A Tale of Two Cities (1935) User Reviews

A Worthy Adaption of an Excellent Novel!

[Lvenactress · 9/10 · 29 June 2005]

I read the book "A Tale of Two Cities", by Charles Dickens, in ninth grade, and to my extreme surprise, it became my second favorite novel of all time. That's why I was thrilled to get my hands on this acclaimed film version, starring Ronald Colman as about my favorite literary character I've met, among a terrific cast.

I am slightly biased, since I was comparing the film very strongly to the novel. Fortunately, the movie did not disappoint - it was excellent! They had to cut much material that was in the novel or else the movie would go on foooooooreeeeeeeeeveeeeeeeerrrrrrr....but they kept the important scenes and kept the essence of Dickens's classic. They also found the right balance between the scenes with our heroes, Lucie Manette, Charles Darnay, Dr. Manette, and Sydney Carton (among others) in London, and the material featuring the Defarges and other peasants in Paris. And they made it compelling, not boring and droning.

The cast, like I said, is very ideal, but I will mention those that stand out the most. Elizabeth Allan surprised me by giving Lucie - who is the world's most annoying and flimsy character in the novel - genuine character and substance, even though Lucie doesn't get to actually do much. Blanche Yurka was absolutely perfect as Mme. Defarge; she was cold and frightening, yet you could sympathize with her without thinking she was too mushy. Edna May Oliver was a treat as Miss Pross, capturing the image of the seemingly strict yet warm maid in the Manette household.

But what I was really judging the movie upon was my imaginary boyfriend, Sydney Carton. Ronald Colman was impeccable as the unlikely hero. He got the different "sides" of Carton right - drunk, insolent, and smart-alecky in one scene and tenderly romantic in the next. The film version also added more humor to Carton, which fits his character well. (The scene in which he pretends to flirt with Miss Pross was not in the novel, but it is one of my favorites.) Sydney Carton's selfless act of sacrifice (and his comforting of the frightened seamstress) are extremely moving. Wonderfully done.

My only real qualifier is that, to my surprise, Charles Darnay (Donald Woods) and Sydney Carton didn't look that much alike. Darnay had sharper features, whereas Carton...ah, Ronald Colman has these lovely brown eyes, giving him a slightly puppy-dog look sometimes. Oh well - the movie made it fairly clear that they were supposed to look alike. Besides, how easy is it casting dopplegangers?

Overall, if you have read "A Tale of Two Cities," there's a darn good chance you're going to like this film. And if you haven't read the book, you may like it anyway. Either way, I highly recommend it.

The best Hollywood Dickens

[st-shot · 9/10 · 26 March 2011]

With the exception of David Copperfield this is probably Hollywood's most accomplished treatment of a Charles Dickens work. Sumptuously mounted and produced in grand MGM style it has the the perfect voice and charm of Ronald Colman as Sidney Carton, a stalwart supporting cast and magnificently choreographed large scale crowd scenes depicting the out of control energy and fury of the revolt and subsequent reign of terror.

Colman's charming cynic wins us over early given he is surrounded by just cause with a Dicken's roster of pompous bores and hypocrites caught up in their own self importance. He drinks and offends but who can blame him. The sardonic wit of the film extends beyond Carton though by way of Dickens "cinematic" descriptive style that sharply conveys through both character and setting distracting dark humor over the grim proceedings by intermingling comic portraits with the sober cruel personages while making incisive social commentary. A laudable supporting cast consisting of Reginald Owen, Edna May Oliver, Billy Bevan, Blanche Yurka's Madame DeFarge and Basil Rathbone's venal Marquis de Evermonde truly do bring the pages to life, though I will admit an Oliver, Yurka death match near the end does take liberties with the tome.

Oliver Marsh's photography is commendable throughout whether conveying panorama in the excellently edited storming of the Bastille and raucous courtroom scenes or the tight tension filled cramped ominously lit interiors of cells or the De Farge wine shop.

With Colman in the lead and every MGM department clicking on all cylinders Tale of Two Cities remains fresh and vital 75 years later. It is one of those rear films that embraces rather than wrestle with a classic literary work which it does here with grandeur and confidence.

Storming the Bastille, 1930s Style

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 21 November 2017]

I haven't read Charles Dickens' famous novel since high school, so I can't remember how faithful this film adaptation is. I'm sure much is excised from the book, as it would have to be in any adaptation that isn't 15 hours long. But as a stand-alone film, this version of "A Tale of Two Cities" is an awfully good one, and contains a lot of entertainment value.

Ronald Colman does most of the heavy lifting and is superb in the lead role. But two stand outs from the supporting cast are Blanche Yurka as the infamous Madame De Farge, the personification of an activist spirit taken to monstrous extremes, and Edna May Oliver, a proper English lady who won't let a few thousand French revolutionaries intimidate her. The best scene of the film is the smack down between the two characters, one of the best cat fights committed to celluloid.

"A Tale of Two Cities" received two Oscar nominations in 1936, one for Best Picture in a year with ten nominees, and the other for its film editing, courtesy of Conrad Nervig, the man who won the very first film editing award when the category was introduced in 1934.

Grade: A

Excellent Adaptation With Colman & Much More

[Snow Leopard · 29 October 2004]

Perhaps best known for Ronald Colman's signature performance as Sidney Carton, this excellent adaptation of Dickens's "A Tale of Two Cities" also has a lot of other strengths to offer. Colman is joined by the likes of Edna May Oliver and Basil Rathbone in a fine cast that brings the characters to life. The story itself is filled with good scenes, ranging from the exciting Bastille scene to courtroom showdowns to important confrontations between the characters.

The novel contains a lot more material than would ever fit into a normal-length movie, and the screenplay does a good job of selecting sequences that fit together and that work well on the screen. While differing in places from the original, it preserves the most important themes and ideas. The French Revolution is an interesting and multi-layered subject, and a good number of high-quality classic films are set in the period. The Dickens novel, in particular, lends itself readily to a cinema adaptation.

The role of Sidney Carton is almost an actor's dream, an unlikely hero who has to battle his own limitations as well as the situation around him. Colman's classic style does full justice to the role, making the character fully sympathetic without pretending that he is something he is not, and without drawing attention away from the overall themes and focus of the story. Most present-day actors would be far too self-absorbed to play the role as it should be played.

Almost everything in this version is satisfying and enjoyable. It combines plenty of drama with some good lighter moments and period detail, almost all of it done with skill. Colman himself clinches it with his memorable portrayal of a challenging and interesting character.

One Of The Very Best Of The 1930s

[ccthemovieman-1 · 10/10 · 7 June 2006]

Rarely have I upgraded a film between viewings as much as I did this one. I saw it quite a while ago and thought it was so-so, but watched it again last week after re-acquiring the VHS....and wow, what an incredible movie! This has to be one of the finest movies of the 1930s.

Production-wise, with the big cast of extras, the photography, the superb acting and powerful story, I can't see how another film, with the exception of "Gone With The Wind," that featured all that this film boasts. Why it is not out on DVD as of this writing - June of 2006 - is a disgrace.

Starting with visuals, this movie reminded me in parts of a good film-noir with the shadows-and-light and great facial closeups. It's just beautifully filmed, and the big reason I'd want to view this on disc.

As for the acting, if ever a man looked and sounded like he was perfectly suited for a certain role, it has to be Ronald Colman playing "Sidney Carton." The anguished, reflective sorrowful looks alone made Colman memorable in this role. It's hard to picture anyone else doing a better job as the man who has no esteem, finds love, is greatly disappointed but then does the most noble thing any human being can do for another, giving up his own for a friend. It's fitting you get Scripture at the end of this film, and in earlier parts of the story as Colman plays a role in which Jesus himself describes how best to show one's love for someone. This is a very spiritual film, by the way, which may turn off some people but was an inspiration to this reviewer.

Almost as riveting as Colman was Blance Yurka. Hers is a not a familiar screen name but apparently she was a big success on the stage during her era. As "Madame DeFarge," Yurka plays on the most vengeful and frightening female figures I've ever seen on film. Too bad she wasn't seen in more movies; she had the charisma for the silver screen.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Allan as the female lead ("Lucy Manette") and Donald Woods as the other male interest ("Charles Darnay") do well in their leading roles. Three other supporting players also are notable for their standout performances: Edna Mae Oliver as Lucy's protective maid/companion "Miss Pross;" Basil Rathbone as the evil French Aristocrat "Marquis St. Evremonde" and Henry B. Walthall as "Dr. Manette."

This Charles Dickens story couldn't have been translated any better to the big screen that what you see here.

A far far better movie than that has been ever done.....

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 10 April 2001]

When screen masterpieces of literary works are discussed, this version of Dicken's classic is sure to be one of them. Yet at the time of its release, it did not get the acclaim it deserved. None of its fabulous cast received Oscar nominations, although it was up for Best Film. To this viewer, it was the best film of 1935, and tops in many other categories as well.

From the moment this movie begins, the audience is transported back to pre-French Revolutionary Europe. It is England and Lucy Mannette (the now forgotten Elizabeth Allen) is called to France to be reunited with her father (Henry B. Walthall). Meanwhile, aristocrat Marquis St. Everymonde (Basil Rathbone) is accidently responsible for the death of a child, and ends up murdered after disowning his nephew (Donald Woods) who changes his name to Charles Darnay and moves to England. He is put on trial for having secret British documents, but is helped to freedom by the similar looking Sydney Carton (Ronald Colman). Darnay marries Lucy Mannette, but his past threatens to tear them apart forever as the French Revolution begins.

That is just a snippet of the plot, just to give the reader a taste of the classic story. All of Dicken's story would have made enough material for two films, so of course, there was some liberty taken when writing the screenplay. Dickens' stories concentrated on the abundance of characters he wrote in and out of the storyline, and "A Tale of Two Cities" is no exception. Every character from beginning to end has some connection to the basic plot; there are enough twists and turns to keep the audience interested through the two-hour running time. What makes this film work is the amount of effort by the writers to make each characterization important to the overall structure.

First, heroine Lucy Mannette; seemingly fragile, she never-the-less manages to survive every ordeal she faces; Elizabeth Allan is lovely and believable, yet never weak. She had minimal screen work (most notably a supporting role in "Camille"), but this film assured her of screen immortality. Donald Woods is less impressive as Charles Darnay; he does not entirely convince the audience in his scenes with scoundral Basil Rathbone as his uncle. Rathbone easily chews him up and spits him out. As Lucy's devoted companion Miss Pross, Edna May Oliver is a true scene stealer. One of Hollywood's best character actresses during the 30's, Oliver was truly lovable in spite of her outward sourness; beneath that beats a heart of gold that always came through for the heroines in their time of need. If there had been Oscar nominations for Supporting Actress at this time, Oliver would be a candidate-either for this film or for another Dickens adaption released through MGM the same year, "David Copperfield".

Oliver's rival in the film onscreen and off (for awards) is the unforgettable European stage actress Blanche Yurka playing the pathetic Madame DuFarge. You can't help but sympathize with this tragic yet bitter character who has seen so much suffering that she can't help but want revenge. Yurka had only a few more opportunities to shine in films, but this was her showiest roles, and one for which she deserved recognition. In subsequent versions of this film, DuFarge was a much younger character, making her seem less hard. Yurka's scene in court where she reveals all is simply one of the best performances of a monologue in screen history.

Then, there is Ronald Colman as the tragic Sydney Carton who suffers an unrequitted love for Lucy and decides as a result to make the ultimate sacrifice. No one other than Colman could have done this role justice; he simply is Sydney Carton just as much as Gable was Rhett Butler, just as much as James Cagney was George M. Cohan. No, it is not the leading role. He doesn't even appear until way into the film, but once he does, he is unforgettable. What then turns into the film's lead makes for breathtaking cinema presence.

I also want to take time to mention the little-talked-about Lucille LaVerne who plays the part of DeFarge's co-hort "La Vengeance". Watch this film (again if you've already seen it) with D. W. Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm". This is a good companion piece with "A Tale of Two Cities" as both are about the French Revolution, and it is amazing the similarity of the two characters which LaVerne played. It is almost like they are the same ones, here living with two different storylines. One of those rare occurances in films that just has to be seen.

"A Tale of Two Cities" is a film I can watch over and over. I have seen other versions, but this film ranks as the very best. The production design is outstanding; the music brilliant; and the writing excellent. Very few films in history rank total perfection; this is one of them.

A Fabulous Tale of 2 Cities ****

[edwagreen · 10/10 · 12 January 2006]

Charles Dickens would have stood up and applauded had he seen this fabulous 1935 version of his classic tale.

There are no words adequate enough to praise the fine performances in this film dealing with the French Revolution.

Ronald Colman is memorable as Sidney Carton, an alcoholic lawyer, who gave up his life to save the husband (Donald Woods) of the woman he loved. The woman, played by Elizabeth Allan, was strong in emotion and very appealing.

The supporting performances are first-rate. Had they had supporting Oscar categories in 1935, Edna May Oliver, as Miss Pross, governess to Allan and Blanche Yurka, as fiery revolutionary Madame De Farge, would have certainly been nominated. Who can forget the fight scene between both of these women? Who can forget De Farge's demand that Darnay, the nephew of the notorious Marquis Evremonde, a vicious Basil Rathbone, be put to death for being a member of this elitist family? Yurka tore into this scene a revenge rarely seen in motion pictures. Unfortunately, Hollywood could offer her few parts for a talent as great as this. Oliver, as Miss Pross, shed the right tears, and with sarcastic wit, delivered some of the most memorable lines in this film. Her facial gestures along with those of Yurka were something else. You'd also feel for the mobs of the starving French while the aristocrats lived so well.

Isabel Jewell, as the condemned seamstress, gave heart in her brief performance. Her emotional outburst, as she nears her fate, will never be forgotten.

The dialogue was crisp, the directing by Jack Conway, was first rate.

Years later, this classic was remade in 1958. It was an extremely poor remake. Foolishly, they weakened the part of Madame De Farge. **** for the original and even more. Revolutions were never as good as this one!

"It was the best of times..."

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 24 March 2005]

Most of the fiction of Charles Dickens is set firmly in the 19th Century, from roughly 1820 to 1865 or so. Twice, however, he essayed the historical novel. It was really not his specialty. His rival, William Thackeray, was into the past and constructed several notable tales of 18th Century life ("Henry Esmond", "The Virginians", "Denis Duval", "Barry Lyndon", "Catherine"). Compared to this Dickens only squeezed out "Barnaby Rudge" and "A Tale of Two Cities". The first one (published in 1842) was interesting, as it dealt with a serious riot that almost overthrew the monarchy in 1780. But few people read it. Ironically enough, the following year Dickens wrote a novella of 100 pages which became one of his perennial favorite works - "A Christmas Carol". But the second novel (published in 1859 - as Dickens reached the heights of his literary powers) became one of the greatest historical novels ever written. It also has the best introductory paragraph of any of his novels (see the "summary" line to see the opening of it).

He had prepared on the background to "A Tale of Two Cities" by reading Thomas Carlyle's classic "History of the French Revolution". It might have been better if he had read some of the French historians, for Carlyle was a great colorist (he created the "green-eyed" monster image of Maximillian Robespierre that most British and Americans still adhere to), but he saw the Revolution from an ultra-conservative view. It colors Dickens' version, where nothing good seems to come from the French revolutionaries. In his essay on Dickens, George Orwell says that his constant image of carts filled of guillotine victims made the very word "tumbril" sinister. It did. By all means read this novel, and see this film, but don't base your view of that historical event on the novel or film.

The story follows the events of the Manette and St. Evremonde families and their friends (particularly Sidney Carton, a barrister) in England and France, as well as the growing revolutionary spirit in France that is symbolized by the Defarges from 1780 to 1793. Dickens is basically claiming that the cruelties of the ancien regime (represented by the old Marquis St. Evremond) will end by creating new cruelties and new masters now from the lower classes itself. Monsieur Defarges is somewhat more sympathetic to some people (after Charles is condemned to death by a revolutionary tribunal he sees no reason to continue going after the others), but Madame Defarges, remembering the sufferings of her own family, is willing to kill anybody connected to the aristocrats (including the Englishwoman Miss Pross). When one reads the full final speech of Sidney in the novel he foresees that the new leaders are doomed to be eaten up by the guillotine as well (including Defarges).

Much of the five hundred page novel (one of Dickens shortest novels - which helps it's narrative flow) is cut in the film, but the main points are kept. Possibly the most important cut deals with a minor character, Serjeant Stryver - he is Sidney's boss, and uses Sidney's brilliance to win his cases. He actually is a rival for Lucy Manette's hand in the novel, but this is not in the film. Reginald Owen did well in the part, but it would have been hard to see him as a potential lover (especially as Sidney is played by Ronald Colman, or Darnay by Douglas Woods).

The cast was an excellent one, giving Colman, Woods, Rathbone, Oliver, Yurka, Warner, Walthall, and Catlett exceptionally good moments to shine. Witness Rathbone dismissing the murmurs of the intelligentsia (although he finds Voltaire amusing). Witness Yurka's testimony at Darnay's trial. See Catlett's final moments, watching the last tumbrel of guillotine victims going to their doom, and calming down two men who are shouting with glee (very subtly done, and unusual for Catlett - usually a comic actor). Whether Sidney Carton is Colman's greatest performance is questionable (his mad actor in "A Double Life" is better, as is his George Apley and Dick Heldar), but it is a signature part. To this day he's imitated saying, "It is a far, far better thing I do...." No quote for the other roles is submitted by budding Rich Littles among us.

Such an excellent film owes it's production to one man: David O. Selznick, it's producer. A man who loved literature, Selznick made "A Tale of Two Cities" as one of a series of literary based films (with "David Copperfield", and "Little Lord Fauntleroy") that were uniformly excellent, and culminated in "Gone With The Wind". "A Tale of Two Cities" is not as long as "Gone With The Wind", but shows the same taste and craftsmanship that made the latter film a great one too.

why, Why, WHY!

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 18 July 2010]

MGM's Ronald Colman version of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" has more in common with the best of films, and less in common with the worst of films. Producer David O. Selznick guaranteed it a nice budget, which results in a some finely-edited incidental scenes. Every so often, you are startled by how well something is done - but, generally, the story goes through the motions. It is nice to see Mr. Colman perform the "Sydney Carton" role. The other leads do not work well with him, however. Colman's "Carton" is supposed to be identical in appearance to the "Charles Darnay" character played by Donald Woods. The two men are vaguely similar types, but Mr. Woods is a bigger, taller man; and, his youth makes Colman look a little old for the part. Elizabeth Allan (as Lucie) is pretty; she looks good with Woods, but has no little chemistry with Colman.

The film offered a grand supporting cast - all eligible for the first "Best Supporting" Oscar given, but none were nominated.

The best supporting actor almost looks to be Basil Rathbone, with his cruel depiction of French aristocracy; but, he doesn't appear much, and Mr. Rathbone could perform the part in his sleep. By the time he loses his tenuous sanity, fatherly Henry B. Walthall (as Alexandre Manette) really takes supporting actor honors; and, this was the last great character role for Mr. Walthall. For feminine honors, it's a battle between Edna May Oliver's wise-cracking English maid and Blanche Yurka's violently-knitting French peasant. They even have a supporting actress dogfight. Many admire Ms. Yurka's efforts, which are considerable; she chews the scenery and spits it out. Finally, by the time "The End" has come, it's very apparent this "Tale of Two Cities" has become a "Christmas Carol" - of course, as in the original work, Dickens would prefer the comparison to be more allegorical.

******* A Tale of Two Cities (12/25/35) Jack Conway ~ Ronald Colman, Donald Woods, Henry B. Walthall, Blanche Yurka

Classic novel, classic film, Ronald Colman a "far...far" better actor.

[mercutio-8 · 10/10 · 17 August 2000]

I have just finished reading Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities," for the first time. It is one of the greatest books I have ever read. I then rented the MGM movie, and found it to be a fine, straightforward adaptation. I once read a critic's summation of Ronald Colman as having a dignified presence, fine voice, but ultimately NOT a very good actor. I DISAGREE. If on this film alone, his moments of reflection, his drunken revelry, the longing glances at Elizabeth Allan, and his fierce determination to see that his heroic plans are carried out make for a well-rounded, full character. Truly a fine performance.

Grand Early Adaptation of Dickens' Famous Novel of the French Revolution

[silverscreen888 · 7/10 · 30 October 2007]

"A Tale of Two Cities" (1935) was directed by Jack Conway and Robert Z. Leonard, uncredited, from a novel by Charles Dickens. The script had several other sources, but is credited to S.N. Behrman and W. P. Lipscomb. These details become important to note when the virtues and much more minor flaws of an exciting but not quite first-rank novel by a famous writer are compared to the virtues and minor flaws of the movie based upon them. The novel is very faithful, I suggest, in many respects to the novel. Dolly Tree is given credit for the fine costumes in this expensive David O. Selznick production. Others deserving praise for an unusually faithful early historical costume production include its original music's composer Herbert Stothart, cinematographer Oliver T. Marsh, legendary Art Director Cedric Gibbons, Second Unit Director/Assistant Director Jacques Tourneur working with Val Lewton), and Art Department associates Fredric Hope and Edwin B. Willis. The film is occasionally very moving and exciting, but aside from the French Revolution action sequences, the film is a well-acted period drama. So, it is the actors in this film upon whom the viewer needs to focus; it is they who carry the meaning of this novel of human values and relationships forward or fail to carry it. In this regard, anyone who evaluates this film needs to note good professional work by Elizabeth Allan as Lucie Manette, Henry B. Walthall and H.B. Warner as her father and Gabelle, Donald Woods as Charles Darnay, Blanche Yurka and Mitchell Lewis as the de Farges. Even better work is done in this movie by Basil Rathbone as the Marquis St. Evremonde, Walter Catlett as Barsad, Edna May Oliver as Miss Pross, Reginald Owen as Stryver, Isabel Jewell as the seamstress and Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton. Colman gives a very intelligent, restrained and effective performance as the hard-drinking Carton, obviously award level. The best sequences in the scenario by my lights include the passage of cavalry that kill a child, the revolutionary courtroom scene, the trial in a court headed by E.E. Clive, several tavern and restaurant scenes involving Colman in various stages of bitter humor, the elaborate storming of the Bastille and the general impeccable handling of stagecoaches and interior scenes and the final beautifully-done execution scene. There are some flaws in the film, minor ones I suggest, which I assert are due to Charles' Dicken's choices in the matter of character. But we see meaningful characters developed in this very early film that are beyond the capacity of most filmmakers of the period. Characters talk, act, react, have station and status and purposes, social positions and responsibilities. It is in the elaboration of these intertwined lives lived in the shadow of the Revolution being fomented in France that the persons in the film are painted; and I suggest it is from those events that they draw some of their power by Dickens's work; and also it is in their entrapment in social levels, with only a vague democratic altruistic-sentimental humanism as one choice and an equally vague republican statist-emotionless elitism as the other choice, that they lose the chance to become as great to their appreciators as they might have been if given a broader non-imperial British canvas--one containing individual rights--against which to be portrayed.

Colmans eyes steal the film

[Caz1964 · 10/10 · 27 May 2006]

This is the best version of the novel and despite its age its still the saddest with out ever becoming overly sentimental.Ronald Colman was perfect at playing Sidney Carton,the part was tailor-made for him,even though at the time he was in his mid forties,which would also make him the oldest actor in this role.He had the most expressive eyes,darkly beautiful and yet sad,like most of the silent stars Garbo being one of them the acting was all in the eyes,the transition into talkies meant that silent stars had to have the perfect voice,Ronald Colman had a smooth velvety type voice and despite having seen his best years was still perfect for the early talkies.This film is one example of the actor at his best,although almost forgotten nowadays he was the pioneer of English gentleman actors who broke through into the early talkies and into Hollywood,those that would follow were the likes of Larry Olivier,David Niven and not forgetting Cary Grant.Its a shame we always forget the original actors that made that big breakthrough,that paved the way for others.This film is a must see for fans of the novel,its now very old but it hasn't lost its appeal,and you'll still find the ending very moving.We just cant make them like this any more.

Colman as Carton

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 20 January 2024]

When Metro turned their attention to Dickens' classic novel and turned it over to David O. Selznick it had the asset of a plush production values but the liability of uninspired direction by old warhorse Jack Conway.

No matter. You couldn't go wrong with Ronald Colman in the lead - making an far far greater sacrifice than Sydney Carton ever did by losing his moustache; while the supporting is full of good people, Basil Rathbone making a memorable patrician meanie, Blanche Yurka a witch of a Madame De Farge, Elizabeth Allan as the charming young heroine and - best of all - the formidable Edna Mae Oliver as Miss Pross.

Shrill soap opera

[ockiemilkwood · 3/10 · 15 June 2018]

Bloated, big-budget soaper from MGM, shrill with treacly, over-the-top melodrama. This grabs your throat as if intent on choking you. Nothing is left to the imagination. Subtlety is ground into dust. Heroes and villains, good and evil, are starkly black and white. Of incidental interest are brilliant crowd scenes, the storming of the Bastille, devised by Val Lewton and Jacques Tourneur (cf., their horror, B-movie collaborations in the '40s).

Faithful screen version of the classic Dickens tale...

[Doylenf · 16 October 2002]

A TALE OF TWO CITIES contains enough material for a four hour movie but amazingly David O. Selznick's production has managed to tell the epic tale in just a little over two hours. While there are many memorable characters, the ones that stay in the memory longest are Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton and the little seamstress (Isabel Jewell) who gets her courage from him before they go off to the guillotine and he utters those immortal words, "It's a far, far better thing I do..."

Edna May Oliver is just one of the pleasures among the supporting players. Donald Woods makes a handsome, if somewhat subdued, Charles Darnay and Blanche Yurka does an outstanding job as the bitter Madame Defarge. Basil Rathbone is excellent as the aristocratic Marquis St. Evremonde who is annoyed when his horse-driven carriage runs amok and kills a child, setting in motion the bitter Evremonde legacy of hate and mistrust among the French peasants.

The storming of the Bastille is awesome in its detail, as is all of the set decoration for interiors and exteriors which really captures the atmosphere of this turbulent time in history.

Probably Ronald Colman's finest hour--his world weary Sydney Carton becomes a highly sympathetic character by the time he is ready to assume another man's place. A memorable film.

A Tale of Two Men

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 18 January 2007]

The cities are London and Paris during the George III era, but A Tale of Two Cities is also the story of two men who loved the same woman, but she could only love one of them.

The first man is Charles Darnay who is an aristocrat, heir to the title of Marquis St.Evremonde. As written by Charles Dickens and played by Donald Woods, Darnay is a man schooled in the Enlightenment teachings of Voltaire and sees a lot of the injustices perpetrated by people like his uncle Basil Rathbone. When Elizabeth Allan brings over her father Henry B. Walthall who has been imprisoned in the Bastille, she meets Woods on the boat and they're crushing out on each other big time.

The second man is Sydney Carton and Ronald Colman in the biography that his daughter Juliet wrote about him said that Carton was one of his favorite parts. A man of undeniable legal talents, but who in mid life has given way to cynicism and drunken dissipation, Colman makes this classical literary character very human indeed and one who in moments of despair, someone we can identify with.

They both love Allan, but she only loves Woods. In the end seeing his life amounts to a whole lot of nothing, with no family or friends, Colman makes a big sacrifice for Allan's happiness.

Of course this all done in the background of Georgian London and the French Revolution. Thomas Carlyle's history and this novel by Dickens is how we in the English speaking world have viewed the French Revolution. It's a classic case of over reaction on a grand scale.

David O. Selznick made some brilliant casting choices as Charles Dickens's classic characters come to life on the big screen. My favorites besides Colman are Blanche Yurka as Madame DeFarge and Edna May Oliver as Miss Pross.

Blanche Yurka is maybe the best study in literature about how hate and malice can twist a human being. She's so crazy to wipe out all the aristocrats it extends to women and small children. The point Dickens made about Charles Darnay is that he in fact did repudiate the life and views of Basil Rathbone, but that makes no difference to Yurka. It's Yurka's best known role.

Edna May Oliver as Miss Pross gets one of her two or three best known roles. She was an American from New England and classically trained, trained so well to play all these English literary characters like the Aunt in David Copperfield, Lady Catherine DeBurgh in Pride and Prejudice and of course Miss Pross. When these two tangle, the most famous chick fight in literature comes alive on the screen.

Colman gets the thespian honors here though. My favorite scene with him is in the Bastille and going to the Guillotine when he comforts Isabell Jewell whose only crime is that she was a loyal servant and seamstress to an aristocrat. It's Ronald Colman at his best.

When you see this version of A Tale of Two Cities you will realize that there aren't any far far better things Ronald Colman ever did.

Adding to the other positive comments

[jcravens42 · 10/10 · 2 January 2006]

So many of the positive comments here say what I would want to about this forgotten masterpiece of a film. The only things I can add: (1) the elimination of the "twins" theme from the book was brilliant. I've always found such themes dated and tiring. Removing it for the cinema makes for a much more effective film. (2) The movie does a much better job than the book in balancing the different "sides" of the revolution, showing the evils of extremism, whether it's the aristocracy or militants. Not all of the aristocracy is evil, and not all of the revolutionaries are evil. The movie is B & W, but there is nothing B & W about the French Revolution, and the movie does a great job of showing this. (3) The details in the background -- how cider is warmed, how meat is turned, how streets are lighted -- are fascinating and quite historically accurate. It's worth watching the film again and again just to learn about these customs of the time. (4) It's Ronald Colman's finest performance, no question, and I must disagree with the poster who said that Ronald Colman was her imaginary boyfriend. He's always been MY imaginary boyfriend.

Colman as Sydney Carton

[blanche-2 · 10/10 · 28 January 2008]

"A Tale of Two Cities" is a beautiful historical drama, true to the Dickens novel as produced by David O. Selznick. Released in 1935, it stars Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton, Elizabeth Allan as Lucy, Basil Rathbone, Donald Woods, Blanche Yurka, Edna May Oliver, Reginald Owen and Isabel Jewell.

No point in repeating the story. Colman's Sydney Carton is his best-remembered role - a sad alcoholic whose only joy in life is the beautiful Lucy and later on, her child. Carton is a man without much purpose, who doesn't really know why he's on earth and doesn't feel that he's worth much. In his self-sacrifice, he finds the meaning in life he has sought. Colman never overdid as an actor - if anything, he underplayed, and there was always a gentleness and a pathos to his performances. He's perfect as Carton. Elizabeth Allan is a beautiful, strong Lucy. Donald Woods, who plays her husband, the lucky Charles Darnay, seems a little out of place, however. As the cruel Lord Evremonde, Basil Rathbone is excellent. Two character actresses, Edna May Oliver and Blanche Yurka, hand in lively performances that really help make the film.

This film version definitely reflects Dickens' point of view about the French Revolution, which isn't everyone's, but in remaining faithful to the novel, of course, Dickens' point of view is obvious. It is a great film to show in a literature class rather than a history class. It would be wonderful if this and some other classics could be introduced to students somehow. Too much Transformers and the like can't be that good for the soul.

Wretched excess.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 4 August 2006]

Why does every social movement get out of hand? Embracing a revolutionary ideology seems often to lead to a kind of game in which purity of belief, untempered by reason or common sense, becomes as powerful, frightening, and dangerous as the thing it replaces. Each revolutionary engages in a contest with others to see who can out-revolutionize whom. Fidel Castro executed the members of Bautista's brutally repressive government -- down to and including mailmen because they'd worked for the state. And France was worse and it lasted longer. It wasn't the best of times at all.

But, sociological queries aside, the movie itself is engaging and instructive. Seeing a period film released in 1935 one is impressed by how DATED it seems. The score constantly underlines the points we can easily see being made on screen. The acting tends towards the Smithfield ham end of the spectrum. Raised voices quiver with a vibrato we associate with the 19th-century stage. Gestures are broad enough to be seen from outer space. The sets are carefully constructed but are obviously sets. The wardrobe may or may not be entirely accurate to circumstances but seems schematic -- the aristoi wear frilly lace, the bourgeoisie wear dark clothing like the guy on the Quaker Oats package, and the poor are dressed in dirty rags.

This version of Dickens' novel isn't any different and yet it's just plain fine storytelling. It isn't the least pretentious. Everything about it is professional and designed to get the job done, like a Volkswagon Beetle. Some of the performances are more interesting than others, partly because of the actors and partly because the roles are better written.

Three prominent characters are memorable. Ronald Colman is a fine, distracted, disillusioned, drunken romantic. I wouldn't say that tis a far, far better thing than he has done, because I enjoyed his reluctant man of action in "The Prisoner of Zenda." Edna May Oliver can't help but impress, with her horsey face, prudishness, and harrumphing indignation covering up the warmth of her inner organs. Best of all -- sorry, but it's Basil Rathbone as the most faggoty and selfish of the aristocrats. How he minces! Sherlock Holmes prancing around in ruffles and lace, sniffing with irritation when his carriage runs over a child. "My horses might have been hurt!" Loved it! Weaknesses, though, kind of leap out at you. The character players are dependable and good -- Catlett, Bevan, and the like. But Elizabeth Allen as Lucy seems to bring a blank spot to the screen. And her husband, Evremont, displays a level of skill that you or I would take about a week to acquire. Maybe two weeks.

The movie isn't pregnant with symbolism, any more than the novel is, although we have to admit that Mme. DeFarge is knitting more than a pullover crew-neck sweater. Did she get it from Prossy in the novel too? I forget.

Anyway it's no-nonsense storytelling, a glossy black-and-white production that Hollywood was pretty good at. It could have come out of the Bauhaus. It's the kind of movie that suggests (but does not demonstrate) how much you could get away with while working inside the envelope. It's volcanically, elementally better than the billion-dollar CGI extravaganzas mostly on the screen now, and it cost little to produce, on a schedule of probably two months or so. ("Grapes of Wrath" took Ford 33 days to shoot.) I haven't seen the other versions of the novel that are more recent, but this one is more than adequate in its own way. I'd better quit. I'm coming down with an attack of acute nostalgia. See this if you can. And, Kids, think of it this way -- if you watch the movie you won't have to read the book.

Outstanding Adaptation

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 16 February 2017]

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.

Could have been far, far better

[kenjha · 7/10 · 9 April 2010]

The Dickens novel is brought to the screen in a typically lavish Selznick production. The cinematography and sets are impressive in recreating revolutionary France. Colman is well cast as the tragic hero, managing to make Sidney Carton debonair yet resigned. Unfortunately, the supporting cast is not up to par. Allan overacts, but is a model of restraint compared to Yurka, a stage actress making her film debut. The latter is laughably over-the-top as Madame De Farge. The revolution scenes are well done but are ruined by cheesy captions on the screen such as "WHY WHY WHY," rendering the whole thing ludicrously melodramatic.

What does it take to win an Oscar?

[HotToastyRag · 8/10 · 22 February 2022]

In case you've had a bad first impression of Ronald Colman and think he's just a stuffed shirt with a rod up his backbone, you need to watch A Tale of Two Cities. His performance is so emotional, you won't believe it's actually him. He was so anxious to take on the role, he even shaved his classic mustache (which was a big deal to classic actors, just ask Cesar Romero!). Most of Colman's career consisted of upstanding English gentlemen with an extremely stiff upper lip, but playing Sydney Carton shows a different side to his acting. Disgraced, in love with a woman who doesn't even notice him, and drunk more often than not, the character is fascinating, heartbreaking, and impossible to root against.

You'll see a supporting cast of Basil Rathbone, Reginald Owen, Elizabeth Allen, Edna May Oliver, H. B. Warner, and Donald Wood, but you probably won't even notice. Whenever Ronnie is on the screen, you can't pay attention to anyone else. Although snagging a well deserved nomination for Best Picture that year from the Academy, Ronald Colman wasn't nominated for Best Actor. When you watch this heavy Dickens drama, you'll wonder what it takes to make it on the list of the best performances of the year. The Hot Toasty Rag Awards were very proud to reverse that decision; Colman won his first Rag for this one-of-a-kind beautiful performance. There have been many, many big and small screen adaptations of this classic story. If you haven't yet seen this 1935 version, what are you waiting for?

Good adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel

[grantss · 7/10 · 12 August 2015]

Good adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel.

Set in Paris and London before and during the French Revolution, the story of how the Revolution, and the build-up to it, ultimately affects the lives of several people. One is a former French aristocrat, Charles Darnay (played by Donald Woods). Others include his father, wife, father-in-law and the French population in general.

Entertaining, engaging and intriguing. Also examines reasonably well the causes for the Revolution, and the fascist, overreacting, overreaching consequences of it.

Solid performances all round.

Worth watching, at the very least in that this is quicker than reading the book...

Lifeless adaptation of Dickens' tale.

[greynomad-27840 · 4/10 · 23 January 2023]

Before and during the French revolution, political violence brings strife to a small family and a lawyer.

I was so looking forward to this. This is one of the few Dicken's books I haven't seen an adaptation. This is considered the best version of this tale and I was bored to tears, struggling to make it through the two hours plus runtime.

It's very dry with little cause to have sympathy for the characters and their situations. I've never read the book and I thought as rushed as the film was maybe it was a thousand page epic but one edition is about 300 pages. We're never shown how the characters get attached to one another. We're just told.

One bright spot among the performances is Isabel Jewell, who displays such emotion in her brief scenes the others neglect in the whole movie.

Just an overly dramatic unmoving film.