User Reviews

The pacing is weird and the story is somewhat dull but the performances especially from Peter Capaldi are really good.

Putting a fresh face on a classic is always a risky proposition, especially with a mob of purists on the sidelines ready to pounce on even the slightest transgression. However, director Armando Iannucci's latest effort takes a valiant stab at doing that with Charles **** semi-autobiographical novel and mostly comes up a success. Note, though, that I said mostly. While the narrative deviates somewhat from its source material and condenses the overall story from its original voluminous length, this largely lighthearted take on the novel is whimsically entertaining, even if that whimsy sometimes goes over the top and becomes annoying as a result of its own self-congratulatory cleverness. Viewer engagement with the characters could have been bolstered as well, though this is compensated for by the excellent ensemble cast, particularly the fine performances of Dev Patel (his best work), Tilda Swinton, Hugh Laurie, Peter Capaldi and Ben Whishaw. The multiracial cast might strike some audience members as a bit odd at first given the story's Victorian English setting (think "Hamilton" meets ****), but that "distraction" tends to dissipate as the film moves along, especially since the film itself tends to get stronger the further it moves along. While this reworking of a classic may not succeed on every front, it's certainly novel enough to provide a lazy afternoon's entertainment and a nice escape from the everyday world.

This movie is one of the WORST movies ever! A travesty to Charles ****, stupid, drags on, could NOT wait till it was over.

(Mauro Lanari) "Dynamic"... "The film goes perhaps a bit too fast, doesn't grant respite between one event and another, all caught in its run-up." "Perhaps"? The epileptic rhythm denies space and time to the characters with their stories, which one by one end up shredded, reduced to cardboard cutouts by an unjustifiably spasmodic frenzy. Is synthesizing ****' book an unlikely undertaking? For others I don't know, for Iannucci certainly.

Overly mannered and self-aware. Some clever staging early on but as the mugging to the camera builds, so does the viewer’s annoyance.

This adaptation is a complete mess. It's slow, but also jarring at times because characters aren't sufficiently developed and the plot threads don't connect. The casting is odd and there's no attempt to recreate the look or feel of the period accurately. There's an embarrassingly forced sense of whimsy at times, and a type of deliberate, adolescent weirdness which fails to amuse. At the end, I was bored and wished I'd spent the time actually reading **** instead.

This is a boring mess of a movie. Disjointed in tone, weirdly paced, and can't seem to decide whether it wants to present a realistic or whimsically fictionalized depiction of the era. You can tell it is straining at points to emphasize that a certain scene is supposed to be very funny indeed, but genuine laughs are few and far between. Some of this issue is with the source material, which is based on a lengthy Victorian novel that is generally regarded as hard to adapt. It moves from set-piece to set-piece, without much interesting going on at any of them. Weird characters are presented, each of which the writers appear to believe is much more amusing than they really are. The plot is pretty basic when it comes down to it, but meanders all over the place, seeming to fill out time. The film is under 2 hours, but you come out feeling like it was a long 3 hours at least. That's how exhausting this beast is. Some of the individual performances are reasonably good, and I honestly like many of the actors in this, but the whole is much less than the sum of these parts. Ah, and let's talk about the anachronistically ethnically-diverse casting. Most professional reviewers seem to dutifully acknowledge how 'stunning and brave' this choice is, as is their requirement to not get fired from their respective publications. In reality, it's distracting and jarring. It's really weird seeing so many black and Asian people filling roles they would never have in 19th-century Britain, especially when the rest of the period is played more or less realistically. One reviewer made an interesting point in saying that this actually kind of diminishes the experience of people who were excluded by this society. Even more confusing, there isn't even ethnic consistency in families, e.g. an East Asian character has a black daughter; the main character who is South Asian has white parents, and nobody ever comments on this. It makes it really hard to keep track of family relations, and strains suspension of disbelief. If the filmmakers wanted to do this they should have set the film in another time period or an obvious alternate reality and kept families consistent or provided some other explanation. Maybe if the absurdity was cranked up to 11 and this was just another weird aspect, it might have been less jarring or worked better. In this context though, you can't just cast any actor in any role and command audiences to ignore your weird casting choices. I went to the TIFF screening of this and when someone meekly questioned what made the director decide on this 'colour bilnd' casting, Hugh Laurie responded in the most condescending tone and pretty much accused the audience member of racism for even asking. Which is kind of what this all feels like. I would excuse the above if this was an actually good or funny movie or had anything interesting to say. Instead it was an excruciating two hours of my life I will not get back. Thumbs way down.

The Personal History of David Copperfield: A film that was ultimately too boring at points for me to care about the characters. All the performances here are good but I really enjoyed the performances from Peter Capaldi and Tilda Swinton. Maybe I’m biased because I love them both but their presence on screen always brought a smile to my face. Other than them, I was really disinterested in everybody else including the main character. I’ve only seen one of this Director’s other films and he made the characters in the that film (The Death of Stalin) much more interesting so I don’t know what happened here. Maybe this **** story just isn’t interesting enough for the big screen. That’s not to say there weren’t other elements I enjoyed though. I thought the production design, costumes, and cinematography were all excellent and the writing wasn’t half bad. That’s what I will remember this film. Not the story. The score was fine but it felt too over dramatic at points. Check this film out if you like the original story or this Director (Armando Iannucci) or actors.

As a writer myself, the film provided a fascinating perspective. It created inventive ways to portray how a writer sees the world and captures the inspiration that life provides. Hugh Laurie infused terrific humor into the experience. Tilda Swinton's character was lovable and well-played. Dev Patel was a sympathetic likeable lead. Overall, the film had a play-like quality but at the same time provided some beautiful cinematography which an actual play cannot do. A quirky, clean, artsy period piece that won't be for everyone, but if the trailer appeals to you, you won't likely be disappointed.

Why are so many movies allowed to ramrod their multicultral tokenism into classically Aryan themes? Of course an Italian pretending to be Scottish should have been the first clue.

This is a wonderful take on ****, demonstrating a true love of the characters and of ****. While some of the critic reviews and user reviews note the comedic touches in the film, this is by no means a comedy. Instead, it is a drama, but not one wallowing in pain and suffering. More, it is that despite the circumstances, **** characters find a way to be bright when faced with cruel circumstances, and that is the heart of the movie. Iannucci does a very fresh take on this novel, vibrant and colorful. Motifs are introduced and are carried through to the very end. Fellini's 8 1/2 did a fairly good job of capturing stream-of-consciousness, but Iannucci has done one better I feel. He captures that sense of wonderment and thoughts colliding into one another as a child, and then, even in adulthood, the pace of life continues to jump forward, progressing from event to event. Iannucci's directing and his editors, cinematographers, do a splendid job of pulling this off, thanks in no small part to **** deft writing Also fascinating, how the vibrance and wonderment do not paint over or mask the darkness underneath. Vibrance and wonderment seem to be how the characters push back against being crushed underneath the weight of industrial England. This is brought off by the actors and the designers seemingly working off of one another. That is, the clothing and the sets are extensions of the characters inhabiting them and are just as telling as their lines. Dev Patel does a wonderful job of portraying a person working past pain, of someone totally a part of their world and yet, at the same time, thankfully apart. He's not alone, in fact, the whole cast have their moments to shine and the cream of British acting talent is on full display here. Why an 8 and not a 10? The film is clearly a love letter to ****. Not only does the director do a wonderful job of streamlining a sprawling novel, never was there a feeling that some fat needed to be trimmed. Iannucci deftly threads the needle bringing so many strands nicely and neatly together at the end. Perhaps, it is that there were times when the film was too giddy, when the shifts between light and dark are so swift that you're unsure whether to laugh or not. That may be the point. It is a film that doesn't want to hide the truth of each character's situation but at the same time, it doesn't want the audience (or the characters) to be miserable. So, expect an unexpected film, a drama that doesn't wallow in misery, but neither is it a comedy. Expect a lot of love and affection, but nothing hidden. I just saw the movie last night and frankly, I'm still turning bits and pieces over in the head, since it is not exactly a drama nor a comedy. This has a similar feel to "Big Fish" or the Keira Knightly "Pride and Prejudice"(2002), so if that is your kind of movie, then this is for you. If you're interested in this due to Iannucci's "Death of Stalin," the vibrance is all there, but unlike "Death of Stalin," which was all about the absurdity of Stalin communism, this film touches upon the cruelty of industrialising England, but turns out to be more about the characters finding their way to thrive in such circumstances. This is not "Death of Copperfield," a skewering of early 19th century industrial England; instead, it is a very well done BBC adaptation. So, if you're in the mood for a drama that doesn't hit hard but has hoped laced throughout, then you're in for a good time.

There’s a lot to appreciate about Director Armando Iannucci’s take on the most beloved novel in the **** canon. That he’s able to pare a sprawling novel (it clocks in at over 600 pages) down to a manageable two-hour film is no small feat. That he’s able to create much more than another moldy, moth-eaten 19th century period piece is equally impressive. In short, there’s a lot to admire about this effort. Iannucci’s script (co-written with Simon Blackwell) dutifully traces Copperfield’s birth into a well-to-do family, his eventual banishment to boarding school and a bottling factory and his resurrection from those wretched circumstances. The script is particularly notable because of its use of two devices: a scene of Copperfield the author literally writing out characters to explain their absence from story line and Copperfield’s obsessive note-taking of interesting phrases as a way of economically highlighting ****’ flare for description. Another element worthy of note is Iannucci’s jarringly color-blind casting. As the protagonist, Indian actor Dev Patel (who came to prominence in 2008’s “Slumdog Millionaire”) is apparently the product of two extremely white parents. There are other, similar casting choices that collectively give the impression that the moviegoer may have walked into the sequel for “Hamilton.” The cast is an embarrassment of riches. Of particular note are Peter Capaldi (Mr. Micawber), Ben Whishaw (excellent in “A Very English Scandal”) as the obsequious, hiss-inducing Uriah Heep and Tilda Swinton (“Snowpiercer,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) typically eccentric as Copperfield’s aunt Betsey Trotwood. Hugh Laurie (TV’s “House”) steals the show as Trotwood’s boarder, Mr. ****, who believes that his mind has been taken over by the thoughts of Charles I, beginning at the time the monarch’s beheading. The writing is quick, crackling, sometimes sly. A couple of samples: After being asked if he is homeless, Mr. Micawber replies, “We do primarily exist al fresco.” Frustrated by Mr. **** preoccupation with Charles I, Betsy Trotwood implores: “Let’s leave Charles’s head on one side, Mr. ****.” To which **** responds, “Pick it up later. Understood.” In his career (creator of TV’s “Veep,” the excellent 2017 film “The Death of Stalin”), Iannucci has used slapstick and farce to skewer individuals and groups (politicians, the concept of Communism). He deploys the same skills here to address the cruelty and indifference of an intractable class system in England during the mid-1800s. But the use of farce comes at a price. This pervasive sense of the absurd keeps the moviegoer from investing fully in the characters. This pattern also dampens the emotional impact of key events, such as Copperfield’s own lack of empathy when he first ascends the social ladder. Because of the film’s tone, its characters remain distant, emotionally remote. In my all-time favorite movie, “Inherit the Wind,” Gene Kelly’s character says that it’s the role of the newspaper to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Here, Iannucci seems to be animated by the same goals. In this case, unfortunately, he goes one out of two.

I liked it and was good cinematography and acting, but for it to be really memorable something was lacking. Also I haven't read the book, but I do think in a book format it could me much more interesting. Anyway, decent movie, worth a watch.

This film, based off the novel 'David Copperfield' by Charles ****, chronicles the story of David Copperfield, a young British orphan growing up in Victorian era England and persisting through several trials and hardships throughout his life. The greatest thing on display here is definitely the actors and their performances. Dev Patel brings just the right amount of charm and wit to the titular character, and supporting turns from Hugh Laurie, Tilda Swinton, and Ben Whishaw to name a few keep things relatively fun. Storywise, the film does seem to bounce around quite a bit and it had a hard time staying consistent, and it does seem to drag on a bit in parts, but there's just enough humor and charm to go around that it doesn't become too tiresome. Overall, it's a perfectly fine period piece that sure to please due to its feel-good story and enjoyable performances.