Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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

koolkitty2020 I still remember this movie and I must have seen it when I was about 4 years old. I'm now 17! How's that for being memorable? I admit that I haven't read the book even now, though I have read Great Expectations so it can't be said I don't respect Charles Dickens. People shouldn't rate this movie so hard if one, you're not a child, and two if you are a hardcore fan of the book. Anyways.. I just thought I'd get that out of my system and if anybody knows where I can possibly buy the DVD please let me know! Also, I should let some of you fans out there know that the picture they have for this movie isn't from the movie as we can all remember it involved cats and monkeys, not people.

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)