Diagonaldi Very well executed

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Gerald Haim Why ruin a wonderful story with trashy casting and dreadful direction. Mr Micawber is a "character" not someone pretending to be an actor trying to be funny. When I saw Eileen Atkins name in the titles I thought she would be playing Betsy Trotwood. Oh dear! I wonder if any of the production team have read the book or even seen the original 1935 version of the film or indeed any of the later versions. Freddie Jones as Barkis was excellent and I also enjoyed Emily Hamilton's performance as Agnes Wickfield. Why the introduction of the Murdstones throughout the film ? Was it put in so that Mr. Murdstone got his "come-uppance" ? He certainly deserved a far more drastic one than he got which was nothing more than a weak ticking off. Overturning a table laden with cakes did not lend the scene any extra gravitas. Don't waste your time on this film unless, like me, you want to be very disappointed.

TheLittleSongbird 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

kedavra_curse Directed with skills, excellent props but it's a shabby look-alike of, well... the 'David Copperfield' produced in 1999. Even the Emmy Awards says it so: 1 nomination for this film comparing to the '99 movie with 1 award and 3 nominations. Now let's talk about the cast: Sally Field played brilliantly & Michael Richards did his part in great style unlike the young Max Dolbey. Absolutely no feeling in role. Like going to the market and to buy tomatoes. My guess is that the '99 movie inspired someone and he wanted to do the same thing again hoping for the same success. Their greatest mistake is that an American thought that he could do a picture after an English book with no British help because everything in it is English, a different culture from the American one. To understand Charles Dickens and create a masterpiece after his works you must be at least partially British. In the 1999 'David Copperfield' Simon Curtis had the help of some great actors: Maggie Smith for Aunt Betsey Trotwood, Bob Hoskins for Mr. Wilkins Micawber and Ian McKellen for Mr. Creakle. This motion picture is good, nevertheless it is inferior to its British 'sister'. Watch it, but you won't be transposed in to the Dickens universe.

Nozz 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.