O Herói da Família

Writer/director Douglas McGrath has done a splendid job bringing Charles Dickens' delightful novel 'Nicholas Nickleby' to the big screen.

'Nickleby' is quintessential Dickens in its mixture of sentiment and satire; its finely drawn characters and caricatures; its clear cut delineation of good and evil, hero and villain; its melodramatic and coincidence-ridden plotting; and its championing of the downtrodden underclass of 19th Century England. Like many of Dickens' protagonists, Nicholas is a young man who is forced by circumstances (in this case the death of his father) to leave the comfort and security of his home and family and to venture forth to make his way in the world. On his journey he meets many vivid and colorful characters, all of whom reveal to him both the goodness and the cruelty inherent in human nature. These picaresque tales almost always end up with the hero a bit wiser and less naïve for his experiences - but more committed than ever to righting wrongs and seeking justice for those less able to do so on their own. And 'Nicholas Nickleby' is no exception.

In his approach to the material, McGrath has employed an amazing economy that allows him to effectively compress a 500-page novel into a 2 hour and 12 minute film. With so much storyline to work with, McGrath wastes no time in setting the scene and defining the characters, then moving merrily along from one dramatic incident and encounter to the next. Yet, the film never feels rushed or telescoped as movies derived from lengthy novels so often do. Each character, whether major or minor, is given the opportunity to make his or her mark on the scene. It's true that, in Dickens' world, the villains and eccentrics are generally far more intriguing and memorable than the comparatively pallid heroes and heroines, but McGrath has succeeded in making even those latter characters moving and interesting. Above all, the film is blessed with a cast made up of first-rate performers who bring each of the author's creations to vivid life. Charlie Hunnam, despite his having to embody a character who is a fairly one-dimensional, conventional 'pretty boy,' manages to make Nicholas a bit more active and a bit less passive than he might have become in lesser hands. Nathan Lane and Barry Humphries make a delightful couple as Mr. and Mrs. Crummles, the leaders of the fifth-rate theatrical troupe that, for a short while, becomes a family for young Nicholas. Jim Broadbent enacts a fine comic villain as Mr. Squeers, the brutal but henpecked schoolmaster with whom Nicholas quite literally comes to blows. The film's finest performance comes from the ubiquitous Christopher Plummer as Nicholas' evil Uncle Ralph. Plummer understands that the key to conveying villainy effectively is by underplaying the role. By doing so, he helps to ground the film with a much-needed center of gravity.

Special recognition should go to the handsome production and costume design, to the fine cinematography and to the lovely score by Rachel Portman. In fact, everyone involved in the making of 'Nicholas Nickelby' should take a bow for converting such a fun, entertaining novel into such a fun, entertaining film. Dickens, I believe, would feel honored and proud.

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!

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 <.<

This film is an adaptation of the famous Charles Dickens work of the same name.

I must say I have not read the book. I enjoyed the film a lot, and hence I was surprised by the overwhelmingly negative comments on this site. I found the characters likable, believable and distinctly human. I enjoyed the interaction between good and evil characters, especially between Nicolas and Ralph. The story is tightly woven, and there is not a scene where it is followed up later. The presence of Anne Hathaway is a surprise, and her English accent is excellent! I found the ending particularly moving, and I would certainly recommend this movie to other people.

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