The Personal History of David Copperfield

source: The Personal History of David Copperfield

Dev Patel carries the role of David Copperfield gracefully and naturally. He meets many characters along the way that vividly come to life on screen in ways that make you feel as though you are reading the descriptions as they unfolded on the page. They are almost caricatures in a very whimsical and delightful way. The rollercoaster that takes David from being the only son of a widow to the discarded baggage of a new marriage also makes him the guest in an overwhelmingly loving (yet constantly indebted) family. The ride continues as he becomes a young man on the run and on his fresh start as a gentleman with a past and then finally landing as a man in love with a girl who is out of place in his story. Though we are introduced to a wonderful array of supporting characters who help David on his long and winding journey, we do not get to spend enough time getting to know them because of the fast pace of the film. We feel his connection to them based on all of the great performances, however, it is tough to stay connected to them on the other side of the lens as the pace through situations races ahead. The third act of the film is where it is felt the most. As all of the characters come together for a very satisfying ending, it would have been nice to have more time with the characters as they enjoy the spoils of ride they took together. In the end, this is a redemption story about a very interesting character and his extraordinarily interesting life. David and his engaging journey have every element needed to go from whimsical to scary to revenge filled and eventually a satisfying conclusion. I would definitely recommend it. There are brilliant performances all around and the film is a welcome escape from the current lack of whimsy in the world.

Based upon Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield (1850), this latest adaptation starring Dev Patel as the titular lead chronicles Copperfield's erratic life from rags to riches. Set during Victorian-era England, The Personal History of David Copperfield commences with his idyllic childhood living on a beach in an overturned boat through to early adulthood after a somewhat turbulent string of events. Being a fan of Dicken's works (as well as having written and starred in the 2012 TV film Armando's Tale Of Charles Dickens), Iannucci appeared to be an appropriate choice to adapt Dicken's 600+ page behemoth for the screen. Along with co-writer and regular collaborator Simon Blackwell, Iannucci found himself drawn towards the comedy featured within the novel. Dev Patel shines as David Copperfield, and he's joined by a magnificent ensemble cast comprised of some of Britain's finest. Peter Capaldi (a previous collaborator of Iannucci's, most notably known for his work on The Thick Of It) features as the scheming Mr. Micawber, and Hugh Laurie delivers a wonderfully mad performance as Mr. Dick; a frantic, paranoid man plagued with what seems to be a loose form of schizophrenia. Tilda Swinton is another fantastic addition as Betsy Trotwood, and Ben Whishaw's performance as the seedy Uriah Heep lends a slightly more antagonistic presence to a storyline largely lacking such a component. It is evident both Iannucci and Blackwell are fans of the source material they're adapting, as The Personal History of David Copperfield is a vibrant, charming piece of work that is irresistibly fun. Driven by a wonderful cast and a fast-paced storyline spanning many years, it is a film made with affection that is an absolute joy to watch.

The set up for this film appears, on the face of it, quite promising. However, there is too much 'wrong' in the execution of it that the final product fails on all fronts. Is it a spoof? A comedy? Historical reconstruction? Ten minutes in and you won't care, you just know you're in for some dull stuff that isn't bad enough for you to walk out. Besides, you want to see what your rated actors are going to do with this lemon. Not a lot as it turns out. If only this enterprise had been taken the next step, that is, turned into a proper pantomime, then we would have laughed, appreciated the pratfalls, slapstick and other tricks that fall flat in straight film making. TV trash. Nothing more.

So. Try and say something positive. Brilliant costumes. Great acting. That is it. What a dull boring film. A real waste of time going to see this.

Despite the negative reviews I found this a really wonderful retelling of Dickens novel. Having listened to fantastic audiobook version by Martin Jarvis I was looking forward to this but worried about the poor reviews. In fact the movie captures the wonderful characters and emotions of Dickens novel. Obviously some things are omitted but overall this is a satisfying and engaging and artful rendition of a wonderful novel.

I watched this with 200+ other people. I was looking forward to it immensely. I stayed to the end though, only because I was blocked in by my neighbours... honestly this film is pointless. Little story progression, pantomime acting, sub- Month Python comedy characters and voices. If you want to pay £10 to watch Horrible Histories do The Fast Show, with cardboard cut out backdrops - you will adore this. No spoiler but - Please somebody explain why shouting 'no donkeys' to passers by is funny, worst film I have seen and biggest disappointment for a long long time

Caught this at TIFF. One had a managed set of expectations beforehand given the schmaltz in Dicken's feel-good novel with black and white morality in its characters. There are fun lines, but the loud music at all times is a bit too much. Half way through the movie you start wishing it'll get to its crowd-pleasing end. It takes another hour to get there. Characters are predictable platitudes. Hugh Laurie looks genuinely bored in his underused waste of time. Watch the 1999 show with Maggie Smith instead.

Dev Patel is Funny, Dickens is brilliant but they just don't go together, ridiculous concept.

Weird, ridiculous. I didn't recognise the Dickens' story apart from the inclusion of some of the characters. Three stars for the actors and their characterisations; none for the script or story. It's supposed to be a comedy but there was no laughter in the cinema in fact some people walked out half way through. I was tempted but thought it must get better; it didn't!