Well said! Great expectations is one of my favourite books. I fell in love with it as a child and read at least once a year.
I realise that when you watch adaptations, you expect some changes and some artistic licence, but this film is awful. Everything is changed except the bare bones of the story. And the scenes with the young Estella and Finn (by the way, why change his name?!) are creepy. I get that Finn would be mesmerised by her, but we don't need to sexualise a little girl to understand that Finn is drawn to her.
A sad adaptation of a brilliant book. Everyone needs to read the book. You're missing so much if you don't.

I never found that a novel can be adapt into a movie. The movie can only describe the them but 2 hours of motion story telling is just simply not enough.
TV series, maybe. Hardly a movie.

I never read the book. I've heard it was a great book. I don't read many books; however, I watch a whole lot of movies. This is one of my all time favorites and perhaps one of the best motion pictures ever made.
End of Story.

The main flaw of the movie is that Pip makes his way with his art, whereas in the book, it is of utmost importance to the entire arc of the story that he does NOT provide his own way while still having "great expectations."

I'm a huge Alfonso fan but I felt the pacing in this film was terrible and the narration felt to intrusive. I wanted to rate it higher, but I just couldn't. I hardly have elitist taste, some of the films I like are shunned by the movie going majority, but this movie lacked emotion and substance. I don't think it was a problem of an adaptation, it just lacked power.
I like the David Lean version better, far more entertaining.

The basic story is that there are particular rigid class divisions. Anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't understood the basic story. Clearly, the producer and director of this waste of film stock have not.

Wow, I can't believe how many people in this thread don't realize this is an attempt to make a MODERN adaptation of the basic story.
Sounds like a lot of you are just ticked you had to read this book for school and wanted to watch Gwen and Ethan read it to you word for word instead. The book is a classic and this film is quite good. They are separate and individual works of art.

Thank you for citing my error in spelling, and showing me the meaning of the word CHILDLIKE in doing so. In any case, you have a right to your opinion, but that's not what annoys me. What annoys me is people laughing at other people's opinions. Looked in the mirror lately?

Well, look who is talking about pompous and childlike (there is no hyphen in childlike). Looked in the mirror lately?
Oh, and by the way: it may annoy you, but I have a right to my own opinion.

This message has been deleted.

Hey, people got a right to their opinion. Besides, when are you going to realize that putting "ROFL" or "LOL" in your posts pretty much discredits your posts as pompous and child-like?

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.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I've read the book (more than once), and I love it.
I've seen the movie (more than once), and I love it too.
Always Keep A Song In Your Heart

I've read the book, I've watched both versions, David Lean's one and Cuarn's version.
I've enojoyed immensly each one of those experiences. Great expectations either on book or as a film, by Lean or by Cuarn is simply a masterpiece.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.

'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 musicI 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.

This message has been deleted.

Stop being ignorant. If people cannot recognize the difference between a Dickens novel and a Hollywood film, well they're not going to be seeing this type of movie in the first place. And the rest of us do not need YOU to tell us that they differ.
I always thought it was interesting reading the reviews in America vs. those in England when this movie came out. Many more Americans reviewed the movie with your same sort of "How dare you!" approach, as if it were a great sin to even try to adapt Dickens' timeless themes into a modern context. THAT'S the greatness of Dickens! That you can successfully make a modern film with his same themes is a testament to his work. This was recognized by the British film critics.
Interesting that the critics from Dickens' home country were far more fascinated by this film than know-it-all American film critics.
PS. The use of green is a theme in other Cuaron films. Do some research.

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.

Renko - I agree.
I've watched the movie countless times and found that it works on many levels; apart from the stunning cinematography, the green theme, the acting was very fine too. I find that this is one of Gwyneth Paltrow's most moving performances - as opposed to a lot of bland stuff she has done in the past - and the others in the cast did a great job.
Ultimately though, I think the cinematography lends itself to the richness of Dickens' theme - whether Cuaron and the scripwriters chose to stick to it in a holy manner or not.
I read somewhere that this was one of the most difficult movies for Cuaron to make because there really was no semblance of a script- so everyone just went with it.
Ultimately though, I think it stuck through with the essence of Great Expectations.

This message has been deleted.

How did you decide on that "real theme"? Curious here.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

This message has been deleted.