Nicholas Nickleby

This is a film adaptation, if you follow what others said, an altered plot even *based* on the book. If you wanted to see the book dramatized, then I guess you'll be disappointed. But I, however, wanted to see Alan Cumming, so I rented it. I don't care that it's supposed to be Dickens. I had to convince my husband to watch it because he hated the book. In fact, ours would not be described as Dickens house. We are not fans. We don't attend literary societies and haven't gone to university for literature. Neither are we fans. The closest we can come to liking Dickens is Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

What our perceptions are, will not be so elite as my fellow commenters here, but if you want a straight unbiased perspective on this film, do read on.

We found the acting inspirationally good. We would stop at times to comment to one another how excellent the acting is. Especially when Nicholas gets into a fury over his sister in Hawk's face. When he gets angry at the schoolmaster, Squeers, is equally good. The actors did a great job and the film was at once both charming and idyllistic and at other times, cruel and unforgiving. It definitely portraits a time long since past, a way of thinking, the gentry and the way society was at the time within a fictional story written by Charles Dickens. This is another version written by someone else. Regardless, it has its own merits. There are ALWAYS elitists around to hen scratch at any and all adaptations of classic works to film and usually it looks to me to be on principle alone if nothing else. The last comment said the acting was terrible, but really, it was fantastic, so I don't think they even watched beyond like 15 minutes of the film or whatever point they believed it deviated from the book. Let's face it, I haven't even read the book, but I know it would take many hours of time like the extended versions of the complete Lord of the Rings to capture it faithfully, in which case I wouldn't have finished watching it because it would be a) too damn long and b) far too boring because it'd be faithfully like Dickens. This version is shorter and appeals to me a lot more than the drivel shoved down my throat in the classroom at an age when I actually appreciated classic literature far more. And to reinforce this point, I don't remember a damn thing from that, because it was so boring.

So it is NOT the faithfully adapted verbatim snorefest it would have been. It is a very good film. I think only Dickens fans will moan about it. Otherwise, no one else would have a problem with it. Everyone's a critic. I don't usually post here, hardly ever post anywhere. But this is a great film and I came here to IMDb just to see who played Nicholas. Ladies will want to watch it just for his looks <.<

If Dickens were with us today, he would delight in the stock shenanigans of Michael Milken and the outrageous dysfunction of the Osbourne family. Speculation and family chaos rule his `Nicholas Nickleby,' directed on film by Douglas McGrath (`Emma') and starring Christopher Plummer as cold Uncle Ralph and Jim Broadbent as cruel Wackford Squeers.

The idyllic thatched cottage in Devonshire with its white smoke pluming to heaven contrasts sharply with the dark satanic mills of London spewing black smoke into every home and hovel. The eponymous hero, played by Brit TV star Charlie Hunnam, travels both worlds to defend the honor of his sister, overcome the tyranny of his uncle (Plummer), and find love. Along the way Broadbent's boarding-school proprietor, reflecting the workhouse slavery of 19th century England, helps his uncle sabotage Nickleby's spirit and endanger his best friend. But Nicholas also meets the delightful Cheeryble brothers, one of whom is Mike Leigh regular Timothy Spall in an uncharacteristically cheery role.

England is lovingly represented in this film by a cinematography wedded to landscape like a Constable painting, gentlemen appearing as stately as in a Reynolds, and women appearing to be sitting for Gainesboro. All seems well represented without being overdone or obvious.

Like a good Dickens novel, the filmed `Nicholas Nickleby' can't help but drive home lessons about honesty and family. Reliance on both will bring happiness. My only question is how did the Golden Globes ever nominate this as a comedy?

Stunning photography, outrageous characters and a powerful, emotional story: that's Nicholas Nickleby, the 2002 adaptation from the famous book by Charles Dickens. I have not read that book, so this story was new to me and I couldn't help but be impressed.

Hopefully, most people are still satisfied to see good people triumph in the end. With a Dickens story, you know there will be a lot to overcome, too, and lots of suffering and heartache along the way to a happy ending.

Douglas McGrathdid a fine job directing this film. Dick Pope, director of photography (cinematographer) made England look as beautiful as any Merchant-Ivory film I've seen. Start-to-finish the landscape of England never looked prettier. Pope performed the same kind of magic two years later in "The Illusionist," a gorgeous-looking movie. Kudos to Rachel Portman for a magnificent score, too, with a beautiful, sweeping theme song. This movie is a treat for the ears, as well.

Charlie Hunnam as Nicholas Nickleby was adequate; Christopher Plummer as his Uncle Ralph was very good and Jamie Bell as the unforgettable "Smike" was excellent. It's hard to believe he's the same kid who played "Billy Elliott" just a couple of years ago.

Jim Broadbent and Juliet Stevens as the wicked, evil husband-and-wife-team who run DotheBoys Hall, a boys boarding school, were also memorable. Dickens also had cruel people mistreating little boys and these two personify cruelty.

Two beautiful women: Anne Hathaway's as Nicholas' love "Madeline Bray" and Romola Garai as his sister "Kate" were both pleasant and easy on the eyes. As for supporting actors, I enjoyed them all as well, getting an extra smile from Timothy Spall and Gerald Horan and "Charles and Ned Cherryble" The same can be said for Nathan Lane and Alan Cumming, who provide much-needed comic relief and whimsy.

I did not recognize Tom Courtenay as "Newman Noggs." I guess I still picture him from his younger and much thinner years. It's been almost 25 years since I last saw him in "The Dresser" and he's changed quite a bit.

One other thing that was fun to observe in this film: everyone's vocabulary! , I loved how they expressed themselves, the good and the bad people

Of the many well-put sentences delivered in this well-intentioned and high-minded film, I remember Nickleby saying near the end,

"Weakness is tiring, but strength is exhausting."

Greetings again from the darkness. Truly exceptional adaptation of Dickens really shows how terrific writing can allow a film to work. Yes, the cast was very capable and in fact, Christopher Plummer was multi-layered, pure evil as Uncle Ralph. The Squeers team of veterans Jim Broadbent and Juliet Stevenson made escape from their "school" seem the only rational approach. Charlie Hunnam is gorgeous and capable as Nicholas, and herein lies the problem. While not for the youngest of kids, those 12 and up would probably enjoy the movie very much. As a way to touch Dickens, this is easily the least painful and most accessible for 7th through 12th graders. Why aren't audience was filled with 40 and 50 somethings who read the novel growing up and a few (like me) brought teenagers with them. My daughter and her friends loved it! Very frustrating that studios will sink millions into drawing crowds for trash like "Planet of the Apes", "XXX", "Blue Crush", etc but almost nothing into this. Of course, this offers an education in story structure and the supporting casting was inspired. In addition to Hunnam, Anne Hathaway ("Princess Diaries"), Jamie Bell ("Billy Elliot"), Nathan Lane and Alan Cumming were all excellent. Tom Courtenay was funny and pitiful at the same time. Yes, the story is like much of Dickens, it provides hope for those who seem to have little. Good prevails over evil. Personally, I like that approach.

With his complex plots and casts of (often literally) hundreds of characters, Charles Dickens might not seem the most cinema-friendly of novelists, but as of January 2007 no fewer than 235 works are credited on the IMDb as being based on his works, all the way back to "The Death of Nancy Sykes" in 1897. In recent years, however, most of these have been multi-part series made for television, a medium which often seems better equipped to deal with Dickens's complexities than does the cinema. The most popular of his works in the cinema has been "A Christmas Carol", which is a novella rather than a novel, followed by "Oliver Twist" and "Great Expectations", both of which are among his shorter novels, and which are often simplified for the screen. Roman Polanski's recent "Oliver Twist", for example, omitted many of Dickens's details and sub-plots in order to concentrate on the essence of the story.

"Nicholas Nickleby", by contrast, is one of Dickens's lengthier novels, so it was perhaps a brave move to adapt it for the screen. The title character is the son of an impoverished country gentleman. When his father dies heavily in debt, young Nicholas sets out for London with his mother and sister Kate, hoping that his wealthy uncle Ralph will be able to help them. Ralph, however, proves to be arrogant, cold-hearted and avaricious. He takes Kate into his home, motivated not by kindness but by the hope that he might be able to marry her off to his business associate, Sir Mulberry Hawke. He sends Nicholas to Yorkshire to work as an assistant teacher in a run-down boys' boarding school, run by a sadistic headmaster named Wackford Squeers. Nicholas is appalled not only by Squeers's ignorance but also by his neglect of and cruelty towards the boys in his care; he is eventually forced to leave the school after intervening to prevent Squeers beating a crippled boy named Smike, who will play an important role in future plot developments. After a brief interval as an actor, Nicholas returns to London to be reunited with his family.

Dickens's villains are generally more memorable than his heroes (and even more so than his heroines, who are often rather colourless), and that is reflected in this film. Even an actress as lovely as Anne Hathaway tends to fade into the background as the saintly Madeline, Nicholas's love-interest. Romola Garai is rather livelier as the spirited Kate, and Charlie Hunnam makes her brother an honourable and brave, if headstrong, hero. The performances that stand out, however, are from Jim Broadbent as the vicious Squeers, Juliet Stephenson as his equally unpleasant wife, Edward Fox as the dissipated lecher Sir Mulberry (who turns his attentions to Madeline when he realises that Kate is not for him) and Christopher Plummer as Ralph, outwardly calm and rational but inwardly cold and stony-hearted, a man who cares for nobody except himself and for nothing except his bank balance. It is noteworthy that Ralph's luxurious house is filled with stuffed animals and birds, presumably intended to symbolise his cruelty and sadism. The one piece of casting I didn't like was that of "Dame Edna Everage" (a creation of the Australian comedian Barry Humphries) as Mrs Crummles; the idea of a fictitious female character being played by another fictitious character, who is herself being played by a male actor, is a bizarre, almost surreal, one. The only place for a pantomime dame is in a pantomime.

There have been complaints on this board that some reviewers' favourite characters or episodes from the novel have been omitted from the film, but such simplification is inevitable if a nine hundred page novel is to be adapted into a feature film with a running time of just over two hours. What matters is that the feel of the film is authentically Dickensian, and this is achieved here, not only through the recreation, in best "heritage cinema" style, of the England of the 1840s, but also through the steadily growing sense that good will triumph over evil, that the heroes will be vindicated and that the villains will receive their just deserts. This is a very good Dickens adaptation, on a par with Polanski's film and much better than Alfonso Cuaron's eccentric "Great Expectations". 8/10