Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

TheLittleSongbird I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Dickens's book, and yes I preferred it over the 2000 version. Is it true to Dickens's work? It is reasonably, though the book isn't particularly easy to adapt at all, then again what Dickens book is? Even if there are any flaws such as it being a tad too long, it is completely compensated by the production values, music and the quality of the acting. The production values are superb, like in Bleak House and Little Dorritt, the sets are realistic-looking, the scenery breathtaking and the costumes sumptuous. The direction is also good, and sticks to the time period and the situations likely to happen during that period. The script is above decent, and does a more than acceptable job in adapting the book, and the music is lovely.And of course the acting is exceptional. I was compelled to write a separate paragraph as there are so many performances I wish to acknowledge. Daniel Radcliffe is simply adorable as young David, and acts being vulnerable very convincingly. I don't know about anybody else but I think this is the best I've seen Daniel act. Maggie Smith was simply born for the role of Aunt Betsy Trotwood, and Trevor Eve is a chilling and vile Mr Murdstone. I also loved Bob Hoskins as the debt ridden but kindly Micawber, Zoe Wannamaker as Jane Murdstone, Pauline Quirke as maternal Pegotty and Amanda Ryan as the alluring Agnes Wickfield. Also worth of mention are Allun Armstrong as Daniel Pegotty, Ian McKellen as the sinister Creakle(a character I found disappointingly forgettable in the 2000 version) and especially Nicolas Lyndhurst as the snake-like and odious Uriah Heep.Overall, I loved this 1999 adaptation for especially the acting. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Bharath Karthikeyan David Copperfield is a word by word adaptation of the famous (controversially biographical) novel by Charles Dickens. Daniel Radcliffe plays David,who happens to lose his father posthumous to his birth,and falls into the hands of an evil step father and a step aunt.All goes by the novel,but what you would love in the adaptation is the beautiful england countryside,and also the actors in the movie(You can see where Harry potter and LOTR got their stars from) who do justice to the Dickens Masterpiece. The DVD is worth buying and treasuring as it easily stands for generations,if you don't intend on reading the novel. All is said,enjoy!

Neil Welch This is good stuff, and I echo most of the positive comments made here. But is it just me, or didn't anyone else find the casting over-excessively starry? Every time I blinked there was another well-known name playing a small part, down to Dawn French as the landlady and Paul Whitehouse as the pawnbroker. What next, I thought, Clint Eastwood as the milkman? Tom Hanks as the bloke walking by on the other side of the road? Which is not to say that they weren't all very good - of course they were! - but I found it very distracting sitting there waiting in anticipation with my I-Spy book of stars doing cameos.And please save me from "Oh, Daniel Radcliffe was so cute." Radcliffe was an almost incidental child actor, who did a bit better here than he did in the Potter films (where he was so wooden that he failed to justify the faith placed in him). The strength here is in the featured characters surrounding David Copperfield's anodyne narrator.OK, that's my bit done. Normal service will now be resumed.

pawebster David Copperfield is not an easy one to film because the story -- while unfailingly interesting -- does have some of Dickens' most cloying sentimentality and sugary sweetness. David himself is saintly, and this makes him hard to play as an interesting character. In fact, playing the young hero in period dramas can easily be something of a poisoned chalice. (Other adaptations of recent years have come unstuck on this point.) However, this works out fine here. A very small Daniel Radcliffe is excellent as Harry P-- sorry, as young David, and I think that Ciarán McMenamin is also good as the adult David. I don't agree with those reviewers who call him smug. It's a shame that he looks nothing, but nothing, like Daniel Radcliffe, and the hairstyles he is given are really bad, especially the wig towards the end. Of course, he is inevitably somewhat overshadowed by the galaxy of top-notch actors who fill the other roles. Maggie Smith is particularly winsome as Betsy Trotwood.I watched this with my eleven-year-old son and we both really enjoyed it. Recommended.