The Personal History of David Copperfield reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 янв 2020
- Mark Kermode reviews The Personal History of David Copperfield. An adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic novel, following the many rises and falls through the life of David Copperfield.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
If you like this, why not subscribe to our podcast for more reviews, interviews and general wittering of the highest order: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l...
Twitter: @Wittertainment
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 3pm on BBC 5 live. 
Кино
Amongst a very strong cast, Hugh Laurie was absolutely wonderful in this! I don’t know if it’s choice to not take on that many film roles nowadays but he struck that blend between drama and comedy he’s always been so adept at from the early days perfectly.
Dev Patel is brilliant in the role, I can't understand the antagonism to the casting. I don't know her name but the actress who plays his love interest is fantastically foolish as well , as is the woman he ends up with.
To me the diverse casting contributed to the theatre feeling, which I loved very much.
This film to date is not available in my area and I would love to see it. I am in Rhode Island USA. Mr. Patel I enjoy your work.
David Copperfield is probably my favourite Dickens novel, but at nearly 700 pages, there is no way the full and original story could have been kept. However, although I did really enjoy the film, in order to do so I had to forget the book and just take this interpretation at face value. One of the recurring motifs in the film is a small box in which David keeps scraps of paper on which he's written memorable phrases, and I felt that was almost symbolic of the screenplay - it was as though they'd torn Dickens' original into pieces, and put a select few back together but in the wrong order and minus several key events and characters. Having said all that, I'm a big fan of Iannucci, and believe Malcolm Tucker to be one of the greatest comic characters of all time. Given the two hour time restraint, Armando therefore came up with something highly original and stuffed full of brilliant comic moments, and Peter Capaldi made the transformation from Tucker to Micawber seamless! As for Hugh Laurie, the man is a comic genius, and his Mr Dick was superlative. Oh, and I thoroughly agree with Mark Kermode - Dev Patel has the comic timing and instinct of Chaplin at his best.
My thoughts exactly. It's a strange experience reading a youtube comment and realising a complete stranger has exactly the same thoughts/opinions as you but summed it up better than you ever could. I particularly thought the resolution with David and Agnes at the end was rushed, but Hugh Laurie really bought Mr Dick to life and pretty much stole the show imho.
The humour stood out in this. I was in stitches at times. Brilliant movie.
this was a really charming film!! inventive, funny and packed with characters in a way that felt really true to the book. dev was a real surprise in his little impressions and slapstick (knew he could act but didn't know he could do comedy this well), and ben whishaw was absolutely fantastic as uriah
Great film with an excellent ensemble cast. Good fun, with wit and lol humour, but also felt like a psychological study of the self, identity, and belonging which I really liked.
What a bloody brilliant adaptation. Absolutely joyous.
Nice noticing of the music. It was incredibly Britten/ Vaughn-Williamsy. I thought it added an epic grandiosity to the film, while staying true to the Englishness of its narrative. Every aspect of this film was beautifully put together.
I saw this yesterday with my family. We all loved it. :)
I didn't love the film as much as Mark, but I thought its casting and sense of irreverence suited source material very well. Patel shines as Copperfield and the assorted Big Names do well in their parts. I felt a bit adrift in the first hour- lots of to-and-fro with episodic outcomes and guest roles from the big actors- but I think that's more Dickens' fault than Iannucci's. Nice to have an adaptation that doesn't treat the original as a sacred text, and hoping for more period films/classic adaptations to that effect!
I absolutely loved this film too, and while there are many many great things about it, the first to strike me as remarkable was seeing Tilda Swinton playing a different kind of character and so well. She's brilliant in everything I've seen her in, but nearly all of those characters have been very serious, headstrong, fully in control of their faculties and utterly formidable, with the exception of We Need To Talk About Kevin where she is playing a character driven to depression and neglect of her immediate surroundings. But here she is silly, absent-minded, and without self-awareness and it was so good to see.
Agree. I loved it, too.
Okay, now I’m even more excited to see this film!
I liked it for the characters, humour, story and touches of surrealism but found it a bit hard to follow because of how much they had to cram in. I'll give it about an 8/10.
Just dropped on prime, just watched Great film with fantastic performances
This was an unbelievably refreshing film. A feast of humour! I found the physical humour particularly enjoyable because of how scarce it is in alot comedies these days.
I wonder if all the people moaning about Dev Patel portraying a fictional character from a book were just as angry when Armando Iannucci had British and American people portray Russians who actually existed in The Death of Stalin? Or does it only become an issue when non-white people are involved?
@@dirkbogarde44
Doesn't matter. They didn't sound Russian, let alone speak Russian. The actors portraying them weren't ethnic Russians, therefore it should be a problem. Seeing as it's based on actual historical events. But it isn't for some reason?
@Al Bundy for President
No. Because Martin Luther King is a real person who's racial identity was pretty integral to who he was and what he stood for.
The king of Wakanda may be fictional but he is the king of an isolated African country which is weary of outsiders (much like yourself). Part of the reason it's suspicious of outsiders was because of things like the Colonisation of Africa by Europe and the Atlantic Slave Trade.
David Copperfield is a fictional character set in a time in England where foreigners existed (don't get triggered), particularly Indians. Unless if you can highlight how David Copperfield's race and/or background is integral to who he is a character then there really isn't anything to complain about.
@Al Bundy for President
Are you even trying? I never said 'multicultural' in the sense of how we view 'multicultural' today, read properly before you comment. I said foreigners existed in England in the 1800s. If you could be bothered to do any research, you would find that about 40,000 Indians were living in England during the mid-19th Century. Indian people were immigrating to England as early as the 18th Century. The whole colonising thing had some influence on that. So it is not some sort of wild fantasy that there could be some Indians present in a period film. I know it's hard, but try not to get triggered by the thought that non-white people were present in England during a time you clearly viewed as a fully white paradise you wished you were a part of. I'm sure you'll get over it.
SEMI autobiographical. Not FULLY autobiographical. Elements of the novel follow events in Dickens' life, but doesn't follow it to the tee. The themes of the book don't specifically apply to white people.
But well done on ousting yourself as a xenophobe. You definitely seem like the sort of person who isn't approaching this with an agenda.
@Al Bundy for President
Well if you can't be bothered to do a basic amount of research into the topic because you're afraid of what you'll find, that's your problem. Enjoy a life of ignorance. Tonight I'm going to enjoy a curry cooked by an Indian gentlemen who's probably contributed far more to the UK than you could ever hope to :)
@@somanytakennames Dude is a troll - probably doesn't believe the things he's saying himself.
Looking forward to this after the disappointment of Avenue 5’s first episode…
@@whoknew2273 I'm going to give episode two a chance - in the first episode there were a lot of characters and plot to introduce in under 25 mins, so I think it downed a bit. Hopefully, it will reach its stride from now on.
I thought it was quite ok. I liked the rythm actually, and I believe there will be a moment when this whole project goes into overdrive, like 5th season of veep.
A badly received TV show by Armando Ianucci with Hugh Laurie in it? Sounds like solid gold.
@@paweex3655 You've got time to watch four seasons of something before it gets good?
@@mindfuldrone It was good from the beginning. After 4 seasons it became the best thing around.
So it's not about the magician?
Whoosh!
@@gavinhenderson7250 Oh dear Gavin.
@@simon1868 That dove keeps escaping from under the magicians hat, does the pet store do refunds?
@@gavinhenderson7250 actually this is based on the book by Edmund Wells. Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield with two Ps.
Hahaha I thought it was about him and realised like half way through when I was watching it yesterday
Funny, interesting and sad, a really glorious film made with with great flourish and heart . Makes you feel for empathy for those people at that time and makes you empathise with the hardships that befall those who live in tenuous circumstances which is most of us.
It’s quite clear to me, from this review, that this is not an attempt to play the story as conceived by Dickens. It is based on the novel, but no more. All the moaners on here are making out that it’s a travesty for one reason or another of their own. If you want a version of the book as written there are plenty to choose from. It’s pointless criticising Iannucci’s film for what it isn’t. He’s taken the story off at a tangent. Just like Gilliam (bless his cotton socks) has done with Don Quixote. Kermode has reviewed what he saw. Heaven knows there’s no shortage of Dickens’s work as written so spare us the criticism of this for not adding to the extant work.
Don Quixote was an abomination, this on the other hand was sublime
I really enjoyed watching this movie on the big screen. It's based on Charles Dickens' semi-autobiographical story, not the modern-day magician by the same name. The Personal History of David Copperfield was well portrayed by Dev Patel. Go see it!
I've looked at a slew of the IMDB reviews now and am most perplexed. Bizarrely enough they are rather split between professional or dispassionate reviewers who praised the acting, direction, and script, and those who pissed and moaned about "but David Copperfield wasn't brown" and complaining about the film being overly "woke". I'm not sure about the modern meaning of "woke" (past tense of the verb "to wake"; I'm a 50 year old white working class confused male), but what I can say is I did not give a tuppenny toss about the ethnicity of the cast, and simply enjoyed their performances. Dev Patel vacillated excellently between exploited and exploiter, Benedict Wong did a fantastic turn as a dipsomaniac, and everything else between was a joy. Okay, were I to analyse the genetics of some generational casting, having a biology based honours degree I would indeed be confused, but I was too damn busy enjoying the performances to be distracted by such fripperies. I will again say, as I've said to friends, I'm not a Dickens fan, but this film was well worth watching.
Yes the poor user reviews on IMDb are due to people giving it a poor score because they disagree with the casting and they haven't even watched the film. If you look at the dates of the poor reviews the majority are from before the film was even released so they are not even worth reading. Unless they all happened to watch an advance screening, which I find highly unlikely.
Thankfully as more and more real reviews are being posted the user review score is gradually creeping up. But it's score has definitely been damaged by these racists with nothing better to do.
@@katherinejohnstonmain1675 They were to busy voting for Brexit to actually see the film.
Such dispassionate reviews, from dreary, idiotic individuals, are not worth the time taken read. I imagine they come from button-down, staunch revellers of the book who claim their literacy makes them civilised people. To attack a fantastically creative and inventive adaptation on the skin tones of characters, only marks these ‘civilised’ as dull, pointless and unworthy of any attention to their critical pops!
I thought superb performances all round but especially Dev Patel who was quite brilliant
Excellent film. Whimsical, charming, life affirming and surprisingly poignant.
Just the right mix of quirk and emotion.
Definitely in the top 10 of 2020.
Two things to look forward to, seeing this next week for the princely sum of 2 quid and also rubbing my hands at the thought of Iannucchi slapping down Horsey McHorseface on twitter if he whinneys on about the casting choices in this production.
The Times decided to suddenly start caring about "historical accuracy" just for this film and I have had the BEST time arguing with racist people in the comment about all the reasons why they're wrong being mad at this movie.
@@ArtemisScribe Somehow I knew someone would make a fuss about the casting and honestly - it's a surreal adaptation of a freaking *work of fiction* and every actor is just brilliant in their role. Plus the theatre does colourblind casting all the time and that's deliberately the vibe they're going for in this. What a weird hill to die on, given how fantastic every performance is
@@isabellamorris7902 well there's a comment on here where someone has called a historical source citing how 40,000 Indians lived in Victorian Britain a "Jooish" conspiracy. I've reported him for it so hopefully they'll be taken down, so it's bringing out every kind of bigot going now!
I love dev patels acting in most things
Dev Patel is too cute for words. I have a crush on him.
@@hannahduggan3599 he has got a face that instantly evokes sympathy in the nicest possiable way wish i had that quality its something that cant be bottled il give him that x
Hey if I ever met Dev in person, what is he gonna think about me? Is he also gonna have a crush on me or is he gonna think that I'm a freaking weirdo?
mr biscuit he’s so good isn’t
Hannah Duggan weirdo!!
Hmm was ok 6 out of 10 only becuase armando has set a very high standard for himself
I watched is last weekend on rent. I have to say I really enjoyed it so good Dr is right.
Agreed, I was captivated and thrilled by its ingenuity, fantastic acting, humour and paphos,. It has stayed with me since viewing. Wonderful film.
This move is like kovida.
Just got back from this - what a film, absolutely wonderful stuff.
I just watched the movie and I am loved it!!! Dev Patel is amazing.
I have a crush on Dev Patel, but if I ever met him, what would he think about me? Is he also gonna have a crush on me or is he gonna think that I'm a freaking weirdo?
I doubt he’d have a crush on you. But you know, stock syndrome always works
@@ilikerice5208 what is stock syndrome?
Bravo Alley it’s like Stockholm syndrome, but you only need a couple marked boxes from a supermarket
This guy banters
*No spoilers here.*
THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD is rich with themes but not with narrative. It's the 3rd movie based on Charles Dickens' novel I've seen and also the 3rd time the title character has come off as boring (which makes it hard for the reader/viewer to get invested in the plot). Therefore, it's fair to assume that the source material has the same problem, although I won't claim that without reading it first. That being said, I didn't have a problem with the acting (Dev Patel being the standout), which is a first. The 1935 adaptation suffered to due to the many bad performances (especially Edna May Oliver's and Lennox Pawle's), and even though the 1993 adaptation would've been ruined no matter what, Julian Lennon's bland delivery made everything worse. There's a point where David's Aunt Betsey clatters a pan to scare her nephew away (she doesn't recognize him). He then grabs the pan and does the same thing. I think the idea is supposed to be that he got so sick of the noise and her unwillingness to hear his story, so he wanted the opportunity to give her a taste of her own medicine and to simultaneously draw her attention enough to give an explanation. However, the scene is so badly constructed that it doesn't feel he needs to do that. That should give you an idea of how hard the movie tries to be whimsical, but in the end it's not funny or charming.
1935 movie - 4/10
1993 movie - 1/10
2019 movie - 4/10
Tilda Swinton was great, some smart and funny dialogue! But overall I wasn’t that impressed. Frankly I thought there was a bit too much going on and was rather bored throughout.
There's a lot of arguing on this thread about the race of David Copperfield being played by a British Indian. Whilst there were Indians, Africans and Irish living in England they were probably treated as second or third class citizens. We need to make films that reflect this reality and stop pretending that everything was like today in the Victorian era except top hats. It actually diminishes the hard fought struggles people have had to defeat racism, give women the vote and give workers the vote. So despite being on the left I detest this pinkwashing, as we can clearly see this just gives the right ammunition.
Missed the point me-thinks. It is not supposed to be an accurate portrayal of life in mid Victorian times. It's a story about character and self discovery - and it matters not one jot what skin colour any of the actors have. They got the parts because they are good.
@@EricIrl I'm curious, would you have been ok with everyone speaking with American accents? How about if everyone wore tracksuits instead of Victorian clothes or if Copperfield and the gang whipped out smartphones? I ask only as you say that this is not about a portrayal of life in Victorian times but rather about 'characters' and 'self discovery.' It seems to me that in your rush to virtue signal you forgot about the lack of logic in what you were writing.
I don't expect historical accuracy from historical films but I what do expect is a period drama to respect the period it's set in. David Copperfield doesn't respect it's time period, it resents it. It's a calculated and cynical attempt by woke studio execs to try and get mass market appeal for an old fashioned period drama that never needed diverse casting in the first place.
I sympathize with plant fuelled here, I grew up in a very diverse city and I want there to be more opportunities and new stories for black and Asian actors, what I don't want is for non white actors to be shoehorned into white roles in the name of representation, that's a quick fix to a larger problem.
@@Mel1lvar Wouldn't have bothered me one bit.
@@EricIrl I don't actually believe that, if Copperfield produced an Ipad during a scene and checked something on google you wouldn't think that the film was absurdist and that it had no grasp of or understanding of it's time period? Please.
This might be alarming to your sensibilities but the casting choices in this film are as incongruous as the aforementioned Ipad. If you truly don't believe in any semblance of realism or historical accuracy then might I suggest the theatre, I don't mind suspending my disbelief for a play, but in film I do expect better.
@@Mel1lvar You are under no obligation to believe me - even if you are wrong in your accusation that I am telling lies..
Great movie
Please someone explain this movie to me? Am I the only one who found this movie boring and nonsense?
If we are going to keep down this route, let's get Laurence Fox to play Gandhi.
Except Ghandi was a real person, this is fiction, totally different thing.
@@ericamacs3875 Emily pankhurst was played by a black actress Beverly Knight in a West end play about the suffragette movement and she was a real person. So that kind of throws your argument out of the window.
No, Dev Patel is very well-suited to the role of David Copperfield. Laurence Fox would not be well-suited to play Gandhi. It's not a route or a slippery slope, stop the pearl-clutching and enjoy the movie.
I agree with Mark. This film is wonderful. It doesn't put a foot wrong.
My thoughts too. I really enjoyed it.
warning - don’t scroll down this comment section is full of brexit voters complaining about the fact that 10% of this films cast is not white
p.s: armardo (the director) has said that he casted dev patel because he pretty much wrote the role with him in mind, thinking he would be brilliant in it. this has nothing to do with ‘PC gone mad’ or ‘affirmative action in casting’
Here here! There were a lot of mixed race marriages in that time anyway. I saw the PROOF after there was a big, stupid fuss about Mrs. Cratchett being played by a black actress in the latest adaptation of A Christmas Carol.
Who gives a flying frig over the casting? They all- all- did a perfect job of bringing these eccentric loveable characters to life- a perfect gateway to those Dickens characters.
Another historical film that resents the time period it’s set in. If you wanna do colour blind casting then that’s fine. But don’t ever tell me it’s used to represent the diversity of Victorian London when it’s clearly used to represent the modern cinema goer. What I truly resent about ‘colour blind casting’ is that soon, if a film about historical Britain doesn’t have multi racial casting then that’ll soon be seen as either out of touch or even offensive, i assure you that that future isn’t as unlikely as you might think.
Daniel Kaluuya as Henry VIII very likely. With Benedict Wong as Thomas Cromwell, possibly.
Oh no, they're taking over. Farage was right!!
I've just got around to seeing this film and was so looking forward to it having absolutely loved The Death of Stalin. This film though, just left me bemused - it's a complete mess. It's not at all funny; it's nothing to do with the novel; and I just sat there open mouthed wondering what the heck is going on? I disagree with Mark's reviews from time to time (it's only natural), but in this instance I can't believe he and I were watching the same film. It was dumbfoundingly appalling - so bad I'd rather watch Mrs Brown's Boys again.
I didn't realise the Victorians were Indian and Black. I guess you learn something every day!
Looking forward to the next step in woke progressiveness, gender-free-color-blindness in casting. A "Dolomite is My Name" sequel featuring Awkwafina in the title role could be great! Or how about a "Henry V" starring Octavia Spencer as Henry? Her St. Crispin's Day speech would be a sensation!
I do not really mind but seriously Dev Patel?
Good actor, so why not
@@charliepanayiotou4305 Context!!!
@@johnnotrealname8168 Iannucci's production is irreverent in all senses- very meta- so 'context' means diddly squat for him
@@Indietrix Right yeah. What?
@@johnnotrealname8168 what is this "context" you are referring to? You are being awfully vague for some reason...
Love David Copperfield, didn't like this at all.
Way better than it had any right to be...
Worst movie I've seen in some time. They completely missed the mark on the tone. They should have pushed for it to be much sillier (like Airplane, Monty Python, Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny etc) because as it stands it is so meek and bland. It didn't help that I found Copperfield to be one of the most unlikable characters ever. He is the asskissing lemming of the bully character from a generic 80s/90s high school/college comedy. And we're asked to sympathize with him? Heep was the only one I sympathized with in the movie, and he's villain. The "good" people here are such horrible people. Which would have been fine if they played that up for laughs, like in Seinfeld or It's Always Sunny. But like I said, they completely misseed the mark on the tone.
Hated hated hated it.
I just had the misfortune of sitting through this bowel movement and out of interest I thought I'd check Kermode's review guessing he would have loved it... and what a surprise.
Firstly I found the casting unbelievably distracting, why bother setting the film in Victorian era at all? The movie had no narrative thrust, it lamely meandered around various unfunny characters with no excitement to be had, the stuff with Heap should have provided some drama but barely featured. Some performances were good; Laurie the best, Patel was decent, Wishaw interesting too while others (I'm looking in your direction Paul Whitehouse) appeared utterly bemused.
As for the production, it looked like they shot over the course of a bank holiday for 800 quid, CGI St Paul's constantly looming in the background looked awful.
The cinema audience had a few initial titters but these died off as the 'comedy' dragged on.
Don't be taken in by Kermode, there's not a cat in hells chance he or any sentient creature would watch this drivel twice - the man gives positives reviews when he likes a film's politics - it's that simple.
Haha don’t watch the death of Stalin in that case. I was waiting for your ‘kermode is bias cos of politics’ line so well done for keeping it until the end. Find a right wing reviewer like Akkad or ptw for your enjoyment
Well I've watched it 3 times so far and I'd happily watch it again....
@@katherinejohnstonmain1675 3 times!! It's only been out a week! Can you explain what it is that you love about it? I'm not trying to be funny I'm genuinely interested. I sat there for two hours and all I felt dead inside.
@@sisyphusonlunch5541 No.1 I love Dev Patel. No.2 I've never read the book so I wasn't comparing it to anything. No.3 on first watch I laughed so much I was snorting. No.4 my kids also loved it and said they wanted to see it again as soon as we came out of the cinema. No.5 I like supporting British films. No.6 I really want to stick two fingers up at the ******* who have reviewed it poorly on IMDb without even watching the film. No.7 I believe very very strongly that actors are actors, no matter their skin colour and if you can suspend belief that that you are watching any actor pretending to be victorian in the victorian era when you know it was made in the summer of 2018, it's not so difficult to overlook the colour of their skin.
We should celebrate british films and we should celebrate british actors doing their job.
And if ANYONE didn't find the scene of the globe drinks cabinet eye wateringly funny then I think they must have had a sense of humour bypass.
Katherine Johnston Main Or could it just be that the globe drinks cabinet scene was only eye wateringly funny for you?
why this is a kids film?
Imagine how ‘distracting’ Laurence Fox would find this. And how essential it would be to invite him into live media in order to say so.
I’m sorry to see another example of affirmative action in casting. This is ridiculous.
@So Angry Now there's an idea. Why not.
So Angry
getting brad pitt to play a real life black person vs getting dev patel to play a fictional man is very different
@@izzyhinchliffe326 So how about getting a white woman to play storm from the x-men franchise? Or getting an Chinese man to be the next black panther?
Careful now, open your mind too much and your brain will fall out, your virtue signalling is completely transparent.
A dismal film. Awful.
I hated it. I prefer the story that Dickens wrote. The 1930 something version starring Freddie Bartholomew and W.C. Fields is best version. This film is bad.
This is an awful movie. Really unfunny! Full of star names being stupid.
MrDavey2010 I completely agree. I walked out half way through but came back for the Q&A with Armando Iannucci
Humourless and charmless, it's a boring load of rubbish. A swing and a miss after the brilliant Death of Stalin.
Not funny at all, no charm, cinematography is lovely, Dev Patel is good but overall the film is annoying and disappointing
Awful film. Boring. Poor script, torturous acting and not a bit funny. Thought it was never going to end. Had a little snooze in the middle of it but unfortunately woke up to find it still going. A Bafta Nomination? Really? 119 minutes of my life I won't get back.
Sameeee
Yep. I love David Copperfield but this is messed up. "Takes liberties" is an understatement.
I just bought the DVD ,watched about a quarter then thought I would do a bit of fastforward to try to catch something better .Ended up about two thirds through switching off and binning it .Mr.Dick played straight by Hugh Laurie is the only part with which I could empathise, all the rest worse than cardboard characters ,very badly acted, twitching ,grimacing ,shouting etc.The worst film I have ever seen.
This has to be the worst adaptation of David Copperfield that I have ever seen! The acting is so over the top and hammy. It also tries too hard to be whimsical and humorous but succeeds in neither. I just could not take the story seriously at all, particularly when the film makers and actors have such utter contempt for the source material!
don't let your kids watch this! watch postman pat the movie or my little pony the movie i never watch this movie but i watch postman pat on broken tv
The worst film ive seen in years. Total disgrace
Would you care to explain
Stupid movie with no attention paid towards the times pertinent to the novel.Just to cater to global audience you can’t play with a classic and make people of different ethnicities to play the roles of Britishers.
Also, Mr.Wickauber or whatever the name of the person in debt was .....his children never grew up 🤣🤣.Since the time David was a child upto him turning into a young man ,his children were like bonsai of men 😳that’s bizarre and a blunder on the part of the director & no one from the entire team noticed🙄Argh!
Ludicrous 😂