dona-8 I really don't understand why this production of David Copperfield has been classified rather disappointing and not one of the best as I think it is. Probably the only negative factor is the scene of Jane Maidstone coming up unnecessarily when David is adult, but apart from this it is a wonderful production with its musical track. The actors do fit in perfectly in their characters roles, in particular Anthony Andrews and Hugh Dancy. I bought the BBC one with Bob Hoskins which is the most popular, but I had to return it because I was indeed disappointed. The actors were so dull and in particular David's mother who looked so modern, totally unsuitable for that part. I have voted in order to obtain a DVD or VHS for this particular production

NickRisch My first thought was, why another adaptation? The BBC version was pure poetry in motion. Why ruin it's memory with this garbage version? It seems that creativity and research are no longer used in the world of film making. The quest for greed; producers with no experience and/or talent, lend their ugly hand in remake after remake of stories that have been told over and over again. Come on Film World, let's be more original and do what film making is supposed to do: ART and CREATIVITY.

t_tracy It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!

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.