Film review

Great Expectations

1998 · Directed by Alfonso Cuarón · 1h 51m · MPA R

In a sentenceDickens moved to Florida, dressed head to toe in green, and told to gaze at Gwyneth Paltrow until something happens

The Gulf Coast of Florida. Finnegan Bell (Jeremy James Kissner), ten years old, an orphan raised by his sister’s boyfriend Joe (Chris Cooper), a fisherman, is wading in the shallows when an escaped convict (Robert De Niro) rises out of the water and demands his help. Soon afterwards he is summoned to Paradiso Perduto, the rotting mansion of Ms. Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft), a rich recluse, to be a playmate for her niece Estella (Raquel Beaudene). Finn draws; Estella watches him do it. Years pass. The grown Finn (Ethan Hawke) still fishes with Joe and still draws Estella (Gwyneth Paltrow), who treats him with amused contempt. Then a lawyer, Jerry Ragno (Josh Mostel), arrives with news: an anonymous patron will pay for Finn to move to New York and show his work in a gallery.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Alfonso Cuarón moves Dickens to Florida and Manhattan and paints it green. It is lovely to look at, Anne Bancroft and Robert De Niro give it a pulse, and the romance at its centre never once explains why anyone should want anyone.

Alfonso Cuarón’s Great Expectations takes the Charles Dickens novel out of the marshes, puts it on the Gulf Coast of Florida, sends it on to New York and renames Pip Finnegan Bell. Mitch Glazer’s screenplay keeps the bones: the boy, the convict, the mad rich woman, the cold girl, the mysterious benefactor. It drops nearly everything the bones were holding up. What is left is a film that is a pleasure to look at for 111 minutes and that we could not, in the end, make ourselves care about.

The look first, because it is the reason to see it. Emmanuel Lubezki shoots almost every frame with green in it: the water, Estella’s dresses, the peeling walls of Ms. Dinsmoor’s mansion, the paint on Finn’s hands. Tony Burrough’s Paradiso Perduto is a coastal pile with the garden grown in through the windows and a fountain full of leaves, and the New York apartments are white and bare by contrast, so we know Finn has arrived nowhere in particular. Judianna Makovsky puts Paltrow in fitted green and puts Bancroft in the wardrobe of a woman who has not bought anything new in decades and still dresses for dinner. It is a coherent, deliberate world, and Cuarón moves the camera through it slowly enough to let us live in it.

Bancroft is the film’s great turn. Ms. Dinsmoor smokes, dances alone to old records in her ruined ballroom, and speaks to the ten-year-old Finn (Jeremy James Kissner) as though he were a grown man who had already let her down. She is funny and frightening in the same breath and she never asks for sympathy. De Niro, as the convict Finn finds in the shallows in the first ten minutes, has only a handful of scenes and makes each one count; whenever he is on screen the film has tension, and whenever he is not it has scenery. Chris Cooper plays Joe, the fisherman who raises Finn, with a plain decency the film does not know what to do with.

The problem is the lovers. Hawke’s Finn is a man things happen to. He draws, he wants Estella, he is given money and a gallery, and at no point does he decide anything. Hawke plays it soft-voiced and slightly hurt, and there is nothing behind the hurt. Paltrow’s Estella is asked to be cruel and desirable and nothing else, and she does both, but Glazer never gives her a reason to keep returning to a man she plainly holds in contempt, or him a reason to keep letting her. The kiss at the fountain between the children is the best scene the two characters share, and they are ten.

We wanted to be swept up. The film is built to sweep, all green light and Patrick Doyle’s strings rising every time Estella walks into a room, and around the hour mark we noticed we were admiring the wallpaper while two beautiful people stared at each other. Then we were faintly annoyed, because all the pieces of a real film were there and nobody was assembling them. Doyle’s score works hardest exactly where the writing works least, and you can hear the strain. Steven Weisberg cuts the Florida childhood with a dreamy looseness that suits it and the New York half with the same looseness, which does not; the gallery scenes drift.

Dickens’s Pip learns that he has been ashamed of the wrong people, and Joe is where that lesson lands. Glazer keeps Joe and forgets what he is for. When the fisherman turns up in the city, Finn is embarrassed, and the film is embarrassed with him rather than by him. Without that turn the story is a boy who fancies a girl and gets rich. Hank Azaria’s Walter Plane, the rival for Estella, is given so little to do that he registers as a rumour.

Most critics have split down the middle on this one, and we can see both halves. David Lean’s 1946 film found the marshes frightening; Cuarón finds the Gulf beautiful, and that is the trade he has made. See it for Bancroft, for the colour, and for De Niro coming up out of the water. Watch it at home, where the greens hold and the longing takes up less of the evening. It carries a 15 certificate.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

58
Positive
5
Mixed
0
Negative
4

The reviews split almost down the middle, with nothing in between: five critics like Cuarón’s modern-dress Dickens and four do not. What they agree on is the look. Nearly every review, warm or cold, praises the voluptuous visual style and finds the move to 1970s Florida and 1980s New York convincingly done. De Niro’s Magwitch figure earns praise from admirers and detractors alike, as does Anne Bancroft.

The reservations cluster around what the update leaves behind. The detractors say the film narrows the story to the romance and the stars and loses the novel’s lessons about loyalty and growing up, so that it ends up stranded between its two periods. Variety finds it a talented curiosity short on dramatic tension; Empire thinks Hawke’s lead is weak; The New Yorker prefers David Lean’s 1946 film. Notably, the warmest notices come from critics revisiting the film years on, while the reviews from its release run cooler.

The AV Club
10 May 2013 · Sam Adams
80*

The critic highlights Cuarón’s boldly sensual, contemporary reimagining of Dickens, which is bright, sunny, and openly erotic in ways that diverge sharply from Anglo-Saxon traditions and prior adaptations. They single out the film’s consistent creation and subversion of expectations, along with strong performances such as Robert De Niro’s complex Magwitch figure.

Read the full review →
The Telegraph
3 April 2023
80*

The critic calls the Cuarón film a bold, sexy and vibrant modern take on Dickens that stands out as one of the most thrilling screen versions, with a witty, poignant script, superb cast and a fascinating central romance between Hawke and Paltrow.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · GA
80*

The critic finds Cuarón's modernized adaptation stylish, sexy, involving and great fun. They single out the effective transposition of the story to 1970s Florida and 1980s New York for evoking the themes of innocence and experience.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
30 January 1998 · Roger Ebert
70*

The film begins as a great movie but ends as only a good one, limited by its focus on the romantic line rather than broader coming-of-age elements. It is visually enchanted thanks to the cinematography, with strong performances and a successful modern translation of the source material.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 January 1998 · Janet Maslin
70*

The pop overhaul of the Dickens story is bold and vulgar but often works due to the director's voluptuous visual style, creating wonder even when wilder ideas misfire. It makes up in visual exoticism what it loses in character and context.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
40*

The film is a well-meaning but unsuccessful reworking of Dickens that fails to capture the story's point despite strong visual style and supporting turns from De Niro and Bancroft. Hawke's lead performance is weak and the narrative lacks emotional engagement.

Read the full review →

Cast

If you liked this, try…