I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Dickens's book, and yes I preferred it over the 2000 version. Is it true to Dickens's work? It is reasonably, though the book isn't particularly easy to adapt at all, then again what Dickens book is? Even if there are any flaws such as it being a tad too long, it is completely compensated by the production values, music and the quality of the acting. The production values are superb, like in Bleak House and Little Dorritt, the sets are realistic-looking, the scenery breathtaking and the costumes sumptuous. The direction is also good, and sticks to the time period and the situations likely to happen during that period. The script is above decent, and does a more than acceptable job in adapting the book, and the music is lovely.And of course the acting is exceptional. I was compelled to write a separate paragraph as there are so many performances I wish to acknowledge. Daniel Radcliffe is simply adorable as young David, and acts being vulnerable very convincingly. I don't know about anybody else but I think this is the best I've seen Daniel act. Maggie Smith was simply born for the role of Aunt Betsy Trotwood, and Trevor Eve is a chilling and vile Mr Murdstone. I also loved Bob Hoskins as the debt ridden but kindly Micawber, Zoe Wannamaker as Jane Murdstone, Pauline Quirke as maternal Pegotty and Amanda Ryan as the alluring Agnes Wickfield. Also worth of mention are Allun Armstrong as Daniel Pegotty, Ian McKellen as the sinister Creakle(a character I found disappointingly forgettable in the 2000 version) and especially Nicolas Lyndhurst as the snake-like and odious Uriah Heep.Overall, I loved this 1999 adaptation for especially the acting. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This is good stuff, and I echo most of the positive comments made here. But is it just me, or didn't anyone else find the casting over-excessively starry? Every time I blinked there was another well-known name playing a small part, down to Dawn French as the landlady and Paul Whitehouse as the pawnbroker. What next, I thought, Clint Eastwood as the milkman? Tom Hanks as the bloke walking by on the other side of the road? Which is not to say that they weren't all very good - of course they were! - but I found it very distracting sitting there waiting in anticipation with my I-Spy book of stars doing cameos.And please save me from "Oh, Daniel Radcliffe was so cute." Radcliffe was an almost incidental child actor, who did a bit better here than he did in the Potter films (where he was so wooden that he failed to justify the faith placed in him). The strength here is in the featured characters surrounding David Copperfield's anodyne narrator.OK, that's my bit done. Normal service will now be resumed.

There is little point in outlining the story. Everyone in the world except the very young and the gaga must know it, and there have been numerous great movie adaptations of the Dickens classic. This 1999 production must be one of the very best.Bob Hoskins as one of Dickens's most loved characters, Wilkins Micawber, was just about perfect. Likewise Dame Maggie Smith as Betsey Trotwood. And who could have portrayed Uriah Heep (with obvious relish) more cringingly 'umble than Nicholas Lyndhurst? (Years of practise as the under sibling in "Only Fools & Horses" paying off at last no doubt.) It was a lovely evil performance by him, and delightfully (I suspect deliberately) just a smidgen over the top.Apart from the above, who was the most outstanding in the impressive cast? Answer...no-one. They all were. Every individual contribution was magnificent.It is difficult to fault this two-part production of "David Copperfield" in any way. Acting, interpretation, sets, casting, music, cinematography, script, pace and direction. All were equally superb, and I think it will be a long time before it is even remotely bettered by any future one.

I first watched this when I was about eight and it was showing on the ABC or something. I only saw the first part however, but even at the age of eight, I loved it (this was before Daniel Radcliffe had been cast as Harry Potter) and my absolute favourite character was the young David. But I also found Aunt Betsy Trotwood extremely amusing. The first part was put together very well, and was a top-notch, high quality drama.About six months ago, I decided to buy it and I absolutely loved the first part once again and looked forwards to watching the second. Unfortunately I found it dull and dreary compared to the first half. The second David was so appalling, that I remain convinced the only reason he was cast was because he was a descendant of Dickens himself. I was immensely glad when the thing was finished. I would also like to point out that Ciarán McMenamin and Daniel Radcliffe do not look in the least alike.All in all, it was a decent production. I hope that the talent Daniel Radcliffe showed in this small production will also come through in December Boys. He was entrancing in this.