Hopkins beats Finney and Mckellen beats Courtenay

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I for one do not begrudge you your enjoyment.

But your first sentence, and preemptive defensiveness, betrays that you are aware this is not a view that will be widely shared.

I watched the two productions back to back and I am baffled by how reduced the 2015 production is. It is almost as tho all involved have collectively decided that everyone knows this play and so they can simply move from event to event in a way that makes no sense. I cannot fathom the logic of this, the 2015 production is still a lengthy business.

It is the performance equivalent of the conversational yada yada yada.

As for the performances of the theatrical knights of this production versus the theatrical knights of the previous film; one has to ask, 'why?'. And the reason, I think, is that it is a vanity project. Regardless, both McK and H suffer by comparison.

in the end, unless a previous production is faulty in some way, or needs reinvention for a new audience, then there seems little reason to bother. And that is definitely not the case with the earlier film version of The Dresser.

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion but, respectfully, I must disagree with it.

I enjoyed this incarnation of The Dresser, and McKellen in particular gave a wonderful performance. But (and this is MY opinion) nothing beats Tom Courtenay's Norman - not because he was the original, but because he gave a more rounded performance. Courtenay's Norman is so much more fragile than McKellen's. He portrays perfectly Norman's vanity, and thin skin. Underneath his haughtiness he's so vulnerable and has no clue what he would do without 'Sir'. McKellen did well, but didn't quite catch the subtleties of the character.

As for Anthony Hopkins, I'm afraid I've never been a great fan. I found his Sir a bit wooden, though he got better as the film progressed. Albert Finney was so wonderfully over the top - just as many actors were at that time. It's a totally different style of acting from today. He was very funny, too, adding well-needed light relief.

Special mention, though, in this recent production, should go Sarah Lancashire's Madge. Perfectly underplayed as the 'spinster behind the curtain'.

It is brilliant, but it is brilliant as a play rather than as a film.
Watching it is similar to being at the theatre, but even more intimate.
A hard thing to pull off.
I loved it, but I can see why some people might not "get it".
I've given it 9.

I saw the original film a long ago and can't say I remember it very well. I do remember Albert Finney was very OTT, Hopkins' performance was much more modulated and poignant. I loved Courtenay and McKellen - so I won't play favorites there.

Yep.