glen922 I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade. If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.

Borislav Stanimirov This film captures the idea of the book so good. There are a few flaws though like having no child actor for Steerforth and no teenage actor for David himself and cutting of some not significant plot parts but let the one who is without sin com forth and speak :) Generally it's one of the best films made after a famous book. The actors are excellent the music is great... It can throw you in Dickens's novel as if you're there. If you liked this movie and haven't read the book go out there and buy it from the nearest bookstore and you'll find out much more about the characters.7/10 - no second thoughts (btw for a TV film this is huge)

Vera26 This David Copperfield version was alrightThe best version ever is the 1999 BBC version of David Copperfield. All I can say is that the oh so cute, Daniel Radcliffe as David Copperfield is just so adorable.The only person that bothers me is the older David Copperfield.Everyone else is perfect especially, Uriah Heep (ooh! very perfect and creepy), Dame Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsy is even better than Sally Fields!I recommend the BBC version than this version

starsaturn33 Well, no matter what anyone else thought, I thought that this adaption was great!!! The costumes were incredible and the acting was brilliant. So who cares what the other people thought of the movie. The love that David Copperfield spoke of for Dora was really believable. Also...Sally Field is in it. What else can I say. She's brilliant. Mrs. Murdsen was, in all honesty, a jerk. I wanted to strangle her. That is good acting!!!!! Hugh Dancy...come to the Americas and stay!! You are fantastic!!!!!