David Copperfield (1999)

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.

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.

This is good stuff, and I echo most of the positive comments made here. But is it just me, or didn't anyone else find the casting over-excessively starry? Every time I blinked there was another well-known name playing a small part, down to Dawn French as the landlady and Paul Whitehouse as the pawnbroker. What next, I thought, Clint Eastwood as the milkman? Tom Hanks as the bloke walking by on the other side of the road? Which is not to say that they weren't all very good - of course they were! - but I found it very distracting sitting there waiting in anticipation with my I-Spy book of stars doing cameos.And please save me from "Oh, Daniel Radcliffe was so cute." Radcliffe was an almost incidental child actor, who did a bit better here than he did in the Potter films (where he was so wooden that he failed to justify the faith placed in him). The strength here is in the featured characters surrounding David Copperfield's anodyne narrator.OK, that's my bit done. Normal service will now be resumed.

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.