Did not warm to this production
Added 2/4/2010
I am afraid that I did not warm to this production but I admit that this is my first Nicholas Nicleby and I have not read the book - so perhaps I would not warm to the book either. Charles Dance is excellent at being nasty as he was in the recent superb BBC adaption of Bleak House.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Worthwhile to view
Added 12/29/2009
21st century television audiences should appreciate this adaptation of Charles Dickens' novel "Nicholas Nickleby." This adaptation keeps many of the major points of plot while not creating characters who are too much of caricatures. Of course, this means that that many characters either (1) receive very little screen time or (2) have been transformed from figures of comedy to more serious figures.
Clearly, this adaptation has some positives over competing adaptations. I will address the two most well-known color adaptations: the 1977 BBC and the 2002 MGM.
Positives over the 1977 BBC:
- The 1977 adaptation at 325 minutes does tell the story in the manner most representative of Charles Dickens' intent. However, because Dickens wrote "Nicholas Nickleby" for serial publication just after writing "Oliver Twist," Dickens characters were still very much the comic figures. However, for a modern audience, watching an adaptation like the 1977 might be too much for some people to tolerate. (It reminds one of "Alice in Wonderland" because eccentricity abounds in the 1977 adaptation.)
In contrast, this 2001 adaptation will tell the story much more like it were an Anthony Trollope novel (especially "He Knew He Was Right" or "The Way We Live Now") rather than an early Dickens work.
Positives over the 2002 MGM:
- The 2002 adaptation is not sufficient. It leaves out far too many important scenes. Also, there are scenes I just cannot understand at all because they just do not make any sense, except for comic relief. I understand that plot loyalty to an 800 page novel cannot be easily achieved in 130 minutes, but I cannot help thinking that the scriptwriters and producers could have done better. I do not recommend the 2002 adaptation. I think Christopher Plummer (who plays Ralph Nickleby) knew the film was trash and played his part half-heartedly.
In short:
- I recommend this 2001 adaptation to those who want the "Nicholas Nickleby" story without Charles Dickens' eccentricity and outrageously insane comedy (200 minutes).
- For true loyalists to Charles Dickens, I recommend the 1977 BBC adaptation (325 minutes).
PS: One may watch this 2001 adaptation (for free) on a particular internet video site that commences with the letter 'y' as 12-29-2009.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Dickens wrtiting and BBC Production....Brilliant
Added 4/28/2008
My Wife saw this at the library and borrowed it, well....we then had to buy it !!!
The BBC have remained true to the Dickens classics and Nicholas Nickleby is one of the best. This is a two part series and I am so glad I watched it on DVD, I would have hated to have to wait 24 hrs or (God forbid) a week) to see the 2nd installment. Thoroughly enjoyable with brilliant acting, directing and set and costume design.
Dickens classic characters are all brought to life with all human foibles such as meanness, pathos despair, high camp (the Shakespearean Actors are just hilarious).
Just sit back for a few hours and enjoy !!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
1993 vs 2002 vs 1977 vs 1947
Added 1/16/2008
The 1993 version of Nicholas Nickleby should not be considered. It is not merely the snake-faced appearance of the actor who plays the lead, nor the fact that he speaks as though he has a bad cold with a stuffed-up nose. But he is also a contemporary character, not a nineteenth-century character. And that's just for starters.
The 2002 version is not bad. With widescreen and surround sound and good photography, this is a good production for what appears to be a limited budget. Problems begin with the casting. The American actor who plays the lead speaks in a carefully articulated generic English accent, but that won't do, nor the fact that his manner and mannerisms are those of a contemporary rather than a period character. Christopher Plummer is an accomplished actor, but his effort here seems half-hearted, as though he didn't think much of this production. The actor who plays Smike mumbles his lines as though he is bucking for the role of Hamlet. The story is powerful enough that this movie is not a washout, but none of it is particularly well done.
What the above versions lack is comedy. Dickens was fond of mixing hilarious comedy with the most heart-rending drama, and Nicholas Nickleby is no exception. The above versions are merely drama. But the biggest crime is in the character of Mrs. Nickleby. Mrs. Nickleby is one of the great comic characters of world literature. Unfortunately, she is also politically incorrect. The above versions simply throw out her character and replace it with a blah nonentity.
The 1977 version. At over 5 hours, this version brings in more of the minor characters of this long story and treats the story according to the book. As often with the BBC, there is lavish attention to sets and their accuracy and little attention to anything else. The music is nonexistent. The photography is not bad indoors but the few outdoor scenes are overexposed. And the acting is marginal at best. Nigel Havers is much too old for the role of Nicholas but does an adequate job. The ending is satisfying. All in all, well worth seeing, especially for readers of the book. The emphasis is on drama. There is humor in the character of Mrs. Nickleby and an attempt at humor in a couple of the minor characters.
The 1947 version was made before the Dhimmist ideology came to dominate movie-making, and here we find Mrs. Nickleby in all her mind-boggling glory. In fact, all of the characters in this movie have that Dickensian edge that makes them larger, or at least more effective, than life. Good scripting and good direction make for a hard-hitting, heart-touching and occasionally side-splitting experience. The actors and actresses don't TRY to speak in an upper-middle-class British accent; they simply speak and behave as they normally would and it is true to the period. The pace is fast, and the script had to streamline some of the events, but all of the major events are here and are effectively presented. The ending is far more dramatic than in the other versions.
1 out of 6 people found this helpful.
|
If you don't understand Dallimore, you don't understand Dickens...
Added 9/4/2007
I have seen only two adaptions of the classic Charles Dickens novel "The Life And Adventures Of Nicholas Nickleby" and I must say that between this and the dreaded Charlie Huffman version. This one is superior. In this miniseries, everything is accomplished. Is it complete faithfully? No, not in a sense. Does it truly capture a Dickens enviorment? Yes! My major complaint about the 2002 version was that not only was it completely unfaithful but it did not capture the feeling you are suppose to get when you watch a Dickens adapation. From actors to costumes and to costumes to set design and to set design to music. This adapation does everything right.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Did not warm to this production
Added 2/4/2010
I am afraid that I did not warm to this production but I admit that this is my first Nicholas Nicleby and I have not read the book - so perhaps I would not warm to the book either. Charles Dance is excellent at being nasty as he was in the recent superb BBC adaption of Bleak House.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Worthwhile to view
Added 12/29/2009
21st century television audiences should appreciate this adaptation of Charles Dickens' novel "Nicholas Nickleby." This adaptation keeps many of the major points of plot while not creating characters who are too much of caricatures. Of course, this means that that many characters either (1) receive very little screen time or (2) have been transformed from figures of comedy to more serious figures.
Clearly, this adaptation has some positives over competing adaptations. I will address the two most well-known color adaptations: the 1977 BBC and the 2002 MGM.
Positives over the 1977 BBC:
- The 1977 adaptation at 325 minutes does tell the story in the manner most representative of Charles Dickens' intent. However, because Dickens wrote "Nicholas Nickleby" for serial publication just after writing "Oliver Twist," Dickens characters were still very much the comic figures. However, for a modern audience, watching an adaptation like the 1977 might be too much for some people to tolerate. (It reminds one of "Alice in Wonderland" because eccentricity abounds in the 1977 adaptation.)
In contrast, this 2001 adaptation will tell the story much more like it were an Anthony Trollope novel (especially "He Knew He Was Right" or "The Way We Live Now") rather than an early Dickens work.
Positives over the 2002 MGM:
- The 2002 adaptation is not sufficient. It leaves out far too many important scenes. Also, there are scenes I just cannot understand at all because they just do not make any sense, except for comic relief. I understand that plot loyalty to an 800 page novel cannot be easily achieved in 130 minutes, but I cannot help thinking that the scriptwriters and producers could have done better. I do not recommend the 2002 adaptation. I think Christopher Plummer (who plays Ralph Nickleby) knew the film was trash and played his part half-heartedly.
In short:
- I recommend this 2001 adaptation to those who want the "Nicholas Nickleby" story without Charles Dickens' eccentricity and outrageously insane comedy (200 minutes).
- For true loyalists to Charles Dickens, I recommend the 1977 BBC adaptation (325 minutes).
PS: One may watch this 2001 adaptation (for free) on a particular internet video site that commences with the letter 'y' as 12-29-2009.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Dickens wrtiting and BBC Production....Brilliant
Added 4/28/2008
My Wife saw this at the library and borrowed it, well....we then had to buy it !!!
The BBC have remained true to the Dickens classics and Nicholas Nickleby is one of the best. This is a two part series and I am so glad I watched it on DVD, I would have hated to have to wait 24 hrs or (God forbid) a week) to see the 2nd installment. Thoroughly enjoyable with brilliant acting, directing and set and costume design.
Dickens classic characters are all brought to life with all human foibles such as meanness, pathos despair, high camp (the Shakespearean Actors are just hilarious).
Just sit back for a few hours and enjoy !!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
