w-weish No, the ONLY problem with this story, the film, and with 95% of films and books is the idea that a man somehow needs to be CONVINCED That he loves you, is so 'unaware' of his feelings, can be convinced that he is in love when he didn't know it (come on!),or doesn't recognize his feelings. That is a terrible thing to be telling women, because it is not true in the real world!!! Let me tell you: When a man is in love, he doesn't need any 'convincing'. And this is coming from men themselves: When men want something, they go for it. Period. They don't need to be bargained with ("let me stay with you the rest of my days") or given ultimatums to marry you. If they want to marry you , they will do the proposing!Period. The portrayal of poor little me and poor little Dorrit (yes, I had a half-British man call me 'little', too) having to be the ones to somehow convince a man of his true loving feelings for us, and this constant portrayal of a man suddenly seeing the light and saying 'Oh, my.. I must love her' is absolute b.s., and it makes women in the real world waste a lot of time (sometimes years of their lives) because of story lines like this that abound: "He does love me, he just doesn't know it', or " all it takes is one person (young Chittery) to tell him and he will finally realize that we both love each other and are meant to be together!" Again, women, all the men say that no one had to convince them or 'show' them when they were in love. There was nothing that a woman can do to get a man to love her. Throughout this entire story, the Arther character virtually ignores her, skips off happily leaving her in hell and never asking about her, goes for another woman,(certainly not pining away for Dorrit) tells the woman that he loves about the other woman (that happened in real life, and talk about painful?!) has no concern for little Dorrit's feelings throughout the entire film, even when she has just lost her father and uncle at the same time (!) Arthur merely says 'Sorry to hear that', many women nurse men back to health and the men don't have some big glorious awakening of romantic love from it, much less a marriage, and Arthur never even asks about her through the film, much too preoccupied with his other things. That is not the behavior of a man in love. Men who are TRULY in love will try to move mountains to be with the woman they love, and make great, huge personal sacrifices to do so. He never even proposed marriage to her, and is full of the same ridiculous, inane 'excuses' commitment phobic men use (you know, the ones who never marry the woman in the real world): Age difference, I send you away because I care for you, money, etc. Baloney!

Alireza Amidfar When I first watched the first episode of this superb production of BBC, I gave 7 to it. Then I continued to watch and found out what a exceptional work it is. There are lots of adaptations from different authors but none of them could catch my eyes like this one. The chemistry between characters, the performance of them, the creation of locations, costumes, the music regarding each scene... in a simple word admirable... Perfect. As someone who read the novel itself and has the highest esteem for the author of it, I should say this adaptation, ironically, is so superior than the novel itself, it gave life to the "Little Dorrit" of Dickens. It deserves the highest rate.

kindervatr-728-153790 I am a great fan of period dramas in general, and especially of the Andrew Davies BBC adaptations. Of all the movies done of Pride and Prejudice, none come anywhere near the exemplary dramatization done by Mr. Davies.I saw the original 1988? movie of Little Dorrit, and apparently was one of the few who really enjoyed it! I thought the actress Sarah Pickering was appropriately waifish, mysterious, resolute but "minding her humble place," and I have no problem with actresses re-creating characters that are accurately representative of the way women behaved in that time period, and the way Dickens wrote them. The sassiness that 21st century actress often bring Dickens' characters is bothersome because it is simply not an accurate representation. We have to get past our pride to accept that this is just how reality was back then, and if done right, the proper 19th century representation can have something very refreshing and winsome about it. That is why I enjoyed Sarah Pickering's Dorrit.Having said that, Andrew Davies' Little Dorrit was really very good. Claire Foy as Amy was a bit saucy at times for my taste, but overall did an excellent job. The entire production was high-class and visually very attractive.The plot had some unexplainable loose ends, and since I haven't read the book, I'm not sure if it's a fault of the book, or because the movie just ran out of time. For example, Tattiecorem was a big, colorful character, well-developed, at the beginning of the story. By the end of the story, I wondered what had happened to her and what was the purpose of her character being in the story at all. Same with Pet and Henry--after the baby was born, what happened to them?? And I didn't understand the purpose of the Blandois character to the plot in general. He was a frightening, vicious killer at the beginning. By the end he was an annoying, intrusive extortionist but kind of lost the "evil". I can't figure out why Dickens needed a character like that to expose the secret of Mrs. Clennan. It seemed totally unrelated to the rest of the story. Perhaps Mr. Davies just had too many characters to deal with, even with such an epically long program.But none of that detracted from my enjoyment of the movie. It was high quality in every way. I plan to buy the DVD and add it to my collection!

Edu-16 From the first moments of this wonderful production we (mum, dad and two girls 10 and 12) were entranced. Unlike those in the UK who would see this a slice a week, we saw the whole lot over a single long weekend. As I write - we've just two episodes to go...We have all the BBC Dickens productions for comparison - including the recent Bleak House and our favourites Great Expectations and (my personal top) Our Mutual Friend. LD comes v.close to the top of this pile - The last two episodes may tip the balance....From the first, this production grabs with its beautiful and (perhaps unusually) 'sunny' scenery. None of the austerity of the recent Great Expectations production, nor the gloominess of Bleak House. Actually this made for a nice change.... The acting is perfect - with key emotional scenes being utterly believable. The actor playing Young Chivery (heading for great things I suspect) induced a flood burst of tears from my 10 year old in the marriage proposal scene. As others have mentioned, even the smaller parts are excellently cast and played. But there's something else at play here to make this possible.In many Dickens productions Directors seem loath to leave peripheral characters out. Bleak House in particular suffered for this I think. In LD everyone seems to have space and time in which to be presented and to evolve. It never feels chaotic or suffocating - time is taken, and this makes the whole that more soluble.The leads are all superb - Little Dorit is perfectly perfect without being goody goody....(another issue with Bleak House), and Andrew McFad is particularly good, managing to look younger than he did in the wonderful Pride and Prejudice... And did he chub up for the role? Things have been left out - and perhaps the damning indictment of society and government are not so forcibly presented as they might have been. But what remains is a delightful mystery, beautifully told and acted and which we will want to watch all over again as soon as we've come to the end.