Lack of good storyline.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Airing over Christmas 2011 this adaptation of Dickens' classic novel is actually pretty good. It can't compete with the David Lean version, but there's a lot to be liked about it.Yes, it cuts out some moments, which is odd seeing as they had several episodes to tell it in rather than the 90 mins you'd have in a film, but all involved seem to suit their roles well and give good performances.It's not perfect, but there are lots of strong moments within this mini series and I rate it as being stronger than the film version that followed a year later.

I don't see the purpose of making this version. Apparently the BBC has more subsidy money that they can think of what to do with it.Frankly, the actor playing Pip is not that great and Estella is downright homely and I can't help but see Hercule Perot. Harry Lloyd wonderful as Herbert Pocket as others have said.Since others have covered many of these shortcomings I shall restrict my further comments to my disappointment in the production design and cinematography.Since the 1946 version won Oscars for Best Cinematography, Black- and-White, and Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White the standard was set. Making the film in color did not alleviate them of a need to meet or exceed that standard. I know, it won Outstanding Art Direction for a Miniseries or a Movie and Best Cinematography or a Miniseries or a Movie. but all I can say is how can that be? Apparently the judges know nothing about Victorian architecture, furniture or decorative arts and thus are unqualified to judge this film. As for the cinematography, they obviously chose to overlook some fairly frequent major flaws.Having been an antiques dealer and having a degree in Architecture and being a filmmaker and cinematographer I was hoping at least the production design and camera-work would be worth the effort. The production design is awful with mismatched furniture and decorative arts throughout, usually in the same room.The overdone areas in a severe state of decay throughout the Haversham mansion was ridiculous. First floor rooms will rarely show signs of decay from a leaking roof in a two story mansion, especially after only a couple decades of neglect. Having the wedding day dining table unchanged makes since but everything else is overkill and unbelievable. The contrast of the dining room with with the rest of the house in previous versions was missed.There was never any sign that any dust was ever disturbed even on the staircase handrails. Absurd. It is set in London and surrounds in the early to mid-1800s. The use of candles everywhere was totally wrong. It is the Victorian gaslight era and just before and candles went out of everyday use long before that due to their high cost. They were handmade, and were replaced by whale oil and then kerosene long before gaslight became available in the early 1800's in London. If you can't get that right you are doomed as lighting is the most noticeable thing in the rooms. They should have limited the use of candles to candelabras on the dining tables at formal dinner affairs, just like today. I hardly saw any furniture that didn't appear to be several decades out of fashion for the period. Not a sign of wealth to have old fashioned used furniture. Reminded me of the set for The Heiress which had a great set except for the furnishings which were also out of date despite belonging to a rich New York surgeon. Few people in London and New York with money at that time did not own out of fashion furniture yet everyone in this film does no matter what their own age. I think the spendthrift Pip would be buying the latest designs to impress Estella and his new friend, not used, out of style furniture.But for the color, the flocked wallpaper in the Haversham mansion was right out of "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", an even worse production design disaster.Some of the weird camera angles and lenses had no purpose and distorted things and people's faces for no apparent reason. Even though much of the cinematography was nice, this so took me out of the scenes that I can't fathom how it was overlooked when awards were given to the DP. I also was annoyed by his sometimes misdirected rack focusing and blown out exposure on Pip's admittedly pancake makeup white face and other faces at times.

While I have read 'Great Expectations' probably about three times in my life and am blown away every single time I do- I find that I have yet to find a film that captures the importance and reverence that the book generates. I understand that film is not suppose to replace the book- but interpret for the screen, it becomes troublesome when certain aspects are not done properly and therefor the story suffers- this occurs in books, just as is does in film. The BBC adaptation is not a disappointment, necessarily, but it lacks in certain areas that cannot be over looked. I start with what was good- First, the scenery and cinematography was spot on, from the home of childhood Pip, to the streets of London, it was close to what I experience when I read the book. Miss Havisham's home was perfect. It was a ghost of a home, just as she represents a ghost of a woman. There was just enough creepiness and sorrow with a dash of destruction. It may seem silly, but the scene- is almost a character in film- there is a deep impact or lack that can come from how something is represented visually.Everything from Pip's transformation from blacksmith to gentlemen was well done. Douglas Booth's (Pip) physical appearance did not change, but using clothes, there is a reality to his progression that is necessary to the story and was handled well. I am constantly blown away with regard to BBC Masterpiece Theaters ability to take me to a different place and time so masterfully and 'Expectation' was no different.Second, Jillian Andreson's Miss Havisham was great. I thought she captured how love is a true destroyer well. When she was in any scene she was the center- she hold the audience with her use of voice and appearance. It was amazing. Shaun Dooley was also very good as Pip's uncle and teacher, Joe Gargery. I thought that he played the 'father figure' well and when he confronted Pip about his behavior and new life-he demanded attention to not only Pip's choices, but as the book captures so well, the deeper themes of social class struggles, family versus money and honesty all took center stage. His performance was a joy to watch. The minor characters, such as Able Magwitch (Ray Winstone), Herbert Pocket (Harry Lloyd) and Jaggers (David Suchet) were also very good and fit nicely into their individual roles.The bad was really not all that bad for all intensive purposes, but I felt that a few things just brought down the film adaption.Pip. Oh, Pip. Played by Douglas Booth, who is perfectly wonderful to look at was flat. I never felt the passion that he carried for Estella, which is suppose to be the center of the tale. At its foundation 'Expectations' is a story about love and desire, and I do not think that it was captured here. Since it was clear early on in this adaptation that Estella and Pip encompassed the main theme, it was on the shoulders of Booth to carry the film and he struggled. Perhaps he was too young of a choice to play Pip, while he is close to the actual age of Pip in the book, but he seemed to struggle with how to emphasize his desire, his call for greatness. Booth's performance was not terrible, but it was not great and that was what it needed to be.The same problem occurred with the female lead, Vanassa Kirby, who played Estella. I understand that she is mean to be a destroyer of men, but she came off as if she was a robot. Seriously, there was nothing to her and that is NOT how she is suppose to be. Ugh, I just do not even want to think about it.Overall, this adaption was not bad, but it failed where it mattered and left me skeptical of how many more Dicken's classics will be interpreted. Keep the cinematography guys, the music, the costume, the adult actors- but find young actor who can act- not just look the part, but be the beloved character.

I've always liked Charles Dickens, both his writing and adaptations of his work. There are several fantastic Dickens adaptations, especially David Lean's Great Expectations(the 1999 version is also very impressive) and Oliver Twist, David Copperfield(1999), Bleak House and Little Dorrit. This Great Expectations I don't think is in the same league of the above adaptations, but it is a very solid adaptation on its own, not superb like RadioTimes said but not the piece of whatever I've read from some people on the message board.Great Expectations(2011) does I feel have its shortcomings. I do agree with some that say it was rather rushed, the details were there but while always interesting and never dull some of it does feel a bit too neat. Some scenes did jar, such as young Pip transforming suddenly into the older Pip, and the very end, which had a that's it feel to it. I also didn't like the decision to cut out Biddy and let Pip's sister live, it didn't add anything to the storytelling, and while harrowing in a sense Magwitch's recapture was rather drawn out.Unfortunately I also have to agree that Douglas Booth and Vanessa Kirby as the adult Pip and Estella were miscast. In some ways, it is a plus that they are closer in age to the characters in the novel than John Mills and Valerie Hobson were in the Lean film but actually I found Lean's leads more believable. Booth is very handsome, maybe too much so, but very wooden. Likewise Kirby came across as too plain, especially compared to Booth which was a little disconcerting, and awkward.Luckily their child counterparts were much better, young Estella was beautiful in looks and cold in manner, and Oscar Kennedy who is every bit as promising as he was in Toast is even better. The support cast are also wonderful, with honourable mentions going to Shaun Dooley, who came across as sympathetic and having a lot more steel, David Suchet's firm Jaggers, Jack Roth as Orlick, Ray Winstone whose acting in the first episode is quite terrifying and especially Gillian Anderson's haunting Miss Havisham.Visually it looks wonderful, it has some beautiful sets and locations while still keeping the evocative atmosphere and not looking too clean. The costumes and photography are also very good, especially Miss Havisham's. The music is often eerie while not ever sounding over-bearing or obvious. The script while not always having Dickens' wit and not following the novel's prose(in fact the language such as Magwitch's description of the second man seems to have been "simplified") is still good and flows well.On top of this, the story even with the rushed or jarring parts is compelling and makes you want to see the rest after the previous episode ends. The characterisation is mostly pleasing particularly at the start with Magwitch, though Pip's shrugging off of Joe seemed out of character. All in all, the series is mostly solid but maybe it was longer(4 or 5 episodes would've been better) and had two better adult leads it could have been even more than it turned out to be. 7/10 for the rest of the cast and the meticulous attention to detail. Bethany Cox