Gerald Haim 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.

Rosabel 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".

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!

jbeydler 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.