I read the novel decades ago, but from what I remember the major points and most of the minor points of the novel are intact. The novel and the film weave a tale of a 19th century England completely lacking in compassion, and that always went doubly so for orphans such as Pip, yet he does encounter more than his share of good luck.
Of course the most interesting character in the novel is Miss Haversham. In the film as in the novel she is dumped at the altar on her wedding day in her youth and has harbored a grudge against the entire male sex since then and has lived as though stuck in that day for decades, still wearing her rotting wedding dress. What I don't understand is why the film does not include her being financially defrauded by her fiance as the novel does. The novel weaves a tale of an unbelievably small world, but the film omits a couple of the more unbelievable plot turns to its credit.
The lawyer, Mr. Jaggers, who attends to Pip's affairs when he is in London, is also a most interesting character. He has a hangman's noose as a souvenir in his office and also seems to be actively collecting the death masks of the recently executed as a new one pops up every time Pip visits him. Yet when he discusses the matter of the death penalty and criminal justice in England Jaggers truly seems to get the cruel randomness of those institutions.
One thing I can say without spoiling anything is how completely unrecognizable Alec Guinness is as Herbert Pocket, Pip's roommate in London. He doesn't even have that trademark gravelly voice at this point, his first credited film appearance.
I don't even like costume dramas or period pieces, but I highly recommend this one. The fine acting by the cast and Lean's direction really drew me into the story.
