Customer Reviews

David Copperfield [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.0 Import - United Kingdom ]

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I remember seeing this once on television when it first aired, and it has disappeared(seemingly permanently) from the American DVD market. That's a shame, because aside from a couple of casting hiccups, it is very good.

At least one of the casting choices was a surprising miscue, and that is Sally Field as Betsey Trotwood. Ms. Field is a fine Oscar-caliber actress, but has an overall image that is completely wrong for her character. She does not even seem comfortable playing the very stern British lady. Additionally, Michael Richards feels completely out of place here as Wilkins Micawber. It is possible that the filmmakers behind this wanted to pay homage to W.C. Fields, another comedian who played Micawber in director George Cukor's 1935 film "David Copperfield." But, in both cases, the casting choices come off as poorly-conceived stunts. Bob Hoskins plays Micawber in yet another film of Dickens' story, released the same year as this one, and he finally does the character justice onscreen. Mr. Hoskins is a much more well-rounded actor than either Mr. Fields or Mr. Richards, and proves that versatility and sympathy are the keys to making Micawber believable. Frank MacCusker's oily, bug-eyed Uriah Heep is masterful in this, even eerie, and the most perfect incarnation of that character I've seen on film.

This is the most perfect production of "David Copperfield" I've seen, despite the complaints above. It is fuller of truly compelling Dickensian storylines than either of the other movies I've alluded to and named above. It feels like a more satisfying experience than the other movies because its characters and environments are allowed to breathe and grow more to fit Dickens' rich original novel. I'm just sorry this movie is not available for purchase here in America. Hopefully, we'll get it someday.

I have been using the VCR format of this version of Copperfield in my classroom since 2000. It is one of the few classics films that engage the kids, and they "get it," mainly because the actors selected for the parts bring to life precisely what Dickens expected from his characters. Uriah Heap is just as nasty as envisioned when reading the novel, and Sally Field is superb. My students go down the halls yelling "donkey" for days after watching the movie.

The ending was not exactly in harmony with the book. Okay it was kinda far off, but it was a really great movie. Except for the ending it stuck really faithfully to the book, for a movie. My entire family loves it. Even my father who hates to rewatch movies he can remember having seen before, will sit and watch the whole thing when we play it in the VCR. I started reading Dickens because of this movie and now he's one of my favorites.
The actors are believable in the role, endearing. The movie draws you in from the start.

Note: I just saw this movie with XFinity On Demand in Region 1.

This film version of Charles Dickens' classic novel and his 'favourite child' is very well made. Though there were some things that I wish would have been kept in (David's final visit to his mother during the holidays, more of David's time in school) and David's life with his mother before Mr. Murdstone entered their lives had been extended, it's overall a terrific adaptation of the novel. And the denouement with Mr. Murdstone and his sister was an interesting and satisfying addition to the screenplay. I recommend this version, in spite of the atmosphere being a little too light for the film.

Things are slightly confusing, so let me write the facts about this film first. This `David Copperfield' is a Hallmark production made in 2000, directed by veteran Peter Medak (`Romeo Is Bleeding' and many others), and featuring Hugh Dancy as adult David. The film is shot in two parts, both 90 minutes long, so the entire film runs 180 minutes.

The cast includes Sally Field as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, Michael Richards as Mr. Wilkins Micawber, Eileen Atkins as Miss Jane Murdstone, Anthony Andrews as Mr. Edward Murdstone, Frank MacCusker as Uriah Heep, Edward Hardwicke as Mr. Wickfield, Emily Hamilton as Agnes Wickfield, Julie Cox as Dora Spenlow, and Paul Bettany as James Steerforth. Though you can see the name of Paul Bettany on the DVD cover, he is just one of the supporting actors.

The Hallmark version (which is shown in US only 8 months after the US release of BBC version with then unknown Daniel Radcliff) manages pretty well to keep the viewers interested in the story of young David Copperfield. The film has good visuals (shot in Ireland), and good performances from the actors, but is not exactly the best adaptation of the book. Even if you like this one, you may prefer the BBC version or the 1935 Hollywood version directed by George Cukor. Before I explain the reasons why I should say so, let me tell you about the details of this Peter Medak film.

For the production of the film, Hallmark must have prepared enough money to produce the convincing set and costume. All the actors did fine job. Hugh Dancy is very good as the young idealistic hero, and that's no easy work, considering that David as the narrator of the original book is not particularly an interesting character in Dickens's original. Also, Frank MacCusker gives a creepy (and impressive) portrait of oily and `humble' Uriah Heep, which most Dickensians would approve, and Paul Bettany is wonderful as dashing Steerforth. Unfortunately, Bettany appears only twice, and you are not going to see the famous `storm' sequences (probably because of the budget).

Wisely the production company didn't change the story very much. Well, actually that means they did, especially in the second part, and you may not like the changed fate of Aunt Betsey or the flash-forward/flashback techniques. At one point it is suggested that the book of `David Copperfield' is written for the purpose of his retaliation for what Murdstone did to him and his mother. The interpretation might be interesting to some, but is hardly acceptable to me.

For Mr. Murdstone, hard-hearted as he is, is no monster as the filmed version suggests. Hallmark version presents him as kind of the evil while Dickens in his book refuses to make him so. In this way, if the fans of the original book (or BBC version) hate this film, it is not because of the changed story or its hurried pace, but because of the interpretations of the characters we think we know better. Hugh Dancy's Copperfield does not contradict our shared image of the hero (and Bettany's Steerforth, neither), but some of the cast just fail to convince us, despite their good acting.

Anyone who has seen Maggie Smith as Betsey Trotwood in the BBC production would agree if I say Sally Field is not the best choice for the role. The latter is an American, which is already disadvantageous to play the old lady living in the 19th century Dover, but - I mean no disrespect, but - she lacks the peculiarly loopy (and delightful) touch in the mannerism that Maggie Smith and other British actors can effortlessly realize. Three times I heard Sally Field crying with shrill voice `Donkey!' but, sorry, I was not convinced. I cannot find the right word to describe my feelings, but to me it was too humorless, and her efforts are visible when trying to be comical.

And Mr. Wilkin Micawber, the eternal creation that Charles Dickens left for us. No one just can forget him, but that is because of his unique personality that defies simple definition. The Micawber here lacks the mystery of the original, and for the reasons I don't know, he more than once relies on the pratfalls to make us smile. That's a bad decision, and you know that when you see poor Micawber bumping into a door, touching a red-hot poker in the fireplace, or nearly getting burnt by candlelight. W.C. Fields, who did the same role 70 years ago, just didn't need these silly `gags' to be Micawber.

All in all this Hallmark version of `David Copperfield' is a decent production. But the same story is given a better treatment only 8 months before this one, and also 70 years ago.

This movie was one of the the best viewed pictures of David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.
Why is it not a Region 1 format for USA dvd's players? A pity.

This Hallmark adaptation follows closely after the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation starring Daniel Radcliffe as the young David. Hence, it is often overlooked.

Whether it should be overlooked or not is merely a matter of opinion, answered most specifically with the question: "Do you want an adaptation that tells as accurately as possible the content, tone, and plot of Charles Dickens' massive novel."

If you are looking for an adaptation that tells the story as literally as possible, I strongly recommend the 1974 BBC adaptation of 325 minutes. It is the most loyal adaptation I believe was ever produced (and I have seem quite a few "David Copperfield" adaptations).

However, if you are NOT a literalist (or English major with a concentration in Victorian Studies), you might consider this adaptation well worth your time. I think it presents a more interesting 'disloyal' adaptation than the Masterpiece Theatre 2000 adaptation. (However, it depends really on what aspects of the film you want stressed.)


This Hallmark film vs. The Masterpiece adaptation [I am assuming at this point that you are looking at viewing an adaptation that is NOT completely faithful with the novel.]

- The Hallmark adaptation keeps as many of the characters as possible including Traddles, who is left out of the Masterpiece adaptation.

- The Hallmark adaptation desires to be fast paced, moving as rapidly from one scene to another. The Masterpiece cuts out a large amount of the story to focus screen-time upon the main action.

- The Hallmark adaptation leaves out the famous shipwreck scene. The Masterpiece keeps this scene, or more specifically, had a budget that could afford to shoot the scene.

- The Hallmark adaptation keeps the Murdstones as characters throughout the entire film. The Masterpiece follows the novel on this point.

- The Hallmark adaptation really vilifies Mr. Murdstone above any other villain, even Heep. The Masterpiece vilifies Heep far more than it vilifies Murdstone.

- The Hallmark adaptation uses a lot of flashbacks, centering the story on David reflecting on his past. The Masterpiece does not have an adult David narrate the adaptation anymore than in the novel.

- Neither adaptation has too many scenes that do not make sense. The closest scene that does not make sense in both adaptations (but especially the Hallmark) is when Murdstone savagely beats David, yet David appears to recover almost instantly. Based on how savagely the Hallmark adaptation portrays it, I am surprised Murdstone did not beat David to death.


Overall, it is difficult for me to say which of the two previously contrasted adaptations I enjoyed more. They both have considerable merits for being unfaithful adaptations. Hence, I recommend them both. (However, my favorite adaptation is still the 1974 BBC adaptation, which contains much language straight from the novel and contains scenes of extensive dialogue.


Note: One can watch the Hallmark adaptation on a well-recognized website that begins with "y" (see comments).

After watching this film I was surprised to find that so many reviewers highly dislike it. This confounds me for a number of reasons, because not only does it capture the spirit of the film equally as well as the 1999 BBC production, the acting is in many cases better and the storyline is more developed. Though it does take a rather simplistic view of the story, I find it similar to the beloved 1935 George Cukor version.

This film has an adequate child David, and the adult David (Hugh Dancy) did a nice, enthusiastic job with his character. Though Sally Field and Michael Richards were admittedly annoying in the roles of Aunt Betsey and Micawber, and not the way Dickens probably imagined them, they performed decently in the scope of this film. Their poor acting was balanced nicely by the other actors, particularly a very strong Agnes as well as an admirable turn from Frank MacCusker as Uriah Heep. I was glad to see that the relationship between Agnes and David was present and well-developed, although I must admit that because of this focus David's affair with Dora sometimes overlooked. In fact, I think the largest flaw with this film is the screenplay's focus on David's relation with the Murdstones - the Murdstones popped up EVERYWHERE and tended to take over too much screentime. It would have been better to develop Dora and Steerforth's plotlines. Also, the dumbing down of some of the remaining scenes got old - i.e, having Agnes say she would "kill herself" rather than marry Uriah. Not exactly book!Agnes' way of saying it, is it? ;)

Though this is not the best version of David Copperfield I personally found it highly entertaining and preferred it to the overrated 1999 BBC adaptation. If you enjoyed the 1935 version, then I think you will certainly enjoy this film as well. :)

I would like to find one for my region. # 1 I had to return the disc.