Terrible movie.

that's why its an ADAPTATION...a brilliant novel...my absoloute favourite used to inspire a beutiful film...also my favourite...you have to look at it from a persective seperate from that which you saw the book. The key is to appreciate it as its own unit...its called great expectations because is shares many similar themes and motives as the novel but uses them to create something new and wonderfull...you must watch the film again in a new light

First off, I am one who has seen the movie and read the book, with my reading preceeding my viewing of the film. I'm really tired of people who obviously love books more than movies, complaining about movies because they expect it to be a 2 hour easy version of their experience of the book. Please, just stop watching movies. And in response to "the world is flat"'s comment about everything being green, and how easy that is. Actually, it is somewhat difficult to shoot photography with a consistent color theme and make things appear differently than they really are. "Little Bitter One" complains of the focus shift from Joe and Pip to Pip and Stella. This is a way to focus on a theme, which is generally what a film has to do for the sake of time, instead of explore a theme. It really boils down to a focus on unrequitted love, and the disappointments of growing up. I suspect critics of the film have trouble relating to these ideas. Look at all the exceptional actors, Deniro, Banecroft, Cooper, Hawke and Paltrow ( 4 of these are oscar winners ). I don't know what else you want from a movie. But let's remember, these are just opinions. You can't prove that a movie is good or bad, and judging a movie by a book is like tasting a meal with a grocery list.

this movie wasn't made to sound like the book, they obviously just wanted to change it around and make it modernized i dont understand what the problem is

[deleted]

How did you decide on that "real theme"? Curious here.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[deleted]

'you can't put down a painting because it isn't a photograph' - I like that. Plus, I agree with what you said. I love this film, it's one of my favourites and I've seen it many many times. The cinematography (sorry, I can't spell =S), the music, the performances, the music, the music...I think it's Gweneth Paltrow's best performance!

I think we've now established that you can't compare a book and a film, but I do think you can comment on the quality of an adaptation. but in terms of this film, I thought it was supposed to be based on the novel, as apposide to an adaptation.

My favorite book and one of my favorite movies of all time.

This isn't a movie about the book, this is a movie inspired showing the same heart and pain. Dicken's spirit is here on the corruption of childhood, the suffering of lose, obession and power and the lose of innocence in a modern day tragic to the very end of two people who cannot break cycles of lose.

You want Dicken's brilliance in under two hours for an American movie audiance? Well, this is about as good as it ever has been. Great film.

The movie honors the great book, please do read it, but you can't put down a painting because it isn't a photograph.

[deleted]

The book isn't that good??? ROFL. Only one of the greatest books ever written, by one of the greatest novellists who ever lived.

As to the film: what a waste of film stock. To have the whiney GP as Estella is bad enough, a piece of spectacular miscasting, but to move the setting to NY is just plain dumb. The Kent and London settings are essential to the atmosphere of the story. Only an idiot would move the setting across the pond.
And frankly, anyone who sets out to modernise the story has lost the plot.

This film was done. It was done by a genius called Lean. Redoing it is nonsense. It's the modern disease that is destroying modern cinema: redo all the great films of the past, only make sure the new versions are 5th-rate (from King Kong to Great Expectations and everything inbetween). It betrays the lack of imagination and creativity of today's film-makers: they are no more than cows chewing the cud.