cstotlar-1 I hate to be odd man out on this but I was expecting a much better film. It was Dickens "Hollywoodized" and smacked of that Anglo-American pinkies-in-the-air of Jolly Olde England that so many Americans swallow as the way England is or was at some time in the past. Given the size and richness of the book, the film had to be episodic and leave out many pertinent details in the plot. This, I think, was handled quite well, but the Disney-like sets and accents strong enough to curdle milk didn't work for me. David Lean would have trimmed off the excesses in no time. I wonder if the Brits trying to imitate the Americans would have fallen into so many holes?Curtis Stotlar

mark.waltz While there have been many versions of this famous Charles Dickens tale of the long-suffering kid who grew up to be a dashing young hero in spite of his rough beginnings, this ranks as the most famous and definitely one of the most beloved of all the movie versions of Dickens tales. The film is at its best in the first half with Fredddie Bartholomew as the young boy, born after the death of his father, and watching his long-suffering mother (Elizabeth Allan, also of "A Tale of Two Cities") end up in a horrid marriage to the evil Basil Rathbone which kills her. His step-father has no love for him in spite of having initially been kind (you know it was all an act), and Bartholomew turns to a series of eccentric adults who each influence his character and teach him the integrity he will utilize as a young man in helping his now grown child friends.Among those eccentrics are his mother's companion, the sweet Pegarty (the huggable Jessie Ralph), Aunt Betsy Trotwood (Edna May Oliver), the pickle-pussed spinster aunt who can't stand little boys but falls under his spell, and the slightly shady Micawber (W.C. Fields) who instills him with all sorts of worldly philosophies, some not always appropriate for a little boy. The result is one of those films with great moments, a slice-of-life period piece where plot is secondary to characterization and it is obvious that much was excised from the book to make it of appropriate movie length. This is why T.V. versions have expanded on the story, making it a two-part tale, particularly the outstanding BBC version with future "Harry Potter" stars Daniel Ratcliffe and Maggie Smith.In spite of the dragging in the second half which makes the lack of a linear plot more obvious, this version is lavishly produced, every artistic aspect of it superb, and directed with a precise attention to detail by George Cukor. Sometimes with all of these eccentrics, the film takes on a cartoonish structure, and not every character is fleshed out as strongly as Dickens originally wrote them to be. The shady character played by future "Topper" Roland Young may make some children wince with his "Grinch" like presence, and the nasty characters played by Rathbone and "sister" Violent Kemble Cooper (one of the all time nasty women on film) could give them nightmares.It is ironic that the best moments of the film dramatically speaking are those when the young David truly suffers, especially when he shows up at Aunt Betsy's looking a bit like Oliver Twist. Once Frank Lawton takes over as David grows up, the pacing slows down, although an amusing sequence at the ballet is one of the more memorable moments of the film.

mlevans Having always heard of David Copperfield, but never having read the novel nor seen the movie, I finally decided to check out the DVD. I found it quite enjoyable with an all-star cast and good Dickensian backdrops.I have always loved W.C. Fields, but have to disagree with those who say he steals the show. Although he is perfect as Mcawber, to me it is Edna May Oliver who steals the picture. She is delightful as the dotty aunt – especially standing up to Mr. and Miss Murdstone with the loony backing of Mr. Dick (a charming Lennox Pawle).Of course Lionel Barrymore always makes the most of a part and does so as the gruff fisherman Dan Peggotty. Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as the young David. Elizabeth Allen is gorgeous and delightful as David's mother, while Basil Rathbone and Violet Kemble Cooper are cold and devious as the step-father and his housekeeper sister.The entire cast is excellent, including Jessie Ralph as Peggotty and Herbert Mundin as the 'willing' Barkis. My only complaint – and this is from one who hasn't read the book – is that the miscellaneous characters get a bit confusing. A guy who apparently had been nice to David in school runs off with and abandons the adopted daughter of Peggotty's brother. Then two men fight during a shipwreck and David sees his school friend dead. Perhaps things were better spelled out in the book.In any event, it is a quite charming film. Oliver and Field are delightful, along with the rest of the talented cast. I doubt that as better adaptation could be done today.

DKosty123 This film might be the best adaptation of a Dickens novel this side of the epic Scrooge story itself. The cast is stellar & well put together. This film alone is the reason W C Fields had an inside track to be the Wizard of Oz in 1939. If Fields hadn't wanted so much money for Oz, it would have been interesting.Fields is excellent in a supporting role in this movie. While some of his comedy, especially a good piece of his physical comedy is worked in early in this film, it is his acting that is good. This is Fields best dramatic part in any movie.Freddie Bartholmew is great as young David Copperfield. Basil Rathbone (later Sherlock Holmes) is excellent in support too. George Cukor is solid in directing this film at a good pace too. Overall, I don't know if a remake of this could be any better. Check this out if you happen upon the film anyplace. Last time I saw it was on Turner Classic Movies. I am glad I finally saw this as for years I had heard about this film & especially how good Fields is in it. When I finally saw it, everything I had heard about it was right.