Nicholas Nickleby

Having read the novel NN a couple of times I know how rich and full of funny characters and episodes this novel is. This adaptation greatly reduces the number of events compared to the novel; though I understand a director has to make a choice what elements of a story he should put to the screen I think the director has been a bit too drastic in doing so. No reference at all to the Mantalini's, or to the downfall of the Squeerses and the closure of Dotheboys hall -I sorely missed those episodes! But what I missed story-wise was partly made up by the acting of Christopher Plummer as Ralph Nickleby and the heartrending performance of Jamie "Billie Elliot' Bell as Smike. A pity that the director also puts the accent mostly on the melodramatic aspects of a story which is full of delicious humor. This adaptation has it charms but check out the royal Shakespeare's Company's version for a faithful adaptation that does Dickens real justice!

Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens is a rather complicated novel. To even try to put a dent on the narrative is a task for someone very ambitious indeed. The film treatment directed and written by Douglas McGrath tries to condense it. In many ways he has succeded.

The story of how Nicholas avenge his dead father and in the process finds love and happiness is told with great assurance from the director and his notable players, some of the most brilliant figures in the English stage and films.

Christopher Plummer as the evil uncle, Ralph Nickleby, is excellent. This is an actor's actor. He plays this villain with relish and a panache not easily found in many other actors. Jim Broadbent appears as the lunatic Wackford Squeers in another star turn. Another performance that is subtle, yet very effective is by Tom Courtenay, as Newman Noggs, who at the end helps Nicholas get to the truth. Juliet Stevenson plays Mrs. Squeers with the right amount of bitchiness and evil. How about Nathan Lane?. He is outstanding again, as is Barry Humphreys, playing his wife.

The only problem are the younger roles. Charlie Hunnan is a likeable performer, but out of his league in this company. The role of Smike, a key figure in the novel, is handled with the clumsiness the role requires by Jamie Bell. Anne Hathaway as Madeline Bray, and Ramola Garai as Kate, are adequate.

All in all this makes a pleasant occasion, if somehow tamed, at the movies.

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.

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 <.<

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