David Copperfield (1999–2000) User Reviews

Very good version

[pawebster · 9/10 · 27 January 2006]

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.

Brilliant British drama-- Dickens can be enjoyable

[cosmic_quest · 8/10 · 4 May 2006]

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.

If you like David Copperfield, then this is a MUST

[shawneuser · 9/10 · 25 May 2018]

Props to the BBC who in this two part series managed to put together the truest adaption of Charles Dickens' favorite book. The key to its success is essentially two-fold. For one, they stayed very true to the book. Yes, an essentially 3 hour series is not near enough time to fully flesh out a 800 plus page book. Things had to be cut, including scenes and characters. They also had to combine scenes wherever possible in order to cover the most ground in the least time. However, I thought their decisions insofar as what to cut and what to keep were very judicial. And one thing they didn't do, which other adaptions have done, is invent new scenes altogether. I appreciate that. Everything that is in this series IS in the book! The second key to success with this version of David Copperfield is the casting. It is amazing. Virtually every character is almost exactly what I envisioned when I read the book. Mr. Micawber is a little different, but the difference is a pleasing one. Fortunately, the more important the character, the more perfect the casting. David both young and old is sensational, almost exactly as I had pictured him looking and acting. Maggie Smith as Betsy Trotwood IS Betsy Trotwood, pure perfection. Amanda Ryan as Agnes Wickfield is pure radiance, beauty, wisdom and calmness, embodying pretty much everything in the angelic book character. One of my only complaints would be that there isn't enough Agnes, but I have that same complaint about the book! Agnes, in fact, is so beautiful in this, that watching this show is even more frustrating than reading the book was in regards to David ignoring Agnes as a love interest. It is like DUDE, OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES! Anyway, Steerforth, Pegotty, Dora, and other side characters are very well done as well, and I haven't mention Uriah Heep yet, who is fabulously portrayed in this. In short, if you are looking for a true adaption with well presented characters from one of your favorite books of all time, then THIS is the series you have to see. If anything, this series' one fault is that it probably could have used one more show so some of the scenes were less rushed, including the ending, which is very well done but somewhat rushed. All the actors are so good that we easily could have watched them for another 90 minutes.

Wonderful acting--a must for fans of Dickens!

[Red-125 · 10/10 · 30 October 2002]

This version of David Copperfield rivals the classic 1935 version, which starred Freddie Bartholomew as David, and W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber.

Dickens' great strength as an author was characterization, and Director Simon Curtis transforms this strength onto the screen. Even the most minor supporting characters are portrayed well.

In the major roles, Daniel Radcliffe as the young David is outstanding. (Of course, he has gone on to star as Harry Potter.)

Bob Hoskins is excellent as Micawber, Amanda Ryan portrays Agnes Wickfield beautifully, and Ian McNeice as Mr. Dick and Nicholas Lyndhurst as Uriah Heep are perfect.

For me, however, the true star of the movie is Dame Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsy Trotwood. Dame Maggie was born to play this role, and every frame in which she appears is a pleasure to watch.

This movie presents Dickens in the way Dickens was meant to be seen on the screen. Bravo!

Characters they were born to play

[jandesimpson · 10/10 · 16 May 2002]

I am not a great fan of the BBC classic novel serialisation, preferring to experience a drama in its entirety rather than chopped up into weekly doses. Generally a detrimental factor is that, with a greater running time than the average movie at his disposal, the TV adaptor tends to spin things out inordinately so that physical movements are often shown in their entirety, someone walking along a street or climbing a flight of stairs for instance. When it comes to Dickens adaptations the cinema generally wins hands down, those incomparable David Lean versions of "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist" for example and more recently Christine Edzard's masterly "Little Dorrit" which, although running for six hours, subtly utilised every minute by telling the tale from different perspectives. I never thought I would experience a TV adaptation to compare with these until three Christmases ago the BBC came up with a "David Copperfield" so enchanting that it remains for me the most lovable visual translation of a Dickens novel. Admittedly there is little of the wonderful montage and atmosphere of the Lean films or the profoundly observed social resonances of "Little Dorrit", but what makes the 1999 Copperfield such an overwhelming experience is the perfect casting. By some magic alchemy that I cannot begin to understand a cast of familiars was assembled that were somehow born to play their parts. The list extends far beyond the three I have chosen to mention but it is as if Pauline Quirke (Peggotty), Nicholas Lyndhurst (Uriah Heep) and Maggie Smith (Betsey Trotwood) became these characters in a way that noone else ever could. Fine actors that they are, it is difficult to imagine them achieving such perfection in other contexts.

Wonderful, unforgettable adaptation of Dickens.

[Tommy-92 · 24 April 2000]

I have yet to read the book, so I don't know how faithful this film was to the original novel, but I really don't care. When you have such a fine cast and such a great production overall, who cares about being faithful? Bob Hoskins as the eccentric, debt-ridden Mr. Micawber, the inimitable Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, and Ian McKellen as the sinister headmaster Creekle head the wonderful cast, which includes other great performances from Trevor Eve as evil stepfather Mr. Murdstone, Claire Holman as tortured Rosa Dartle, Pauline Quirke as the beloved nurse Peggoty, and Nicholas Lyndhurst, truly terrifying as the "'umble" clerk Uriah Heep. Not to be left out, Daniel Radcliffe and Ciaran McMenamin are fine as young and old David Copperfield himself, respectively, though as Russell Baker noted in his "Masterpiece Theater" introduction, David is the least interesting character; the others are whom we remember. The production also looks great, from the seaside to the drawing rooms to the offices. Fine direction, script, everything. The BBC and Masterpiece Theater have done it again!

Only liked Agnes and Heap

[pip_estella · 6/10 · 24 May 2001]

Before I watched this movie, I did not expect anything extraordinary. After I watched, I felt the same as if I had not watched it. Having read David Copperfield a few years earlier and having seen several other versions of it, I realized the impossibility of adapting this novel. I believe the main reason for this is because the emphasis of this novel is not the plot (though it is absolutely important and necessary), it is the wonderful characters. And since there are so many of them, they cannot possibly be covered in a film without boring the viewer. I have a feeling that the producer of this film was trying to achieve what BBC's Pride and Prejudice (1995) achieved a few years back. As I said before, a number of characters in Dicken's novel compared to Jane Austen is incomparable, therefore we cannot expect the same success using the same production method.

Yet, I have to note something positive. I surely enjoyed the performance of Uriah Heep and Agnes Wickfield. Perhaps the reason is they were almost exactly as I imagined when I read the book a few years back. The slimy, cold, eerie feeling was there every time we see Heep. And we get a sense of peace, beauty, and serenity when we see Agnes (I thought that could be played out more...it was very much emphasized in the book through David's thoughts). Amanda Ryan had the perfect countenance of Agnes Wickfield but she did not have a large enough of a role in the movie as in the novel.

One more thing. David Copperfield's hair looked awful towards the end. The proposal to Agnes was well done, but I couldn't stand looking at David. His hair made him look really ugly. I finished watching the movie in disgust because of that. I don't care how some guys let their hair grow a bit in "those days." I think it might have been more clever to make the main character somewhat more attractive in order to retain a more pleasant feeling in viewers.

None better

[benbrae76 · 10/10 · 29 August 2006]

There is little point in outlining the story. Everyone in the world except the very young and the gaga must know it, and there have been numerous great movie adaptations of the Dickens classic. This 1999 production must be one of the very best.

Bob Hoskins as one of Dickens's most loved characters, Wilkins Micawber, was just about perfect. Likewise Dame Maggie Smith as Betsey Trotwood. And who could have portrayed Uriah Heep (with obvious relish) more cringingly 'umble than Nicholas Lyndhurst? (Years of practise as the under sibling in "Only Fools & Horses" paying off at last no doubt.) It was a lovely evil performance by him, and delightfully (I suspect deliberately) just a smidgen over the top.

Apart from the above, who was the most outstanding in the impressive cast? Answer...no-one. They all were. Every individual contribution was magnificent.

It is difficult to fault this two-part production of "David Copperfield" in any way. Acting, interpretation, sets, casting, music, cinematography, script, pace and direction. All were equally superb, and I think it will be a long time before it is even remotely bettered by any future one.

Young Harry Potter as David Copperfield

[BatBanks · 6/10 · 22 May 2014]

Based on Charles Dickens novel is about an orphan grows to manhood in Victorian England. He meets several characters along the way. The cast are excellent especially Maggie Smith as David's eccentric men-hater aunt who eventually care for poor David. The late Bob Hoskins as Mr. Trotwood who take David under his wings. And seeing young Daniel Radcliffe (before he was Harry Potter) he probable was nine or ten was good too; Daniel Radcliffe was seen with different actors in film who became future on-screen teachers in Harry Potter series. After seeing this movie I think it's similar to Jane Eyre. The movie starting get good after David finally had chance of happiness. The end of part one had him as young man and start to have romance. I never saw part two on disc I only look at it because of Daniel Radcliffe.

Wonderful Dickens adaptation, elevated by excellent acting

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 16 April 2010]

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

I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Dickens' David Copperfield.

[watwlaura · 10/10 · 19 April 2000]

I can't say enough about this adaptation. I love Bob Hoskins as Mr. Micawber, Imelda Staunton as his wife, excellent. Maggie Smith and Ian McNiece are lovely. Those were the good guys. Trevor Eve was so repulsive as Mr. Murdstone and when he beat David at the beginning I wanted to take that stick and shove it down his throat. I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation and hope PBS and the BBC will continue to collaborate on other programs that are as intelligent and well made as this one is.

Amputated Dickens

[gnostic21 · 4/10 · 22 December 2009]

The rave reviews of this version are due more to contemporary audience's total ignorance of Dickens' writing, comfortable familiarity with the actors playing the roles and limited attention span. I saw the 1974 version first, with utterly unfamiliar actors, and a 300 minute length, as opposed to 186 minutes. Massive amounts of plot were excised. The only actor whose performance was worthy of Dicken's intentions was Pauline Quirke as Pegotty. In the 1974 version, Martin Jarvis played Uriah Heep, an icon of unctuous, oily, perfidy and criminality, so much richer than the current one. And Mr. Micawber (I love Bob Hoskins, mind you) but the script gave much greater depth to his pecuniary failures in the 1974 version. And the actor chosen to play Copperfield - what were the producers thinking? Copperfield is an alter-ego of Dickens himself, not some wimpy pretty naive boy. An intellectual, a writer. Everything came out right at the end (as Dickens always arranged)but it was so neatly done and so unsatisfying. If you're a Dickens fan, I enourage you to watch the 1974 version.

The nightmare is hiding a dream

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 26 March 2011]

This story is such a classic that anyone must know it without having ever read it, just like me. Peggotty has been an old friend of mine since junior high school but never had I opened the book, though I have the complete works of Charles Dickens in my library, and never had I seen any screen adaptation of it before tonight. So I just discovered this fine story in my old age, and in a way I regret it.

Of course there are orphans and in this case even, David Copperfield is orphaned before his birth. Of course there are step parents who are absolutely obnoxious and brutal. Of course there is a school for boys who are treated like dogs and beaten like trash. Of course there are strict and painful social situations that lead to prison, begging, being robbed and whatever you can imagine, especially when you are a nice young boy, too pure to be true and too naïve to be serious.

But even the factory in which David Copperfield is forced to work at the early age of ten or eleven looks like paradise when compared with the stepfather and his dear sister, two goal-keepers and nothing else. And that's the miracle of Dickens. He transforms an absolutely bleak situation into a rose garden, or if you prefer the crazy crushing life of a boy into a school for gentility and success.

That's the mystery and miracle Dickens cultivates in all his books. No matter how horrible life may be, and be sure he remained discreet about the worst details, he turns it into a happy ending and a success story. And that's how a forlorn and abandoned orphan will be able to cut a position for himself under the sun and in society.

People could say Dickens was a blind optimist, but he was not blind at all and knew about the sinister life we live in. We could say he is a hypocrite writing stories about the dregs of society to sell them to and make money from the rich and wealthy minority that could read and afford the serials or books, and what's more to cover up with happy endings the terrible fate of most working people and children in this Victorian society. And we would be wrong.

Dickens' books are a testimony of what Victorian society was and a great lesson given to those who had and still have the power and the money necessary to change things that change cannot be stopped because there will always be a few who will be strong enough or lucky enough to climb up to a position from which they may influence the world. In fact he thinks he is one of these and he is telling us book after book the same story of the enterprising young man who will change the world with his words and mind.

It is optimistic for sure but heart warming even more, and this BBC adaptation is just perfect as for that brittle equilibrium between social criticism and human advancement.

Dr Jacques COULAREDEAU

The best Adaptation

[TheVintageArchive · 10/10 · 5 January 2003]

This adaptation by far beats all the David Copperfield movies.

Daniel Radcliffe as David Copperfield is wonderful! He is so angelic as David.

The Acting by all the adults in this film was wonderful! Agnes, Peggoty, Aunt Betsy were all portrayed well! At least, they were all better than the 2000 Tv version of David Copperfield.

Uriah Heep is wonderful!!!!!Very creepy! Dora is perfect too!

watch this! I recommend it!

10/10

Harry Potter Walk Through

[glgioia · 9/10 · 10 November 2009]

A brilliant latter-day adaptation of Dickens' autobiographical masterpiece that scores rising triumphs on all fronts. As a Dickens fan, I have recently experienced some unpleasant revulsion at the latest Oliver Twist mutations both on film and on the once fine Masterpiece theater. In fact, I very nearly passed on this rendition of Copperfield due to an ever creeping jaded cynicism, not realizing that as recently as 1999, the world still spun on its axis and the preservation of art was still considered precious. Check this out, it is marvelously executed, well acted, and to those few who still care for such things, faithfully adapted!. My summary line comes as you will no doubt surmise from the cast which includes a very young Radcliffe, and not so young but terrific as always Maggie Smith, Zoe Wannamker etc. All sensational!

The Best Drama by Charles Dickens.

[mayanksingh221088 · 10/10 · 20 June 2010]

The actors and actresses in this BBC drama have performed excellently. The performances of Daniel Radcliffe, the lady who plays his mother, Pegotty, Maggie Smith...all played their part well. The parts that I like most are:- 1)When Miss Betsy Trotwood realizes what Mudstones have done with poor David and after that she shouts them out of her house. 2)Romance of Dora and David. 3)The opening scene when Miss Betsy Trotwood comes to meet Mrs. Copperfield. 4)When Pegotty takes David to Plymouth and then we meet Ham and Emily. And the things are so well performed just like they were written in the play. 5)

Besides these, the other characters like Mr. Wickfield,Uriah Heep,Agnes,Ham,Mr. Peggoty, Mr. Barkis,Imelda Stauton,Mr. Micawber...have acted wonderfully well too. I simply love this play.

A great movie, though long

[chaimss · 8/10 · 24 July 2006]

I've read most of the book, and find the book to be both very faithful and not faithful at all simultaneously. Some extravagant parts (which Dickens wrote to thicken and enrich the plot) have been cut out to shorten the film (hey, it's over three hours already). All in all, a great movie to watch regardless, fairly clean (by today's standards) and great family entertainment. The fact that his life constantly goes up and down, very rarely staying in a straight line, also adds to a great movie. I think the director was great at capturing the time period and protocols of the times, and did this without straying from the main story line.

A must for young Potter/Radcliffe Fans

[Mandyjam · 2 February 2006]

This is Daniel Radcliffe's first movie, and he is wonderful in it!

Charles Dickens, who wrote this story, lived in the 1800's. He is the only author whose popularity has come near to equalling that of JK Rowling! In his day, books were often published as serials in the newspaper. Dicken's books were so popular that people would queue in the street, waiting for the papers to arrive so they could read the next chapter. When a child died in one of the stories, people in both England and America went into mourning!

In the book, David Copperfield tells his own story, from his birth (which is both sad and funny) to his marriage. Dicken's based the story of David Copperfield partly, but not exactly, on his own life. The dear, funny, optimistic Mr McCawber who cannot pay his debts, is based on Dicken's own father who was thrown in prison for unpaid bills.

The terrible school and factory that David is put into by his cruel stepfather are taken from Dicken's life.

Daniel plays David as a child. He is perfectly suited to the role. Among the other characters we find Zoe Wannamaker (Madame Hooch) as his horrible aunt and Imelda Staunton (who has just been chosen as Umbridge) playing the poor wife with soooo many kids who is in despair over her penniless husband.

But the biggest star of the show is Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagal) who plays the very eccentric but lovable Betsy Trotwood, who comes to adore David, but cannot stand donkeys under any circumstance!

There is another lovely crazy character called Mr Dick and the ultimate crreeep called Uriah Heep. He is the slimiest, sneakiest, smarmiest person that you can imagine! There is just one real disappointment- the young man who plays the grown-up David! He doesn't look enough like Daniel. He has a very smug expression. His accent is wrong! His acting is not at all convincing! I really wish that they had chosen someone else! For young people who can read great big complex books like The Order of the Phoenix, this is for YOU! Mandyjam

Not bad, though not very good, either and through no fault of its own.

[pfgpowell-1 · 5/10 · 14 September 2008]

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.

The Magic of David Copperfield

[The_Movie_Cat · 8/10 · 26 December 1999]

I eagerly anticipated this latest tv adaptation of "David Copperfield" as the BBC still have a reputation for quality drama. I was disappointed to find none of his magic tricks in the programme, like that time he made the Statue of Liberty vanish, but even so this was a very enjoyable three hours.

The 90s have seen the BBC come under increasing attack from a populace that resent its licence-funded nature in an era where its quality is questionable. As a result, a corporate desperation seems to have emerged, with cloned docusoaps and cookery programmes crammed into the schedules in an attempt to emulate previous successes. In 1995 the BBC had a huge, and unexpected, hit with their adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice". Almost a lightning flash in a jar, the chemistry between its two attractive leads cannot be manufactured, much, I imagine, to the BBC's chagrin. Nevertheless, the latter half of the 1990s has seen them consistently try, yet fail to realise that Charles Dickens is not the place to do it.

A huge book serialised in 64 monthly instalments over a two-year period, it was Dickens' own personal favourite out of all his novels. Yet the works of Dickens are never primarily romances and afford little opportunity for Colin Firth to wade in a lake wearing skin-tight leather briefs. So too are the works of Dickens almost baptisms of fire, a life cycle carried out on the page. The circular logic of television characterisation is almost wholly absent, where any number of roles will fit together in all manner of contrived ways. Dickens, in contrast, will introduce and discard his cast in much the same way life will leave old friends behind. So it is that Trevor Eve, who makes such a compelling presence in the first of this two-part adaptation is notable by his complete absence in the second. How very unlike television.

Yet what makes Dickens almost untranslatable for any medium save the page is the richness of the language. Away from the dialogue-compliant text of Jane Austen, Dickens attaches almost as much, if not more, importance to what goes between the lines than the lines themselves.

Thankfully, this serial does it better than most, and as Copperfield is written in first person, it makes it easy for a voiceover to be sincerely overlaid. Of course, historical design is something the BBC could do with their eyes shut, and their ability to create whole Victorian streets is impeccable. The mixture of established actors (including Sir Ian McKellen, excellent, and Bob Hoskins) with traditionally light entertainment performers (Dawn French, so-so, and Nicholas Lyndhurst, a revelation as the slimy Uriah Heep) pays off well, and only Ciaran McMenamin/Daniel Radcliffe struggle to imbue interest as the young/old Copperfield, ironically the least interesting character in the book.

And so it was with this that the BBC celebrated the passing of the 20th Century. The commercial channels pushed the "mindless, spirit-crushing gameshows" of Trainspotting at us for 24 hours, but the BBC finished Christmas evening with Citizen Kane, Kafka's The Trial and had "David Copperfield" as the centrepiece of it's festive celebrations. The new millennium may well see Britain's premier television station forced into being a commercial venture... it's nice to know that, for this century at least, they can still achieve greatness when they try.

Dickens would be proud

[HotToastyRag · 10/10 · 2 March 2021]

While the 1935 version is adorable and brought Freddie Bartholomew to the world, there's just no comparison to the 1999 miniseries. I own a well-worn DVD copy and have watched it countless times. I even forced my entire family to watch it on my birthday. They all loved it, and my mom was inspired to borrow my copy of the book. Even my sister-in-law loved it, and English isn't even her first language!

I love the 1935 original; I really do. But with a 1200-paged book, there's only so much that can be included in two hours. Adding an extra hour really helps the story unfold naturally, instead of feeling a tad rushed. In this version, you have the time to really fall in love with Micawber, fear the ominous Uriah Heep, and understand the importance of each woman in David's life. Black-and-white films have their charm, especially with period pieces; but is there anything more charming than a Christmas BBC broadcast that introduces a very young Daniel Radcliffe to the world? It's really impossible to pick which young Copperfield is more adorable. When Daniel shows up at Maggie Smith's house dressed in rags and cries, "If you please, Aunt," it just makes you want to weep and bundle him up in a hug. Or, as Mr. Dick suggests, give him a bath.

As I always say, a great supporting cast turns a good movie into a wonderful one. Lionel Barrymore, Edna May Oliver, and Maureen O'Sullivan are lovely, but they just don't have the time to express themselves like the 1999 actors do. In Maggie Smith's scenes, you're able to see the tenderness hidden behind her tough exterior. Mr. Dick is given a different interpretation by Ian McNeice, one that gives more credence to Maggie's faith in him. Alan Armstrong is faithful and loving as Mr. Peggoty, just as loving and kind-hearted as his sister Peggoty, played by Pauline Quirke. You can truly see Emilia Fox's weakness as David's mother, and how Joanna Page as Dora is a substitute but not a replica. Bob Hoskins is a pauper because he's too generous and has a big heart, not because he's foolish. He really does understand the ways of the world, but his passions run away with his heart and mind. Imelda Staunton is absolutely adorable as she declares she "never will desert Micawber!" time and again. Everyone plays into the melodrama of the book because it is young David Copperfield's memory of them, skewed by the view of a child. Since everyone's emotions are heightened, it makes for a wonderful entertainment.

Watch the original first. It'll give you a good start, and Freddie Bartholomew is too cute for words. Then watch the miniseries to really immerse yourself in Dickens's classic. If you're feeling particularly daring, read the book next. It's so close to the miniseries it feels like you're watching it all over again, so you won't get lost or bogged down. The tiniest details are included from the page to the screen, from Nicholas Lyndhurst's sweaty palms as he creeps out the audience as Uriah Heep, to Dawn French as the landlady repeatedly mispronouncing Copperfield. Every line is delightful, from "Barkis is willing" to Tom Wilkinson's narration of direct passages from Dickens. Hats off to teleplay adapter Adrian Hodges, and to everyone in the cast. This is a classic to treasure.

An amazing film!

[robloxian-2468 · 9/10 · 13 February 2023]

David Copperfield is one of the best films I have ever seen. The story blends very well, especially when you see David Copperfield grow older.(If you blink you miss it!) There is one sad scene when his wife Dora passes away. But he marries Agnes which made me very happy. When Emily leaves Ham for Steerforth, now that, that was a heartbreaking scene. I wish at one point when David Copperfield was older that Murdstone would come back in at least one scene. Now, if you do watch the movie, I didn't list these events in order its kind of what I thought of at the moments. Thank you for reading my review!

Enjoyable

[tricia-31 · 8/10 · 22 February 2003]

Though I have to admit that the first part was much more interesting than the second part. Daniel Radcliffe was superb as young David Copperfield, but the actor who planned grown up David left something to be desired. I thought the story slowed down immensely in the second part.

It is still worth watching. Wonderful acting by Maggie Smith as always!

Enjoyable Feast of Dickensia

[Sleepy-17 · 20 April 2000]

I watched this with my two teenagers and wife and we loved it. Well put-together, good acting, quite funny in spots. Excellent intro to Dickens.

Good score, photography, and art direction.

A little MOVIE touch could have helped...else its great!

[bharath-karthikeyan · 8/10 · 13 April 2009]

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!