Robert J. Maxwell Nicholas Nickleby (Hunnam) hatches a scheme to rescue a crippled young boy from virtual slavery and asks his friend Noggs (Courtenay) what he thinks of it. "May I say, it is foolhardy, redolent of danger, and doomed to fail. Aside from that I can think of no objection." I know, I know. It's an antique fiddling with rhetoric. It was probably old when Dickens deployed it.But there are several other comic moments that lift this dark story out of the gloom that threatens to envelop it. A terrified boy named Smike (Bell) is about to appear on stage for the first time, playing the apothecary in "Romeo and Juliet" before a formal audience. Hunnam as Romeo is alone on the stage. Then he shouts, "What, ho! Apothecary!" and waits for Bell to appear A moment passes. Several moments pass. The audience sits politely -- waiting. Finally Bell comes crashing out onto the stage as if thrown from the wings, which he probably was. Unable to speak, he gawks into the silent theater. More moment pass. Dynasties rise and fall, until he tentatively croaks, "Who calls so loud?" And the audience bursts into applause for him, having finally gotten the line out! I said the story was dark and except for a few brief moments, most of them involving Hunnam's involvement with the actors, it is dark. As is usual with Dickens, there are several deaths, the threat of an unwise marriage, poverty and violence, the gain or loss of fortunes. I won't get into all the sub plots.The production values are extremely good. Scenes of drear and misery alternate with idyllic shots of green meadows and Mattise ponds laced with lily pads. Make up and wardrobe are unimpeachable.The performances are all professional but two stand out. Christopher Plummer is the rich, mean uncle who exploits everyone and is possessed by spite. His conversion to humanity is a little abrupt but it's not Plummer's fault. He's hugely enjoyable. The other is Tom Courtenay, almost unrecognizable as Plummer's bibulous butler.It joins David Lean's "Oliver Twist" and the 1951 version of "Christmas Carol" as the best adaptations of any Dickens novel.

Desertman84 Douglas McGrath made the fourth adaptation of Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby by writing the screenplay and directed this film that tells the story of how a teenager manages to become the head of the family when his father died.Charlie Hunnam plays the title role together with a cast of talented actors and actresses like Nathan Lane,Christopher Plummer and Anne Hathaway.After the unexpected death of his father,Nicholas watched over his mother and his sister Kate.Big challenges came when they realized that the father lost the family fortune due to bad investments.This makes Nicholas to seek help of his Uncle Ralph for help.He also becomes a teacher in a school of unfortunate boys that is run by Wackford Squeers and his wife.Due to all three - his uncle and the Squeers couple - being cruel and did not treat him well,he decided to run away and meets the eccentric Vincent Crummles and his fortune changes for the better.This is an absolutely well-acted,well-directed and an entertaining adaptation a Dickens serial.Aside from that,it was has a great theme about the triumph of good over evil.Despite the fact that it has a fast pace as the event happen very quickly due to its lengthy source,it was definitely a worthy adaptation of Dickens' work as it was able to tell the complete story within the time allotted for the film.

T Y In 1980 one could enjoy the novelty and spectacle of revisiting Nicholas Nickley with a multi-hour play version. When I saw the poster for this in 2002, I was bewildered as to who the audience was for a new Dickens movie? Who wanted this? What can Dickens and his twee bromides say to a world that saw 300,000 people die in a tsunami, and lived through Sept 11th? I took to mocking the casting as the boy-band version of Nickleby. And to be sure it's that.I'm older now and less susceptible to Dickens tiresome devices and excesses. And there is much that isn't worth a toss in this, but maybe half of it is pretty good. And it has a fresh-faced cheerful cast that prevents the sentiment from getting too mawkish. The prior project (with vivid turns from Alun Armstrong, Edward Petherbridge, Lyla Kaye) is still strong in my memory, with many tears shed over the outcast Smike.Watching this production caused two strong reactions: Each scene of this summoned up the emotions of related scenes in the the RSC production and the impact was felt two-fold. This version is working a gay subtext between Smike and Nicholas, here much more closely related in age, looks and intelligence than in the play. The looks they exchange, the caresses, their love is as near-gay as anything I've ever seen in a movie. It will be a long time before a gay film will depict love on this scale, or be this honest about male affection. It gives a viewer chills. Smike's death is as sad and well-written as anything that's ever made you cry. Again... deeply-felt tears for Smike.Aspects of the Nickleby story turn up in Jean De Florette and Les Mis.

Jim In Holland It's not bad - it's not the RSC production everyone unfairly compares it to, but it's as entertaining as a 2 hour version can be expected to be. Sound like faint praise, but really - keep your expectations honest and you'll enjoy it. I've sat through the RSC's 9-hour event (twice in the theater and I own the DVD set) and yes - it's a more faithful interpretation, but that doesn't diminish this version. I do have some issues with the casting, primarily Jaime Bell as Smike and Charlie Hunnam. Bell is just far too healthy, too good-looking to play the battered, pitiful Smike. Hunnam is just a bit too gee-whiz, too bright-eyed throughout - in a word, lightweight. It's an interesting balance in the way these two are portrayed; in the RSC plays, Nicholas is almost a step-parent, in the movie, more a brother; I do prefer the former balance.