drjgardner "A Tale of Two Cities" is the remarkable 1859 story by Charles Dickens that appeared as 31 weekly installments in Dickens' own periodical. It was made as a film several times, including 3 silent versions and a marvelous 1935 version. The 30s were a great time for Dickens films, including "Oliver Twist" (1933) with Dickie Moore, "Great Expectations" (1934) with Henry Hull and Jane Wyatt, "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" (1935) with Claude Rains, "Scrooge" (1935), "David Copperfield" (1935) with none other than W. C. Fields, and "A Christmas Carol" (1938) with Reginald Owen.Comparing the 1935 and the 1958 versions - Sydney Carlton – Dirk Bogarde (1958) does a good job, one of his best, but Ronald Coleman (1935) is my preference.Charles Darney – Donald Woods (1935) is the better player. Paul Guers is a bit wooden for my tastes.Marquis St Evremonde – Basil Rathbone (1935) is one of the best villains anywhere, exceeding even Christopher Lee (1958).Miss Pross – Edna May Oliver (1935) was a hoot, much better than Athene Seyler (1958).Lucie Manette – Dorothy Tutin (1958) and Elizabeth Allen (1935) both do an admirable job.C.J.Stryver – Reginald Owen (1935) is more compelling than Ernest ClarkBoth versions are 2+ hours long and both don't fully represent the richness of the novel. I think the 1935 versions moves a bit better with fewer lapses, but both films are pretty well paced. Recall that Dickens' works are extremely long so no film can capture everything.In terms of production values, the 1935 version is surprisingly good, even though producer Selznick put more effort into other films at the time. The 1958 version, done in black and white, is certainly OK, but not any better than the 1935 version.The 1935 film was nominated for Best Picture and Best Film Editing. It lost to "The Great Ziegfeld" (picture) and "Anthony Adverse" (editing). The 1958 version received no nominations.Bottom line – if you're going to see only one version of this great novel, pick the 1935 version.

peter-woodhart I'm old now, and I've been watching films (movies!) since the 1940's!This black and white 1958 version of 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a beautiful love story. Although we owe the wonderful Charles Dickens all the credit for creating such an outstanding act of bravery by Sydney Carton, I defy anyone to suggest a better actor than Dirk Bogarde to play this part.Dirk Bogarde starts the film as a drunk who has nothing to live for. Through his love for Lucie, he learns to redeem himself. The words he dictates at the end of the film to Charles Darney in the prison, 'I knew it was not in your nature.....' are real tearjerkers.I watch the film at least once a year and always find it a moving experience.Highly recommendedPS The haunting music by Richard Addinsell is fabulous.....

TheLittleSongbird The 1935 film is a classic, and this film from 1958 is very close to that, the second-best adaptation by quite some distance. It looks very beautiful, the black and white photography skillful and well-suited to the story, the revolutionary scenes are still powerful despite not being in colour. Richard Adinsell's music score is bombastic, haunting and also a real beauty to listen to. A Tale of Two Cities is very intelligently scripted with a lot of dramatic weight though occasionally a little on the ponderous side, while the story- even when straight-forwardly adapted- is still as powerful and moving as one would expect, with the ending quite heart-breaking in its tragedy. The direction shows command of the source material and the ability to bring out the best of the cast. Dirk Bogarde is great and very charismatic, plus he probably hasn't been more handsome than he is here. Dorothy Tutin's Lucie is fetching and heartfelt, Christopher Lee is wonderfully vicious and truly hissable and Rosalie Crutchley brings chills as Madame Dufarge if occasionally a little too histrionic. Overall, excellent and a very easy close second-best adaptation. And it is true that it deserves to be judged on its own terms, the whole "the book is better" and "any film/TV series that doesn't follow the story to the letter is immediately terrible, and books shouldn't be seemingly improved upon"(Agatha Christie and Jane Austen adaptations are prone to this in particular) are tired old clichés. 9/10 Bethany Cox

emdragon Summary: Ralph Thomas' direction makes this the best adaptationThe English 1958 interpretation of Charles Dickens' great novel "A Tale of Two Cities", directed by Ralph Thomas, is a really terrific picture, capturing the essence of Dickens' tale deftly. Thomas' craftily directed black and white adaptation lends itself quite tangibly and nicely to the purposes of the story, I would say more succinctly than the 1935 interpretation directed by Jack Conway. The earlier adaptation featured as many fine performances (Ronald Coleman, Edna Mae Oliver, Basil Rathbone, Blanche Yurka, etc), and succeeded in special effects and cinematography a little better, perhaps, than THIS picture, but Thomas' directing emphasizes the key points of the original story, and this becomes the better picture as a result.Dirk Bogarde playing Sydney Carton is quite perfect here, and a young Christopher Lee as the conceit driven supercilious Marquis St. Evremonde is fantastic, as is Rosalie Crutchley as the cruel hearted revenge laden Madame Defarge. Cast-wise, both pictures do a great job, and Edna Mae Oliver's performance in the earlier picture is missed here. But the director uses a lighter brush to get many of the complexities of the story in this English version. In one scene, during the climactic period of the story in the dungeon of the Bastille, Barsad (Donald Pleasence), a character of low repute working for whichever side will use him, finally catches onto the heroism of Mr Carton and holds his hand out for a respectful shake. . . with no reply for several seconds. Then, just as he turns to open the door to have the guard take out Mr Carton, who by then is really a passed out Charles Darnay made to look like the supposed drunken Carton . . .the real Mr Carton (Dirk Bogarde) touches his shoulder, just enough to convey that a good angel is bringing hope to the world, even to low characters like Basard. It is very touching. This scene is handled with master craftsmanship by the director. And this sort of directing pervades the film's entirety, which is the primary reason why this movie IS the better of the two, in my opinion.