Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

emilywes56 I have not read the original book yet, but I love everything about this movie. The actors playing superbly their roles, the slow development of the story, the atmosphere of this old century London. Generally I am amazed every time I watch a British movie or a film for another chronological period, stories like Jane Eyre, Oliver Twist, Pride & Prejudice..This movie awakens in me a certain sensibility, reminds me of my childhood memories, as it is one of the first films I ever watched and later on I was spellbound with movies and cinema. I recommend you to watch it without hesitation, specially if you love this kind of movies.

patrick powell This BBC version of David Copperfield demonstrates rather well the differences between a novel and a film or TV production. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this - in fact as far as TV productions go, this is rather good. High - very high - production values, top-notch actors, good direction: it's all there. So why does it only get half marks. Well, that has to do with the difference between film and writing. We live in a visual age where visual impressions are everything. So for many years now Hollywood has been getting away with producing highly successful, high-grossing film which, at the end of the day, have very little going for them but loads of action. This is true of films ranging from vacuous nonsense such as Enemy Of The State, which is nothing but one long chase to family films such as the equally vacuous Home Alone. The secrecy is to make sure the viewer has no time to think. In fact, thought is a no-no (something which seems to be a feature of our age in the Western world anyway.) Fiction can be equally as exciting, but the writer has none of the resources of the film maker: no film score, no special effects, no computer animation, no soundtrack. Everything - and that does mean everything - has to be conveyed somehow by the written word. And everything takes place in the reader's imagination. And sparking that imagination is the art of the writer. Ironically, despite apparently far more limited resources, the writer is far freer. In a very curious sort of way he has no restrictions whatsoever. So what has this to do with the BBC production of David Copperfield? Well, it is this: through no fault of its own, the 'movie' version of David Copperfield simply isn't very good. Why? Because what can be established in the novel takes far longer to be established on film, or at least in a film using this conventional kind of production. Dickens, despite being restricted to merely a quill pen and a well of ink, could give his story far more depth than a TV production, which is not allowed to take too long doing anything for fear of losing the viewer's interest. Some examples of why this TV production simply leaves too much out in the cold to allow for an enjoyable, intelligent rounded experience: David's nasty stepfather: exactly why does he take a dislike to David and treat him so badly? David's relationship with Peggoty's family in Yarmouth: we are simply informed that he forges a close bond with them, but never shown why. Steerforth's relationship with his mother and his mother's companion: this is all very much drama lite. Steerforth's seduction of Emily: it all happens off-stage and really doesn't register. Betsy Trotwood: just why does she have such a down on boys? Who knows? The list could go on. Everything on screen is presented and intended simply to be accepted. No reasons or justifications are ever given. On the written page, on the other hand, and given the freedom of the writer to employ whatever means he or she wishes to tell his or her story, these things can be established. The writer can digress, explain, range over time and distance, do things which are often impossible for the filmmaker. It is an irony that the writer is far less constricted and restricted in what he might do than the filmmaker, despite all the technical whizzbangs and tricks whichthe the film director has to hand. I pointed out that this particular version of David Copperfield might have suffered from the very conventional television direction. The implication is that given another director, this might have been more convincing. Oh well. For those who like their Sunday afternoon Dickens, this is passable stuff. But in no way does it rise above being very ordinary.

katissokool I first watched this when I was about eight and it was showing on the ABC or something. I only saw the first part however, but even at the age of eight, I loved it (this was before Daniel Radcliffe had been cast as Harry Potter) and my absolute favourite character was the young David. But I also found Aunt Betsy Trotwood extremely amusing. The first part was put together very well, and was a top-notch, high quality drama.About six months ago, I decided to buy it and I absolutely loved the first part once again and looked forwards to watching the second. Unfortunately I found it dull and dreary compared to the first half. The second David was so appalling, that I remain convinced the only reason he was cast was because he was a descendant of Dickens himself. I was immensely glad when the thing was finished. I would also like to point out that Ciarán McMenamin and Daniel Radcliffe do not look in the least alike.All in all, it was a decent production. I hope that the talent Daniel Radcliffe showed in this small production will also come through in December Boys. He was entrancing in this.

Mel J For me, 'David Copperfield' was quite the revelation as a film as it was one of the few times I could tolerate Charles Dickens' adaptation and it was a chance to see Dan Radcliffe, before his rather mediocre performances as Harry Potter, prove he does have acting potential in him.As the grown author David Copperfield reminisces on his life, the film focuses more on his childhood years and how he survived being an orphaned boy, with an abusive step-father, growing up in the bleakness of the Victorian era.The cast is exemplary. Maggie Smith was just perfect as David's aunt, a woman who seems cold on the outside but does welcome the child into her home. Pauline Quirke stepped away from her usual comedic roles to play the maternal Pegotty, a lovable character who you truly felt cherished this little boy. Trevor Eve delivered a very chilling performance as the hideous stepfather Mr Murdstone who loathed David on sight with Zoe Wannamake equally as cruel as Murdstone's vile sister. Every actor did an excellent job of bringing their character to life and I don't think there has ever been such a well-cast drama. However, nine-year-old Daniel Radcliffe, who two years after this film would be cast to play Harry Potter, stole the show as the vulnerable but tenacious young David. It is easy to forget his bland wooden acting in the Harry Potter films as he throws himself into the role of winsome, wide-eyed David, wonderfully depicting the pains and joys of his character.'David Copperfield' has to be one of the best adaptations of a classic novel yet. The excellent script and wonderful actors mesh together to really bring the story to life and it reminds you that sometimes the BBC does get it right. It's a pity our TV license money couldn't go to making more like this.