David Copperfield (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Well it was made for TV

[imbreathless2004 · 8/10 · 9 May 2006]

And you can hardly expect a yank to effectively portray a character so intrinsically British as Betsey Trotwood (Bridget Jones was not the norm)... Sally Field's accent was thus naff, and the acting poor, reminiscent of Hepburn as Doolittle.

But sorry I thought that Eileen Atkins was superb as ever, as Miss Murdstone, and Hugh Dancy .... not only is he stunningly beautiful but he played the part of David the elder, magnificently.

David Copperfield, the book, is a relatively large tome, and TV movies do not allow for all minute points to be covered.

I liked it anyway. For what its worth LOL

So it's a story about breaking loose

[Nozz · 7/10 · 16 October 2004]

How do you cut and structure David COPPERFIELD? If I recall correctly, the TV version back in 1969 made it a passage through grief to maturity. This one makes it the shaking off of a curse. Murdstone is a destroyer of women, and he sends David off to a training that will inevitably make David-- as it makes his hero Steerforth-- another such destroyer. From time to time David as narrator reminds us that he is making the mistake of succumbing to expectations, but in the end he successfully rebels. It's not the original, but it's not a bad take on the story.

Micawber has a similar triumph near the end of the story, and it's a shame that he wasn't allowed to shine in that triumph without the distraction of Michael Richards' physical comedy. Up to that point the Krameresque bumbling was not unwelcome, certainly a better alternative than trying to compete directly with the legendary W.C. Fields interpretation. Micawber's accent was odd, though, and it was mixed with unadulterated Kramer interjections.

Good and lovely to watch, but inferior to the 1999 adaptation

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 11 November 2009]

The 1999 adaptation was absolutely sublime, you cannot do better than Ian McKellan, Maggie Smith and Bob Hoskins all of whom did brilliantly in their roles. This 2000 adaptation is inferior, but in my opinion it is good on its own merits. Now I admit I haven't read the book for a while, but I do remember that the 1999 adaptation was more faithful. The adaptation looks amazing, with lavish costumes, lovely camera work in general(though the last ten minutes were unfocused) splendid scenery and realistic-looking sets. The music is beautiful, and it was delight especially to hear Mendelssohn's Octet playing as background music in one scene. The script is mostly good with a lot of Dickens elements in it,and there are many memorable scenes like the whipping of young David. The performances in general were very good, save one or two exceptions. Hugh Dancy especially was perfect as adult David, and while I found Daniel Radcliife absolutely adorable in the 1999 adaptation, Max Doleby was believable as the younger half of the character. Antony Andrews is suitably nasty as Mr Murdstone and Eileen Atkins turns in a solid performance as Jane. And Uriah Heep is a real villain, really slimy and snakelike. I have to say that Frank McCusker played him marvellously. Edward Hardwicke and Freddie Jones also give great turns, and Julie Cox and Emily Hamilton are lovely as Dora and Agnes. However, there are flaws with this adaptation that made it inferior to the 1999 adaptation. The plot, suffering from the deviations from the book, is choppy and even confusing. (I will admit I was confused with what was happening in the first scene) The other flaws I am afraid are to do with some of the casting. I felt that Michael Richards overacted as Mr Micawber, and Sally Field was as another reviewer rightly said not English enough, and I found her screams of "Don-keee" unintentionally funny. As fine an actor as Peter Woodthorpe is, I sadly found him forgettable as Creakle, no matter how hard he tried. He played him with real demeanour, but he wasn't given enough screen time to shine properly. On the whole, despite the major flaws, this is a decent adaptation of Dickens's novel. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

beautiful

[Vincentiu · 12 September 2013]

to adapt a famous book is always a difficult work, for director and for the reader. for the need to present/discover the heart of story and for not use easy tools.but, in this case, all is OK. the atmosphere, the performance and shadow of Dickens small universe. Hugh Dancy is David and not only his subtle performance is impeccable but the preoccupation to give force and shine to each detail. and this is a great virtue because the film is a little more than an adaptation.honest, rich in nuances, seductive, smart, almost lovely, like many inspired translation of great books spirit, it is a precise puzzle.a fragile ball of emotions and memories, interesting trip in a middle of a way to discover literature, it is that decent option to respect novel and remember its extraordinary profound message.

David Copperfield (2000)

[dona-8 · 10/10 · 24 September 2005]

I have been all over the place to find a DVD for this film, there is just a limited edition around. I don't agree with the negative comments, the plot of actors is magnificent and this is what makes a good film, the right selection for every character and having it compared to previous editions which were dull and boring. in particular the BBC one with Bob Hoskins which I returned to the shop. What makes the film particularly interesting is the recurring evil stepfather (Amthony Andrews) and Copperfield's (Hugh Dancy) personal revenge, a change I think that works very well. I would have never thought that I could become attached to David Copperfield until I saw this film.

Glorious in looks. Episodic in nature.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 2 November 2021]

Some of the performances here are too cartoonish and bumbling to make this umpteenth version of the classic Dickens novel to be truly great. Yes, all of the great characters are there, but a few are laughable in a way that makes this feel cartoonish. Hugh Dancy is sincere yet somewhat empty as the older David, and Sally Field seems like she's running around on speed as Aunt Betsy. In her big sequence shouting "donkeys!" over and over again, she reminds me why certain recurring moments shouldn't become drinking games. I half expected her to stand on a picnic table with a sign saying "No donkeys!" like she did with the union sign in "Norma Rae" or all of a sudden spoof her own image by screeching "I really like donkeys!" over and over again.

The praise of the sinister performances of Anthony Andrews and Eileen Atkins as the Murdstones is much needed, their hateful characters sinister in every way with Atkins a Dickens version of "Rebecca's" Mrs. Danvers. Pegarty gets thumbs up; MacAwber no. Young David is no Daniel Radcliffe (as Field is sadly no Maggie Smith OR Edna May Oliver), One of the suitors of David's love interest seems more likely to have a crush on David.

The details filming is exquisite however and the musical score is appropriate for every single mood. So what you don't get from most of the performances you do get from the atmosphere and it is flawless physically if not completely in soul. Still at just under three hours it does fly by rather quickly yet the episodic nature demonstrates that not all literary masterpieces can be filmed over and over, especially when there had just been an excellent version as there was just the year before. The 1935 MGM film is also excellent, and the 1969 version also much better, making this the weakest of the four productions that I've seen.

The best production of David Copperfield

[dona-8 · 10/10 · 4 April 2004]

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

Definitely worth watching!

[prizrak6 · 7/10 · 2 March 2005]

This film captures the idea of the book so good. There are a few flaws though like having no child actor for Steerforth and no teenage actor for David himself and cutting of some not significant plot parts but let the one who is without sin com forth and speak :)

Generally it's one of the best films made after a famous book. The actors are excellent the music is great... It can throw you in Dickens's novel as if you're there. If you liked this movie and haven't read the book go out there and buy it from the nearest bookstore and you'll find out much more about the characters.

7/10 - no second thoughts (btw for a TV film this is huge)

Heartwarming, romantic, a pleasure to watch.

[marcyg68 · 10/10 · 18 February 2001]

I disagree with the earlier comments on this adaptation. As a matter of fact, I very much enjoyed this version of Dickens' famous novel! Charismatic and handsome Hugh Dancy turns in a warm and sensitive portrayal of David Copperfield. Sally Field and Michael Richards are memorable and over-the-top performances as quirky Betsy Trotwood and funny, good-hearted Mr. Micawber.

This adaptation came in the heels of the Ciaran McMenamin and Bob Hoskins version but deserves our attention as well. It is at times funny and light but also gives us an insight into the dark side of human nature, most especially through Anthony Andrews' cold, brutal Mr. Murdstone and Frank MacCusker's creepy Uriah Heep. Hats off to Hugh Dancy for giving us a David that we can emphatize with and admire. I highly recommend it!

Did the screenplay writer read the book?

[t_tracy · 1/10 · 1 January 2001]

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!

Liked "Copperfield" very much

[jlittle1 · 10/10 · 17 December 2000]

Well although I only got to see the latter half of the movie (since I tuned in to TNT when the second half was showing), I still enjoyed this film very much. It was a decent, clean film (a rarity these days) and very dramatic and leaving you wondering what will happen next, which were all major pluses in my mind. Also even though I have not read the book, I think the movie really should be judged on its own merit (as opposed to simply comparing it to the book). I would give "Copperfield" a 10 out 10.

Why bother?

[garikster · 4/10 · 18 December 2006]

I wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to "complete the set". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions.

There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens).

I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of it

I also like to add

[TheVintageArchive · 19 April 2003]

I wished Hugh Dancy had done the BBC's version of David Copperfield....he is the perfect David

the BBC version is the most faithful to the book however I feel they miscasted older David...Hugh Dancy is perfect

the hallmark David Copperfield is not as faithfull to the book in my opinion...Sally Field as Aunt Besty is not all too great...Dame Maggie Smith was better...if Hugh Dancy had been in the BBC version it would have been perfect

Excellent adaption

[loofahcat · 10/10 · 4 January 2001]

I've watched this version of David Copperfield three times now. I think it is a very good adaption and I especially enjoyed the performances of Anthony Andrews as Mr. Murdstone and Sally Field. I haven't seen Mr. Andrews do too many evil parts but when he does them, he does them very well. I enjoyed the entire production except that there were too many commercials. I look forward to this movie being available on video.

Terrific version, best I've seen..

[seantheslug · 10/10 · 3 November 2018]

This is the one for me, understated, no "star" names taking away from the consistency of a good "solid" cast..and for me especially memorable for Michael Richards delightfully eccentric turn as Mr Micawber..best visualization of the character, it's what Dickens would have the screen version to be..

Some strengths, mostly disappointing

[Rosabel · 5/10 · 21 November 2001]

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".

TNT is capable of better, much better - so why this?!

[jbeydler · 5/10 · 11 December 2000]

Having seen other adaptations besides reading the book, I kept watching this travesty in hopes that it would get better, but it didn't. Americans need to keep their accents and not "fake" an English one. Networks need to remember that there is too much competition to become sloppy in adaptations or becoming too creative with the "Classics". This drives away viewers who spend their dollars on advertisers' products and what credibility does it give them for future productions. David Copperfield was totally lost in this production and never grew, never matured. Dora was delicate and somewhat spoiled in past productions, not this simpering, whiny, pathetic creature that you wanted to slap into life. Agnes was a mere shadow of what she has been in the past, just enough backbone to recognize her character. Sally Field was disappointing as she tried to fake an English accent as Aunt Betsey Trotwood. Her past works have shown she is capable of an award winning performance, but not this time. Anthony Andrews' character of the mean stepfather became cartoon-ish as we saw his character reappearing in the story. His part was written as if the screenwriter wanted to give the stepfather his comeuppance. Don't waste the time to even schedule the VCR if you missed it, because there wasn't anything to miss.

A Masterpiece of miscasting

[gerrydeirdre · 1/10 · 30 December 2010]

Why ruin a wonderful story with trashy casting and dreadful direction. Mr Micawber is a "character" not someone pretending to be an actor trying to be funny. When I saw Eileen Atkins name in the titles I thought she would be playing Betsy Trotwood. Oh dear! I wonder if any of the production team have read the book or even seen the original 1935 version of the film or indeed any of the later versions. Freddie Jones as Barkis was excellent and I also enjoyed Emily Hamilton's performance as Agnes Wickfield. Why the introduction of the Murdstones throughout the film ? Was it put in so that Mr. Murdstone got his "come-uppance" ? He certainly deserved a far more drastic one than he got which was nothing more than a weak ticking off. Overturning a table laden with cakes did not lend the scene any extra gravitas. Don't waste your time on this film unless, like me, you want to be very disappointed.

ANOTHER ADAPTATION? ENOUGH OF THIS.

[NickRisch · 9 May 2001]

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.

Haven't we seen the same thing a year before this ?

[kedavra_curse · 5/10 · 1 February 2006]

Directed with skills, excellent props but it's a shabby look-alike of, well... the 'David Copperfield' produced in 1999. Even the Emmy Awards says it so: 1 nomination for this film comparing to the '99 movie with 1 award and 3 nominations. Now let's talk about the cast: Sally Field played brilliantly & Michael Richards did his part in great style unlike the young Max Dolbey. Absolutely no feeling in role. Like going to the market and to buy tomatoes. My guess is that the '99 movie inspired someone and he wanted to do the same thing again hoping for the same success. Their greatest mistake is that an American thought that he could do a picture after an English book with no British help because everything in it is English, a different culture from the American one. To understand Charles Dickens and create a masterpiece after his works you must be at least partially British. In the 1999 'David Copperfield' Simon Curtis had the help of some great actors: Maggie Smith for Aunt Betsey Trotwood, Bob Hoskins for Mr. Wilkins Micawber and Ian McKellen for Mr. Creakle. This motion picture is good, nevertheless it is inferior to its British 'sister'. Watch it, but you won't be transposed in to the Dickens universe.

I've seen better

[TheVintageArchive · 5 January 2003]

This David Copperfield version was alright

The 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

Diluted for the Hallmark channel. Not necessarily a bad thing but doesn't make anything better here, only worse.

[mickman91-1 · 5/10 · 12 November 2021]

This version was chopped around, especially the second half, and some events were fabricated. This was to try to make it a more streamlined David copperfield and it fit it into familiar narrative conventions with a clear baddie and clear love triangle and clear happy ending for people who are new to the novel and who aren't bothered about faithfulness to the source and who enjoy light entertainment. It is no surprise then that this was made by the Hallmark channel. I don't hAve anything against this per se, even though it's not what I prefer. However frankly it just isn't done very well. It waters down certain elements of the story but making them overly saccharine and hollywoodised. There are also no stand out performances and the casting wasn't all that memorable. There is nothing about this that hasn't been done better in other versions - notably the 1974 very faithful very Dickensian adaptation, and the 1999 abridged but faithful modern production. David copperfield is not Shakespeare, I don't know why we need this overly simple, overly romanticised, dumbed down version .

Dickens spins in grave

[glen922 · 1/10 · 3 July 2009]

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.

Fantastic!!!

[starsaturn33 · 16 December 2000]

Well, no matter what anyone else thought, I thought that this adaption was great!!! The costumes were incredible and the acting was brilliant. So who cares what the other people thought of the movie. The love that David Copperfield spoke of for Dora was really believable. Also...Sally Field is in it. What else can I say. She's brilliant. Mrs. Murdsen was, in all honesty, a jerk. I wanted to strangle her. That is good acting!!!!! Hugh Dancy...come to the Americas and stay!! You are fantastic!!!!!

Better Than the Book: You Won't Forget These Characters

[mttr-2 · 24 December 2000]

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.