Does This Film Still Hold Up Today?
From the perspective of a modern viewer, A Tale of Two Cities (1935) is conditionally recommended. While it stands as a polished and earnest adaptation of a literary classic, it doesn’t translate seamlessly to current viewing habits or audience expectations. Those looking for an accessible, dynamic period drama with fast-paced storytelling and relatable performances may find the film slow and mannered. However, if you have patience for a measured pace, enjoy historical settings, or want to explore classic “golden age” Hollywood filmmaking as a curiosity, there’s still entertainment value to be found here.
Pacing, Acting, and Storytelling by Today’s Standards
Watching A Tale of Two Cities today can feel like stepping into another era in more ways than one. The most immediate difference is the pacing: instead of quick scene changes and brisk storytelling, this film offers a much slower build. Scenes linger, dialogue-heavy exchanges dominate, and much of the action relies on formal conversations set in stately rooms. While this allows for clear exposition, it does mean stretches of the movie feel drawn-out and static by contemporary standards.
Acting styles from this period also differ from what most viewers are now used to. Performances here are often broad and theatrical, reflecting the norms of stage-trained actors of the 1930s. Some characters come across as melodramatic, and the dialogue is delivered with a formality and enunciation that today’s audiences might find stilted or even distracting. The emotional stakes are high, but the delivery doesn’t always feel natural or subtle to a modern ear. Sustained engagement requires adjusting to these conventions—if you’re not a fan of classic film performance, the viewing experience may feel forced or old-fashioned rather than immersive.
The story, based on Charles Dickens’ novel set during the French Revolution, remains ambitious in scope, with numerous characters and shifting settings. However, its complexity and length are tackled with a directness that leaves little room for nuance. For viewers who appreciate intricate historical dramas, the film delivers, but for those expecting plot twists or fast-moving suspense, the story can feel plodding in certain stretches.
What Feels Timeless — and What Feels Dated
- Timeless elements: The film’s visual craftsmanship, including its large crowd scenes, atmospheric set design, and moody black-and-white cinematography, still create a striking sense of place. The main arc of personal sacrifice remains emotionally effective. Ronald Colman, in the role of Sydney Carton, delivers a performance that occasionally breaks through the formal style to connect in a more contemporary way, especially as the story reaches its famous conclusion. The narrative’s clear moral contrasts and dramatic high-stakes moments can still resonate for viewers willing to adjust to an older style.
- Dated elements: Much of the supporting acting feels overwrought to modern eyes, with vocal inflections and body language that can come off as artificial and distancing. The dialogue is often dense and declamatory; conversations feel more like recitations than natural exchanges. Pacing can drag, especially in the film’s early sections and during exposition-heavy scenes. Emotional responses are telegraphed with music cues and pronounced facial expressions rather than understated or realistic reactions, which takes some getting used to. The age of the film also shows in technical aspects: some special effects, editing choices, and crowd choreography are jarringly old-fashioned.
Strengths and Weaknesses for Modern Audiences
The film’s main strengths today are its epic, classical atmosphere and its relatively faithful adaptation of a sweeping novel, which can appeal to fans of historical dramas who aren’t in a rush. Viewers with an appreciation for black-and-white cinema or classic Hollywood glamour will also find a lot to enjoy in its production values. The climactic scenes toward the end remain powerful—if you stick with it, the payoff has genuine impact. Also, because it’s a clean, PG-rated film, it remains accessible to a wide age range.
That said, these strengths come with significant caveats. The slow pace and formal performances will challenge anyone accustomed to today’s fast, naturalistic storytelling. Some dialogue and character decisions are hard to relate to unless you are already invested in older acting conventions or period language. The emotional ride feels less intense than advertised—tension builds slowly, and the stakes can feel distant until the final act. If you’re watching with friends or young family members who expect immediate engagement, you may lose their interest early on. While the story is clear, there’s little subtlety; exposition can feel heavy-handed, and surprises are rare. The audio and visual quality, even in restored versions, can’t compete with modern clarity, which may be an additional barrier for some viewers.
Who Should Watch This Film Today?
This version of A Tale of Two Cities will likely appeal most to a handful of viewer types. If you enjoy period pieces, old Hollywood style, or literary adaptations that stick closely to their source material, you’ll find value, particularly if you already have some interest in the era or the Dickens novel. Movie buffs interested in film history, students, or those who enjoy classic black-and-white epics should put it on their list—provided they come prepared for a slower pace and theatrical delivery.
On the other hand, if you prefer contemporary dialogue, fast-paced editing, naturalistic acting, or a quick emotional payoff, this film may not be the right choice. Viewers looking for high-energy action, trendy humor, or easily relatable characters are likely to feel disconnected. Casual viewers or those uninterested in stories about historic revolutions may want to look elsewhere for their next night in.
If you’re still deciding, you may also want to know how this film was originally received.