Something is probably wrong...

I rather like her. Surely she's meant to have strong features - given Estella's parentage, she's not going to be china-doll-like - and the actress does have beautiful eyes.

I would say it's very difficult to judge whether they have read the book or not - they seem to me to have a pretty clear understanding of the roles, as corrupted children and the adults who are the product of this corruption. Of course, Pip has a way to go before he understands himself at all well, despite Joe trying to tell him. Estella has something like the same journey towards self-knowledge to make. Both have pretty severe lessons to learn yet.

Not sure why someone wouldn't be able to play a period role? Too modern in their sensibilities, you mean?

I was being sarcastic.
they have left out many integral characters, and have changed several parts of the novel, I have to say I am very much a puritan when it comes to adaptations, and this is pretty far removed. In my eyes it is rape, as I say this is only MY interpretation of what is a pretty average adaptation. Still, at least it's not as bad as the recent Jane Eyre, which really was awful.

{Possible spoilers}

I'm just a humble English professor, but I feel I must take exception to your claiming this adaptation included all the key elements of the novel. First and foremost, leaving out as pivotal a character as Biddy already calls this production into question. By cobbling together all the scheming Pockets into the benign Matthew Pocket's family, the production commits another fatal error, given Matthew Pocket's later, important role in the story. The production unforgivably rushes the development of the novel's core relationships: among Pip, Miss Havisham and Estella; without that development, the story has a gaping void at its center that its woefully ignorant producers and writer fail to fill. Likewise, this adaptation plays fast and loose with the timing of Orlick's attack upon Mrs. Gargery, which happens while Joe is at the Three Jolly Bargemen smoking his pipe and Pip goes up-town to Satis House. Having Mrs. Joe attacked while Pip and Joe are at Satis House cannot be justified; in order for the narrative to remain in a logical story arc, Dickens' timetable should be followed. Pip is already a young man who has asked for a half-holiday to visit Miss Havisham on her birthday, which is also the day she was jilted; Orlick also demands a half-holiday, which in turn provokes the wrath of Mrs. Joe, who has a heated exchange with her husband's journeyman. Joe springs to her aid by punching Orlick, then dismissing him. Therein lies the impetus for Orlick's attack upon the shrewish Mrs. Gargery. The mishandling of those scenes made the adaptation's narrative irritatingly clumsy. Too many of the important interactions appear off-camera; this production provides a fine example of why good writers must show, rather than merely tell. In just the first episode, the producers managed to alienate those of its viewers who know the novel.

The costumes were also not as well-done as catpetal-1 claims. Miss Havisham should wear flowers in her hair and jewels upon her neck and hands; she should also have a veil. Her wedding dress was supposed to include satin, silk and lace. She actually had one shoe on, and her other foot was stockinged. The white of those garments should appear yellow with age. Given all the mistakes in this production, it seems rather presumptuous for anyone to claim Dickens would have been delighted by an adaptation that was anything but "thoughtful and provocative," other than to force one to realize how low British productions have sunk.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!