shawneuser 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.

gnostic21 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.

chaimss 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.

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