WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

benbrae76 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.

Mandyjam 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

pawebster 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.

dazzo31 With a wonderful cast, this "typical Dickens" is lovely. Little Dan, is the biggest ball of fluff that I have ever scene. So cute.I felt that all the actors suited their roles perfectly including Bob Hoskins (which I had doubts on hearing he stared in it).Adult Dan is extremely irritating after seeing Dan play the role for practically the whole film/drama, but never mind. He only stays for three scenes or so.I wasn't expecting to enjoy it, but I did, despite one or two tears trying to escape from time to time.Get hold of a copy and watch as soon as you can.