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.

This movie version of the novel amply reflects the understanding compassion that Dickens is known for. Its background scenes of London's impoverished as well as affluent class are convincingly impressive.

The various caricatures seem remarkably Dickensian. Beyond that, in sharp contrast with exploitative callousness, the tenderest comfort and kindliest good cheer are effectively portrayed by a splendid cast.

James D'Arcy in the title role gives a sterling performance as the appealingly generous-hearted and thoughtful Nicholas. Lee Ingleby deserves equally high praise as the woefully mistreated Smike, whom Nicholas befriends.

I'm really really fussy about Dickens adaptations, Nicholas Nickleby has been a favourite book of mine for years and years. But this one was brilliant, James D'Arcy was the perfect Nicholas and Sophia Miles was a perfect Kate. James D'Arcy and Charles Dance really suit Period Dramas, they make them believable. The casting, the script and costumes = fabulous. It's turned into one of my favourite Period Dramas & frankly, compared to the newest Nicholas Nickleby (the film)...it's just a masterpiece. Give me ITV English Dramas any day!

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

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!