|
|
Rating:  - Dickens would be proud
By enlarge, a refreshing aspect of this film is the quality of acting and the casting for the parts of Dickens characters. Daniel Radcliffe (of Harry Potter fame) does a good job of young David Copperfield, seeming to bring the innocence and mistrust to the boy who hopes for a better future. Maggie Smith does a superb job of playing David's aunt, Betsey Trotwood, capturing the dimensionality expected of a character who first rejects, then accepts David into her life.
The film exemplifies the mood of Dickens' work. David endures quite a troublesome and painful existence as a child, either being neglected or treated maliciously by his cold, callus stepfather, Mr. Murdstone. After David also has difficulties in school, and then is robbed and left penniless, he takes a chance on his aunt for help. There is a wonderful scene where Betsey has a confrontation with Murdstone, who is trying to gain custody of David, and ends up telling him to leave.
There are other characters who represent bright spots in David's life, such as Clara Peggotty (David's nanny), Mr. Peggotty, Mr. Micawber, and David's true love, Agnes Wickfield. Agnes represents a true soul for David's troubled life, as she listens to David's concerns and is always there for him in his times of desperation, even while he is married to the child-like Dora.
A prevalent aspect of Dickens-based works is the idea that those who have difficult stations in life can rise up to bigger and better things if they struggle along and find their way. We see this subject captured in David Copperfield, and the bitter aspects of his life are all a part of the journey to overcoming, and having hope for the future.
If there is one beef with this film, it is the pacing. As one reviewer mentioned, the second part of the film tends to wane a little, and doesn't quite have the same impact as the first half. Still, this doesn't take away from the over all impact of the film.
Dickens once said that, of all novels, David Copperfield was his "child," because it was close to home, and nearest to his life. I think he would be satisfied with this film effort. I think you will too!
Rating: - One of my favorite movies
Yes it's another story about an orphan but who would not like this movie?
Daniel Radcliff was such a darling thing.
Rating:  - Much better than expected
David Copperfield is quite simply a phenonmenal book. It shows Dickens at his best in creating characters and a plot that masterfully combines comedy, tragedy, intrigue and the joys and sorrows of life. Like other reviewers, I approached this film adaptation concerned that it simply would not be able to maintain those high standards.
I was pleasantly surprised. The casting was very appropriate, I can't think of one character that was not well portrayed. The filming and music were engaging and the sets very well chosen and designed. And the film moved along at a good pace. (Even my seven year old enjoyed it the whole way through.) To keep the film to 3 hours some characters and incidents were left out, but this was done sensitively so the story does not seem at all disjointed.
I have one criticism that prevented me giving 5 stars. Author Russell Baker appeared giving quite a good introduction to the story. But why, oh why did he have to pop up again just before the final music/credits? Literally, just before the movie ends it fades out, he appears and talks about it for a few minutes, and then it fades back to the final music. This was totally inappropriate and if we had not fast-forwarded him in disbelief, it would have stolen something from the atmosphere and sweet after-taste of an extremely engaging and heart-tugging production.
Go ahead and buy this version. You will not regret it.
Rating: - It will break your heart and mend it well again!
It was with great hesitation that I purchased this film, feeling that this rendition would be less desirous than others that came before. But as the opening credits began, I watch as if I had never heard the story told. The cast is exquisite, from the young David Radcliffe, with his insightful ability to contain emotion in such young eyes, to the infamous Maggie Smith, whom always rises to the occasion.
I went to my duty of watching this film, completely stocked in popcorn and soda, but alas, it seems that I forgot the tissues.
Each character was beautifully displayed, with background and wholeness that is lacking in so many other movies based upon the works of countless, talented authors. But with this film, you feel as though you love them as well. What good can come of the story, if you do not know the people in them?
I suspect that you will in time, hold them dear to your own heart as closely as "Davie" holds them to his. You will wonder of the intentions of David Copperfield's childhood friends, and delighted in the new friends that come into his life.
It is a movie, I will watch again, and again, if for nothing more than to visit my old friends!
Rating:  - a dearth of Copperfields
If the BBC can devote 26 episodes to the Forsyte Saga (an excellent movie), surely they can devote 12 episodes to the greatest novel in the English language. Or to put it another way, if the BBC can devote five hours to an inferior novel like "The Buccaneers", surely they can devote twice that number to David Copperfield.
The 1974 version of the book is 5 hours long, the longest version so far. It includes all the important events of the novel, but only touches on these events and the many characters and does not have time to make the events as effective as they could be. The script is creditable except a few times where they ducked a dramatic scene, breaking before and coming in afterward, including the scene which Tolstoy called the greatest in all of world literature--the storm at sea. It is also a low budget film.
The casting is inferior with weak performances of almost all the actors (the exceptions being Anthony Andrews as Steerforth, the actress who played Aunt Betsy and the actor who played Heap, who gave us the best Uriah of any of the movie versions). Outstanding examples of bad casting were (1) David's mother, who should have been young and dainty instead of 40 and rugged, and (2) Dora, who should have been 16 and petite instead of late 30s and tall and sturdy. Also, the actor played Macawber too seriously without the touch of comic absurdity which the book has and which the part required. The actor who played the grown-up David did not look half so bad as the picture on the cover and played his part adequately.
The 1935 version with its stark black and white resembles the Cruikshank drawings in the book, and many of the performances are definitive: Freddy Bartholomew as young David, Edna Mae Oliver as Aunt Betsy, Basil Rathbone as Murdstone, Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Peggoty, as well as the people who played David's mother, little Emily, and most of the minor characters. It is an effective and indelible movie, marred only by having to leave so much out (2 hours 10 minutes) and by the horrendously inappropriate casting of W.C. Fields as Macawber (the most laconic actor in the movies to play the most loquacious character in all literature?!) His laboring to get the words out is painful to watch. The director, George Cukor, wanted Charles Laughton. Louis B. Mayer overruled him. But the filmmaker knew how to make movies, and the screenwriter knew how to write screenplays. The same cannot be said for the other film versions.
The 1970 version is a joke. Some smart-aleck screenwriter thought it would be clever to chop the story up into bits, toss them in the air, pick them up randomly and show them to the audience. All the moving events are thus rendered totally ineffective. This version is useful only as a lesson in how to ruin a great story.
The 1999 version is only three hours long and has more elaborate sets, some location shooting, and background music, but suffers from poor or inappropriate casting. Maggie Smith chose to play Aunt Betsy as a straight serious role, depriving the character of the comic touches which make Aunt Betsy such a cherished character. Bob Hoskins' performance bears no relation to Macawber, thus depriving us of one of the most colorful characters in all literature. Incredibly, the actor chosen to play Murdstone looks almost identical to Hoskins! Imelda Staunton portrays Mrs. Macawber very well, and the boy does well enough as young David, but the rest of the cast is lamentable. And the omission of Traddles is a loss. The script is hit and miss. But the most serious problems are the introduction of a narrator who is constantly narrating and keeping the audience at one remove from the events, and the actor who played the grown-up David. He constantly smiled and smirked, sometimes even in the tragic scenes. He seemed to have no other facial expression.
Bottom line: If you can only afford one version, the 1974 version is your best bet. Alas.
|
|