The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby

Having just read the rich, lengthy novel, and then watched the more recent Charlie Hunnam version of Nicholas (which, for reasons of time cut many of the more curious characters), I thought this 200 minute version might be worth a look, and it certainly is, capturing the feel of a busy, dirty London contrasting with the purity and leisure of country living, a frequent Dickens theme.

The lead character, featured almost constantly, must be appealing, and James D'Arcy is certainly that, capturing the 19 year old inexperience of Nicholas as he challenges the cunning money-grubber that is his uncle, coldly played by the excellent English actor Charles Dance; this is a long film, but I enjoyed it all in a leisurely afternoon--even knowing the shocking outcome in advance, I was never bored, all the characters from poor, sad Smike to the sleazy schoolmaster Squeers played with convincing richness by a large cast--Pam Ferris is a particular joy as the childishly smitten Fanny Squeers. Not a great classic in the mold of the David Lean Great Expectations, but very much worthwhile.

The other two were the 2002 film, which was not perfect and not the most ideal of adaptations but has many merits and is better than some say, and the very good and faithful 1977 series with Nigel Havers. This adaptation does condense the book, being only a little over three hours, but of the three adaptations seen it's the best one. Can't wait to see the 1982 version with Alun Armstrong as Squeers, which promises to be even better if going by what I've heard of it, and the 1947 film will be seen as well. The only let-downs with this 2001 adaptation is the overly-bombastic and overblown music score and Madeline Bray's overdone make-up, made up to look much richer than what her character actually is.

Adaptation-wise, it is more than respectable, doing a brave job squeezing a huge story with so many characters and a sprawling narrative within the running time. There are omissions of course with some things added in(like how Sir Mulberry Hawke acts towards Kate, which makes him an even more lecherous character), but things move swiftly and fluidly while having time to breathe and effort is made into richness of characterisation. The storytelling does make an effort to be true to Dickens and does so without being too cold(you feel for Nicholas and Smike and hate Sir Ralph and Squeers for instance), it's also cohesively told.

In regard to the dialogue, that is also easy to understand while not sounding too modernised. It's not as effectively Dickenesian as the 1977 series, but still has a natural flow to it, and captures the comic and tragic elements better than one would expect. The adaptation looks great, the photography is both beautiful and unflinching- remarkable for the many tonal shifts- and the costumes and sets are opulent yet evocative of the time too. The direction keeps making the drama believable, without making it come across as too over-acted or cold, each scene flows into one another in a non-choppy way and the shifts are handled well.

We have some really excellent performances as well. James D'Arcy plays Nicholas so charmingly and believably that you identify with him every step of the way. In other principal roles the standouts were Charles Dance, whose Sir Ralph is cold, icy and conflicted all done with superb conviction, and the Smike of Lee Ingelby, who has never been more moving. Though there's also Sophia Myles, who is enchanting and is by far and large the best of the three Kates, and Gregor Fisher's utterly despicable Mr Squeers. Pam Ferris is hilarious and nasty, and all the supporting and minor roles are well filled, some have to deal with caricature-like characters but still do fine with what they have. Mrs Nickelby often is treated either like a caricature or totally blah, while not quite as effective as Hilary Mason for the 1977 adaptation Diana Kent still does a good job.

Overall, remarkably well-done, while I haven't seen all the adaptations of Nicholas Nickleby this one is the one that comes off best of the adaptations of the book seen. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This latest version of Dickens's wonderful Nicholas Nickleby is yet another in a line of excellent BBC produced dramatizations of classics; something Hollywood rarely if ever does these days because "art" doesn't sell! All I can say is "Thank God for television!"

Everything about this adaptation speaks of excellence. The casting in particular is a joy. James D'Arcy is the finest Nicholas on screen. He is a "Candide"-like figure; total believable and you want to root for him just as Dickens wanted his readers to sympathize with the protagonist. Charles Dance is equally effective as Nicholas's villainous uncle. But it doesn't end with the two leads. Every single character (and there are a lot of them) is cast perfectly and totally believable from a physical standpoint; from the lowest street people to the wealthy upper class. There's not a dud in the lot! The casting director should be knighted!

The direction is fluid and unflinching as it examines the seedier sides of the story. Pairing down the story to three hours is done with excellent comprehension. Those parts of the story missing are inevitably not missed for a dramatic presentation. The art direction is exquisite throughout. Costumes, sets and locations are brilliantly handled.

I'll also take exception to those who prefer the Royal Shakespeare version. That production was a noble effort to bring the story to the live theater and in many respects it was original and excellent. It suffers, however, from a forced stage theatricality inherent in such projects and simply gets bogged down with too much detail. The result is way too long. The new version sacrifices some length for clarity and precision story telling and has better casting in every role.

I have no hesitation in finding the entire production to be delightful; and by all means go out and buy it. Contrary to some other remarks, you will enjoy immensely.

I watched the film on TV, because I was, at the time reading the book. I wanted to see if they were the same. I recorded it on video, which I am pleased to say I did, for I have watched it many times again! I really loved the film, and I found James D'Arcy TOTALLY gorgeous! In the novel it says, Nicholas was a good looking gentleman with a slight though manly figure....straight legs the lot! James D'Arcy is PERFECT if you ask me! I'd love to meet him, because he really played a great part. The film itself, with the evil, sinister Ralph Nickelby and the fussing Mrs. Nickelby was great. Mr. Mantalini makes everyone laugh, the sardonic attitude he carries! I give this film a TEN out of TEN and recommend it to anyone who wants to watch a good drama!

After suffering though the lackluster new theatrical film - poor Charlie Hunnam has to be the least talented young actor thrust into a lead role in a long, long time - I was more than grateful to catch the Company Television miniseries version on Bravo. Not only is this adaptation blessed with a Nicholas who really can act - James D'Arcy is particularly fine in the role - but director Stephen Whittaker and screenwriter Martyn Hesford have done a remarkable job of maintaining the sweep and period feel of Dickens' huge, slightly flabby novel. (Take that, Douglas McGrath!) Well cast over all - Charles Dance is wonderfully subtle as the greedy, coldhearted Ebeneezer Scrooge prototype, Uncle Ralph Nickleby - this made for television NICKLEBY stands high above McGrath's boneheaded, miscast (save for Jim Broadbent as a gleefully wicked Squeers) & period-challenged Cliff Notes-meets-Reader's Digest version. Skip that wee bit of Dickens Lite in favour of this robust, full strength version.