has been cleverly avoided. The entire cast is ideally suited to their respective parts and give real, moving performances. Jeremy Irvine and Holliday Grainger as the older Pip and Estella gave better performances than I expected from the trailer, and look out for Toby Irvine, Jeremy's real-life younger brother, as Young Pip--he's a scene-stealer! Helena Bonham Carter simply is Miss Havisham, and plays her as she should be played, slightly dotty, but with a reason for her madness. Robbie Coltrane is excellent as the less-than-trustworthy Jaggers, and Jason Flemyng as Joe is literally an exact replica of the character as I imagined while reading the novel. The real standout, though, is Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch. His beautiful eyes carry the character to perfection, and along with a believable but intelligible North Country accent, it's hard to imagine anyone but him in the role.
To sum up, Mike Newell's "Great Expectations" is unquestionably one of the best Dickens adaptations ever made, certainly the best of feature-length, and I recommend it to anyone.
I can't understand why so many reviews, both critics and the public alike, are so negative. It is a good watch whether you've read the novel or not. Literary purists will enjoy it for the fact that it stays so close to the book, and casual film buffs will appreciate that the twisting Dickensian plot is made comprehensible enough so that they can follow along as well. Having watched other adaptations including the much-lauded 1946 Lean film version, which was, incidentally, the last time this story made it to the silver screen, others pale in comparison. There is not a thing about it that I would change or want any different. It is probably the best film I've seen all year.
Hats off to screenwriter David Nicholls, who manages to successfully translate a 450+ page novel into the perfect 2-hour film. He kept it to just the right length--long enough to avoid feeling butchered, but short enough so that things weren't dragged out longer than necessary. The pacing was good, and I never felt like something had been "cut out", a rare feeling in a production like this. The preservation of Dickens' own dialogue and his occasional touches of humor lends an authenticity rarely felt in adaptations of his work (ref. BBC's disastrous 3-hour miniseries).
The visual look is lush of the film is lush and gorgeous, with evocative landscapes of the Kentish coast and Gothic interiors looking equally appropriate. The choice of costumes and hairstyles is intriguing, a stylized mash- up of 19th century with a pseudo-theatrical flair, particularly those of Estella's, which was the only element that seems out of place in the story's time period, but overall it works in this film.
What I found to be the most pleasant surprise was how well acted this film was. So many actors seem to fall into the trap of allowing over-the-top theatricality and quirkiness overpower the human side of their performance and all but ignore the fact that Dickens intended his characters to come off as real people, but that trap has been cleverly avoided. The entire cast is ideally suited to their respective parts and give real, moving performances. Jeremy Irvine and Holliday Grainger as the older Pip and Estella gave better performances than I expected from the trailer, and look out for Toby Irvine, Jeremy's real-life younger brother, as Young Pip--he's a scene-stealer! Helena Bonham Carter simply is Miss Havisham, and plays her as she should be played, slightly dotty, but with a reason for her madness. Robbie Coltrane is excellent as the less-than-trustworthy Jaggers, and Jason Flemyng as Joe is literally an exact replica of the character as I imagined while reading the novel. The real standout, though, is Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch. His beautiful eyes carry the character to perfection, and along with a believable but intelligible North Country accent, it's hard to imagine anyone but him in the role.
To sum up, Mike Newell's "Great Expectations" is unquestionably one of the best Dickens adaptations ever made, certainly the best of feature-length, and I recommend it to anyone.
A fine adaptation
davidmvining21 November 2019
I'm convinced that it's impossible to make a great movie out of a Charles Dickens novel. People have their favorites, especially David Lean's Great Expectations, but I always feel that something's missing from the story. And the simple fact of the matter is that the book is great not just because of its plot and characters, but because of the actual writing present throughout. Translating the story to screen cuts nearly all of that and you're left with something like the shell of the story without much of the meat.
Mike Newell made his adaption in 2012 and it's quite a handsome affair. The movie has a wonderfully textured look from beginning to end. There's dirt, mud, sweat, and condensation on nearly every surface which gives the world a wonderful lived in look. The streets of London are filthy, almost to the point of evoking the awful smell that surely permeated everywhere. The contrast with the clean interiors of the near palatial residences that Pip visits and inhabits is stark and quite effective.
Performance wise, Pip is good, but it should be little surprise that Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch is the shining point of that part of the film. It also leads me to an observation that Magwitch seems to play a much larger role in this film than in other adaptations. In others (like Alfonso Cuaron's version), Magwitch is almost an afterthought, but here he's in it for about half the movie, pushing the focus from Pip's relationship with Estella to his relationship with Magwitch. It's well done, but, as can be implied, the relationship with Estella falters because of it.
And that's really my main thought. Dickens novels are always bursting with information. So many great characters, scenes, descriptions, and plot mechanics that it's impossible to get it all in a 2-hour film. Adaptations of Dickens should really start at the 3-hour mark and only get longer if there's any attempt to actually recreate the greatness of the book. You've got to have plenty of time for the story to breathe, for characters to flourish, and for the plot to move.
And yet, this adaptation is still good, as previously said. It's missing stuff from the book. It's prioritizing one storyline over another. But it's still a handsome production with good performances and tells its slice of the story quite well.
Mike Newell made his adaption in 2012 and it's quite a handsome affair. The movie has a wonderfully textured look from beginning to end. There's dirt, mud, sweat, and condensation on nearly every surface which gives the world a wonderful lived in look. The streets of London are filthy, almost to the point of evoking the awful smell that surely permeated everywhere. The contrast with the clean interiors of the near palatial residences that Pip visits and inhabits is stark and quite effective.
Performance wise, Pip is good, but it should be little surprise that Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch is the shining point of that part of the film. It also leads me to an observation that Magwitch seems to play a much larger role in this film than in other adaptations. In others (like Alfonso Cuaron's version), Magwitch is almost an afterthought, but here he's in it for about half the movie, pushing the focus from Pip's relationship with Estella to his relationship with Magwitch. It's well done, but, as can be implied, the relationship with Estella falters because of it.
And that's really my main thought. Dickens novels are always bursting with information. So many great characters, scenes, descriptions, and plot mechanics that it's impossible to get it all in a 2-hour film. Adaptations of Dickens should really start at the 3-hour mark and only get longer if there's any attempt to actually recreate the greatness of the book. You've got to have plenty of time for the story to breathe, for characters to flourish, and for the plot to move.
And yet, this adaptation is still good, as previously said. It's missing stuff from the book. It's prioritizing one storyline over another. But it's still a handsome production with good performances and tells its slice of the story quite well.
I know the trailer looks awesome, but, don't buy it
idoia_daqvad30 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Great expectations were what we had before watching the film because of the amazing trailer. It makes it look intriguing, full of movement and passion. However, we couldn't have been more wrong. Two hours of my life wasted on a film with a great cast, and actors I love to see perform, but so slowly paced and boring, I seriously had to make the effort to stay awake. It is not the actors, nor the special effects or the film in itself. It's just like reading the book. It's the script. Big films like Romeo + Juliet keep the original scrip or try to change it as little as possible with brilliant results. But in this case they haven't managed to do a good job. It's tedious, even too cloying for a true lover of romance. Definitely a film I wouldn't recommend anybody to watch at the theater. It's more like the one you should rent if you can't sleep. It surely will help.
'We are who we are, people don't change'
gradyharp20 April 2014
Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco, Harry Potter, Love n the Time of Cholera, Mona Lisa Smile, Enchanted April, etc) joins with creative screenwriter David Nicholls (When Did You Last See Your Father?, One Day, Starter for 10, Tess of the D'Urbervilles) and a cast and crew of enormous talent and delivers what in this viewer's opinion is the finest version of GREAT EXPECTATIONS on film. Few explorations of this complicated, dense novel by Charles Dickens manage to make every character wholly credible – no absolute villains or absolute heroes here, just a range of behavior throughout the spectrum that makes every character beautifully defined, making the intricate story wholly comprehensible.
The story is soften told that the plot is well known – though never as fully realized as in this beautifully photographed (John Mathieson) and scored (Richard Hartley) version. Pip as a lad (Toby Irvine, Jeremy Irvine's younger brother) is terrified by an encounter with escaped convict Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes) and befriends him – a significant moment in the story. The young orphan Pip is kept by blacksmith Joe Gargery (Jason Flemyng) and his horrid wife (Sally Hawkins) until he is engaged by the strange Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter) in her strangely creepy house to play with her 'daughter' Estella (Helena Barlow). In rather rapid sequence the adult Pip (now Jeremy Irvine) inherits a fortune from an anonymous benefactor, his future seems promising. Estella (now Holliday Grainger) seems bent on a different life than one with the obviously infatuated Pip. Pip is off to London, becomes a wealthy gentleman, still pines for Estella, is supervised by Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane) until a series of secrets surface and the story proceeds to its complex conclusion.
The vast cast is populated with some of England's finest actors and they all give sterling performances. The costumes and locations and settings are splendid. And for once the complex Dickens' story makes complete sense. Highly recommended.
The story is soften told that the plot is well known – though never as fully realized as in this beautifully photographed (John Mathieson) and scored (Richard Hartley) version. Pip as a lad (Toby Irvine, Jeremy Irvine's younger brother) is terrified by an encounter with escaped convict Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes) and befriends him – a significant moment in the story. The young orphan Pip is kept by blacksmith Joe Gargery (Jason Flemyng) and his horrid wife (Sally Hawkins) until he is engaged by the strange Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter) in her strangely creepy house to play with her 'daughter' Estella (Helena Barlow). In rather rapid sequence the adult Pip (now Jeremy Irvine) inherits a fortune from an anonymous benefactor, his future seems promising. Estella (now Holliday Grainger) seems bent on a different life than one with the obviously infatuated Pip. Pip is off to London, becomes a wealthy gentleman, still pines for Estella, is supervised by Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane) until a series of secrets surface and the story proceeds to its complex conclusion.
The vast cast is populated with some of England's finest actors and they all give sterling performances. The costumes and locations and settings are splendid. And for once the complex Dickens' story makes complete sense. Highly recommended.
Discrete Romantic Movie
e-pappalettera29 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
1812, England. The young orphan Pip, who lives in the countryside with her sister's family , after giving food to a fugitive which is then recaptured by the guards, is summoned to the residence of a rich lady. She lives without ever looking at the sunlight after a sentimental trauma and wants Pip to play along with another girl, Estella, who lives in the castle of which he falls madly in love. Decades later Pip will be informed that an unknown benefactor will take care of him and he has to go to London to become a gentleman. It will be in the big city , once accepted the new status, where the many mysteries will begin to be revealed. Mike Newell, director of Four Weddings and a Funeral ( and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) adapts a script author of One Day ( book and film) from " Great Expectations " by Charles Dickens. The melange of styles , influences, personal inclinations and strengths of each of the heads that have made possible this new Great Expectations is aimed at classical and faithful rendition of the book but ends up taking a turn more romantic than historical , more centered on the stories love ( that of Pip and Estella to Miss Havisham that ended badly ) and personal relationships ( the bromance deep and emotional between Pip and the blacksmith Joe Gargery ) rather than the interweaving of the plot, the action of the final or contrast among the many classes that were being consolidated in England in the first half of 800 . The Jeremy Irvine's Pip , however, is not an ambitious climber as in the book but more an astonished witness to the horrors of the fashionable upper classes . Newell removes the voice-over that adaptations in the past had often translated the first-person narrative of the book and move a few episodes from forward to reverse over time while remaining very faithful to the book as a whole, it contains the most important phrases along with large chunks . What crease instead is what he does best , i.e. telling lightly ( and apparently without giving importance ) the way in which feelings affect the actions of the characters . Everything that happens in his Great Expectations is caused by an exaggerated sentimentality (both infinite gratitude , a deep hatred , dignity incorruptible or a undying love ) , also plans warps with more mathematical calculation , but this is never the center of the film, as a natural order of things that rule life. Without providing scenes of great impact ( like the one where Pip let the light into the decadent residence to free Estella Havisham , closing the large version of the 1946 David Lean ) this latter recurrence , because of its sentimental push, aims more on the landscapes and characters, like photography and acting, focusing on the actors and the places in which they are added to give a new meaning to an old story. The result is a great illustration and a small film. There are some of the most significant places in which two sincere friends can rest caressed by the wind , dark fortresses of cobwebs from which sprout angelic faces and crannies of the city of fetid wood ready to become the metropolis of steel, but the story is weak and the dynamism the book is lost in the continuous chase dismayed faces of the actors rather than the many twist of history.
Overall an enjoyable movie, very well acted and beautifully shot. (p.s. you will definitely enjoy it more if you haven't read the C. Dickens book)
Overall an enjoyable movie, very well acted and beautifully shot. (p.s. you will definitely enjoy it more if you haven't read the C. Dickens book)
A pale reflection in a clouded mirror
dracher6 March 2013
Why? This question arises for me every time someone feels inclined to spend a fortune to reinvent the wheel, or to capture a modern feel and inject it, like a youth serum, into a classic tale.
This film says nothing that has not already been said in the story; apples to oranges? Fair enough. Let us compare apples to apples; save modern technology, nothing whatsoever is made to eclipse the 1946 film of David Lean. The casting has been matched in almost every way to the Lean film, even the character of Jaggers has Robbie Coltrane (excellent as he is) walking in the footsteps of Francis L. Sullivan.
The one glaring example of miscasting is Helena Bonham Carter as Miss Havisham, a character which at times comes very close to resembling a remnant from a hammer horror of the 1960s.
The film looks good, the feel is right (so it should be, it's more than 65 years since David Lean shot what remains the definitive version) but the story too often misses the beat, as it attempts to force its characterisations upon the audience, rather than allow the brilliance of Dickens and of so many fine artists to weave a tapestry of magic.
This film says nothing that has not already been said in the story; apples to oranges? Fair enough. Let us compare apples to apples; save modern technology, nothing whatsoever is made to eclipse the 1946 film of David Lean. The casting has been matched in almost every way to the Lean film, even the character of Jaggers has Robbie Coltrane (excellent as he is) walking in the footsteps of Francis L. Sullivan.
The one glaring example of miscasting is Helena Bonham Carter as Miss Havisham, a character which at times comes very close to resembling a remnant from a hammer horror of the 1960s.
The film looks good, the feel is right (so it should be, it's more than 65 years since David Lean shot what remains the definitive version) but the story too often misses the beat, as it attempts to force its characterisations upon the audience, rather than allow the brilliance of Dickens and of so many fine artists to weave a tapestry of magic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
