Hitchcoc In my opinion, the early movie versions of the Dickens novels stand out against the countless others. For one thing, they are produced in black and white, and seem to capture more of the authentic angst and fear that existed at that time. Many films today give us a more sanitized version of these works. Don't get me wrong. There have been some nice pieces done, but the bleakness of Victorian England really shows through here. Of course, this is the classic plot, where a man, Darnay, whose life has been upended, tries to go on with life, knowing that the Revolution creates incredible danger to him. We then have Sydney Carton, who has led a life of profligacy and has been weak when push came to shove. He carries a torch for Lucy Manette, but it is unrequited and hopeless. There are greats scenes of the citizenry and the venom (a rightful venom) that they carry in them. The problem with revolution is that the innocent are often punished when they have no skin in the game. This is so, and the mob scenes are stunning, though incredibly frightening. Ultimately, this is about a man who for one powerful moment has the opportunity to turn a worthless life into something meaningful. My hesitation about an afterlife and rewards in heaven aren't those of the man of which I speak. It is interesting to compare the casting of this film with other versions. I think this will stand the test of time. Granted, all Dickens books are filled with subplots and characters not seen here, but that's what movie producers and writers must constantly face.

vincentlynch-moonoi A movie begins with the words. In this case the words of the immortal Charles Dickens (and this is once when saying someone is immortal that it's not an exaggeration). But then, screen writes must take the words in the novel and condense the story down to about 2 hours of film. And it is that step that makes or breaks many a film. And here it was done brilliantly. And I really mean that. When you think of all that is in the novel "A Tale Of Two Cities", the screen writers here were able to successfully sift all those contents down into what was the crux of the story.Next is the cast. And here, the highly respected Ronald Colman, a unique actor, plays...NOT Ronald Colman. The famed mustache is missing. Instead of being sophisticated he is a drunkard (albeit one with a heart and character). In the Colman biography written by his daughter, it is said that for these reasons, this was, perhaps, Colman's favorite film. As you watch the film, however, you realize that the screen writers knew that the film was not about Sydney Carton, it was about the French Revolution. So although it is a Colman starring vehicle, his screen time is what the story demands, not what a movie star demanded. Make no mistake, here, Colman is Sydney Carton.The excellence in casting is not restricted to Colman. Elizabeth Allan is perfect as Lucie Manette. Character actress Edna May Oliver has one of her most engaging roles as Miss Pross, Lucie's servant. Blanche Yurka is a truly menacing Madame Defarge. Henry Walthall is exceptional as Dr. Manette. Walter Catlett is appropriately talented as Barsad. Claude Gillingwater is perfect as Jarvis Lorry, banker and friend of the family. H. B. Warner is unforgettable as Gabelle, the servant of an aristocrat. And, toward the very end of the film, Isabel Jewell is stunning as the Seamstress about to be executed...a brief, but memorable performance (the first few times I saw this film I thought it was an early performance by Lana Turner). Donald Woods' role as the husband-in-law of Dr. Manette and descendant of a French aristocrat has been criticized in reviews for his performance, but I'm not so sure that he's that bad; it's just that everyone else is so darned good.Should we be surprised that this is a near-perfect film? Let's see, producer -- David O. Selznick. Primary star -- Ronald Colman. Director -- Jack Conway (perhaps his finest film). Studio -- MGM.And the ending. Tastefully done. ""It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." Perfection on film.

DKosty123 Though Tale of Two Cities has been done since this film, in 2 hours and 10 minutes this one captures the book as well as any ever made. It is Ronald Coleman's signature performance. It features Reginald Owen who would later on be in the Dicken's classic A Christmas Carol and Basil Rathbone who would become Sherlock Holmes in the cast.It was the best of times in London and the worst of times in Paris as the French Revolution is in full swing with many people being sent to their deaths via a justice system gone wild. This story is how one man and his family manage to avoid their fate with circumstances and the ultimate sacrifice by a friend.This film is dated but MGM did a fine job bringing this classic to the screen and today the film is still a very effective drama.

MartinHafer "A Tale of Two Cities" is a brilliant film--one of the best adaptations of a classic story that I have ever seen. However, in this there is a problem...at least for folks like me. I am so familiar with the story that the film, no matter how great it is, is all repetitive--and I know exactly what's coming next (just like what happens when I see "The Three Musketeers"). There simply are no surprises other than the interesting choice to have DIFFERENT actors play the two leading male roles (in other versions, it was played by the same actor--in a case of "identical strangers"--a silly idea. If you are NOT thoroughly familiar with the story, then it certainly is a must-see, as it is probably the best version out there--mostly because Ronald Colman is such a wonderful actor and the film brims with class and wonderful 1930s Hollywood polish from start to finish. Excellent throughout and a great story.