David Copperfield

The 1999 adaptation was absolutely sublime, you cannot do better than Ian McKellan, Maggie Smith and Bob Hoskins all of whom did brilliantly in their roles. This 2000 adaptation is inferior, but in my opinion it is good on its own merits. Now I admit I haven't read the book for a while, but I do remember that the 1999 adaptation was more faithful. The adaptation looks amazing, with lavish costumes, lovely camera work in general(though the last ten minutes were unfocused) splendid scenery and realistic-looking sets. The music is beautiful, and it was delight especially to hear Mendelssohn's Octet playing as background music in one scene. The script is mostly good with a lot of Dickens elements in it,and there are many memorable scenes like the whipping of young David. The performances in general were very good, save one or two exceptions. Hugh Dancy especially was perfect as adult David, and while I found Daniel Radcliife absolutely adorable in the 1999 adaptation, Max Doleby was believable as the younger half of the character. Antony Andrews is suitably nasty as Mr Murdstone and Eileen Atkins turns in a solid performance as Jane. And Uriah Heep is a real villain, really slimy and snakelike. I have to say that Frank McCusker played him marvellously. Edward Hardwicke and Freddie Jones also give great turns, and Julie Cox and Emily Hamilton are lovely as Dora and Agnes. However, there are flaws with this adaptation that made it inferior to the 1999 adaptation. The plot, suffering from the deviations from the book, is choppy and even confusing. (I will admit I was confused with what was happening in the first scene) The other flaws I am afraid are to do with some of the casting. I felt that Michael Richards overacted as Mr Micawber, and Sally Field was as another reviewer rightly said not English enough, and I found her screams of "Don-keee" unintentionally funny. As fine an actor as Peter Woodthorpe is, I sadly found him forgettable as Creakle, no matter how hard he tried. He played him with real demeanour, but he wasn't given enough screen time to shine properly. On the whole, despite the major flaws, this is a decent adaptation of Dickens's novel. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

to adapt a famous book is always a difficult work, for director and for the reader. for the need to present/discover the heart of story and for not use easy tools.but, in this case, all is OK. the atmosphere, the performance and shadow of Dickens small universe. Hugh Dancy is David and not only his subtle performance is impeccable but the preoccupation to give force and shine to each detail. and this is a great virtue because the film is a little more than an adaptation.honest, rich in nuances, seductive, smart, almost lovely, like many inspired translation of great books spirit, it is a precise puzzle.a fragile ball of emotions and memories, interesting trip in a middle of a way to discover literature, it is that decent option to respect novel and remember its extraordinary profound message.

My first thought was, why another adaptation? The BBC version was pure poetry in motion. Why ruin it's memory with this garbage version? It seems that creativity and research are no longer used in the world of film making. The quest for greed; producers with no experience and/or talent, lend their ugly hand in remake after remake of stories that have been told over and over again. Come on Film World, let's be more original and do what film making is supposed to do: ART and CREATIVITY.

This David Copperfield version was alright

The best version ever is the 1999 BBC version of David Copperfield. All I can say is that the oh so cute, Daniel Radcliffe as David Copperfield is just so adorable.

The only person that bothers me is the older David Copperfield.

Everyone else is perfect especially, Uriah Heep (ooh! very perfect and creepy), Dame Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsy is even better than Sally Fields!

I recommend the BBC version than this version

How do you cut and structure David COPPERFIELD? If I recall correctly, the TV version back in 1969 made it a passage through grief to maturity. This one makes it the shaking off of a curse. Murdstone is a destroyer of women, and he sends David off to a training that will inevitably make David-- as it makes his hero Steerforth-- another such destroyer. From time to time David as narrator reminds us that he is making the mistake of succumbing to expectations, but in the end he successfully rebels. It's not the original, but it's not a bad take on the story.

Micawber has a similar triumph near the end of the story, and it's a shame that he wasn't allowed to shine in that triumph without the distraction of Michael Richards' physical comedy. Up to that point the Krameresque bumbling was not unwelcome, certainly a better alternative than trying to compete directly with the legendary W.C. Fields interpretation. Micawber's accent was odd, though, and it was mixed with unadulterated Kramer interjections.