LastingAware The greatest movie ever!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

glen922 I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade. If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.

Vera26 This David Copperfield version was alrightThe best version ever is the 1999 BBC version of David Copperfield. All I can say is that the oh so cute, Daniel Radcliffe as David Copperfield is just so adorable.The only person that bothers me is the older David Copperfield.Everyone else is perfect especially, Uriah Heep (ooh! very perfect and creepy), Dame Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsy is even better than Sally Fields!I recommend the BBC version than this version

Rosabel This adaptation of "David Copperfield" did have some strengths, but for the most part was disappointing. Some scenes were good, such as the savage beating Mr. Murdstone gives to young David, cut with scenes of the mature David flinching as he remembers the blows. Uriah Heep was a truly Dickensian villain, slithering and oiling his way into a position of power. But Mr. Micawber was spoiled by the extremely eccentric accent of Michael Richards, and Sally Field was just not English enough for Betsy Trotwood. Her shouts of "DonkEEEES!" sounded like Minny Pearl. A story like this must naturally be abridged for the screen, but that's no excuse for omitting important storylines like the Steerforth/Little Em'ly/Rosa Dartle situation and instead inventing a new one, like Mr. Murdstone as a sort of marital vampire whose destruction is the turning point of David's life. Despite some good performances and scenes, this is not a memorable "David Copperfield".

mttr-2 This marvelously cohesive version of 'David Copperfield' takes Dickens' 900 page answer to 'War and Peace' and delivers up what must be called an improved edition of the original story. (Mr. Dickens was apparently paid by the pound for his manuscripts.)The youthful David Copperfield, like his sweet mother, is a naively poor judge of human nature. During his voyage through a sea of arch and eccentric characters, he matures in both his discernment and assertiveness, arriving at manhood by finally confronting a wicked character from his past. The adult David, played by Hugh Dancy, is a fairly passive soul throughout most of his namesake novel, but his role as narrator in this production is enormously helpful in illuminating both the character and the story.Sally Field and Michael Richards are the familiar American faces in a cast packed full of fine British character actors. Field is crusty and endearing as Betsy Trotwood, the one thread of continuity in David's life. Richards (of 'Seinfeld' fame) is the quintessential Mr. Micawber--manic and outrageous, and ideally costumed for his `all arms and legs' performance.The sets, locations and cinematography deserve high praise as well.If you've ever passed out trying to read Dickens, take heart. This excellent production paints vivid scenes and develops memorable characters. Congratulations to director Peter Medak, screenwriter John Goldsmith and everyone whose work helped turn this behemoth novel into a manageable and entertaining story.