Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

ndunsmo First off, for those getting after the film for not following the book's plot, keep in mind Disney does this all the time with their adaptations and still makes it work, so that's not what prevents me from loving this. Oh no. But before I get into my gripes, I'll talk about what I found good.David himself is a fairly likable character. I like some of the sides, the cheese monster getting a little bit of development in the final third. I also respect this film for showing kids the hardships faced by sweatshop workers. Most of the songs are pretty catchy, even if the melodies are so stuck in the 90's that they kind of lose any chance at having a timeless feel, and it can be entertaining.Now onto the stuff that needs work. As far as TV animation goes, it's nothing too special. It's not bad but there's nothing special about it. (Also, the editing could use some work) Micawber's also not a particularly enjoyable villain. They have the right idea with him being an irredeemable jerk, but he's so non-threatening that I couldn't really take him that seriously. The opening number also has no reason to exist. You think it's to establish a character, but then it's revealed that, oh, it didn't actually tell us anything about her, so it was literally there for the sake of being there. Though my biggest gripe is that the final conflict is kind of rushed. It's like the director suddenly realized the budget could only cover 5 more minutes, so he just threw everything he could at us, including the duke changing sides in less than a second just because he saw David's not-famous aunt storm Micawber's factory. I would take off points for the main romance being there for the sake of being there, but that was common at the time and is still a thing sometimes in this day and age, so I'll let that slide.But all-in-all, I like this film fine. It's nothing too special, but it's decent. If you're a fan of animation and you're curious about some non-Disney works, check it out. You might not love it, but you'll probably get something out of it.

TheLittleSongbird I didn't even know about this version until a few days ago, and when I did hear of it I was sceptical. Would an animated film with animals as the characters of Dickens's wonderful book work? So I watched it. For those who love the book and expecting a faithful adaptation, I suggest you look elsewhere like the TV version with Daniel Radcliffe, Ian McKellen, Bob Hoskins and Maggie Smith. This version of David Copperfield is a condensed one, and those who would read the book and see this will probably say the only resemblance to the book are the characters, which to some extent is true.That said, on its own merits David Copperfield(1993) is surprisingly entertaining if admittedly obscure. The pacing sags a bit in the middle and I didn't care for Betsy Trotwood's(who is merely more than a 10 minute screen time or so cameo) song. Flaws aside, the traditional animation is nice and colourful and the character designs are really quite good. The music was a surprise, with exception of one, the songs especially "Is There Anyone" are very nice and the background scoring is memorable too. The characters are fine-David is likable, Agnes is beautiful and innocent, Mr Micawber is humorous and wise and Murdstone is a villain through and through- while the script has its fair share of humour and poignancy. What elevates the film most though is the voice acting, Julian Lennon and Sheena Easton are earnest and effective enough but the real kudos goes to Michael York who is superb as Murdstone.All in all, obscure and not so faithful but definitely worth watching if you are willing to see the film on its own merits. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Mitsuki ^.~ I still have yet to read the actual novel, David Copperfield by Charles Dickens but I do realize now as teenager that the animated movie was heavily adapted for children with all those "feel good" morals, ideas and good versus evil plot lines.Like someone else said, I don't care but this movie was a lot of fun to watch as a kid! I loved it and need to dig out my old copy of it recorded onto a cassette before I forget about it once more. I loved the anthropomorphic characters, kitties are always my favourite. Yes, the movie could be considered a blasphemy but it's for children! I hate the animated movie for Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh but others probably love it. Maybe these adaptations from novel to animated film is a bad influence on children and result in future ignorance of all these great works of literary merit. Or maybe some people are taking it a little too seriously. Give children a break, not everyone turns out ignorant. Let them have fun, let them watch their kitties singing in a factory and falling in love with all that clichéd sappiness. It's good to have dreams and a generally balanced idea of right and wrong before you are forced to grow up and accept all the grey areas of life. Now excuse me while I go watch Olive the Other Reindeer and the animated version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Edina van Daalen This is one of the oddest adaptations of 'David Copperfield. It's not merely because only about one-third of the novel is adapted to conclude with a totally contrived plot, it's also because human characters are turned into anamorphic characters for no good artistic reason (because it looks funny? Is fun for the kids?). Can you imagine David and his mother as cats, Mr. and Mrs. Micawber as monkeys? Disney, so often derided for 'butchering' classics, doesn't even do that - except in the case of 'Robin Hood' which, even though being quite pedestrian for Disney-standard, is a whole lot more entertaining than this silly movie with forgettable songs. This movie just shows that you can do anything with Dickens: dumb it down, twist it around -with the underlying message - hey, Dickens was just for kids! If you love good animated features, put on any Disney-classic instead, if you love Dickens and DC in particular, any adaptation is better than this one (I highly recommend the BBC-version with Daniel Radcliffe)