After killing a child when his plane crashes in a Vietnamese village, Pierre suffers from delayed stress and partial amnesia. Returning to France, he lives like a vegetable until he meets a... See full summary »
Where are we humans going? A film poem inspired by the Peruvian poet César Vallejo. We meet people in the city. People trying to communicate, searching compassion and get the connection of small and large things.
Bengt C.W. Carlsson
Young Nicholas and his family enjoy a comfortable life, until Nicholas' father dies and the family is left penniless. Nicholas, his sister and mother venture to London to seek help from their Uncle Ralph, but Ralph's only intentions are to separate the family and exploit them. Nicholas is sent to a school run by the cruel, abusive and horridly entertaining Wackford Squeers. Eventually, Nicholas runs away with schoolmate Smike, and the two set off to reunite the Nickleby family. Written by
Timothy Spall previously appeared in The Royal Shakespeare Company's landmark nine-hour stage adaptation of The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (1980), playing Mr. Folair and Young Wackford. He had left the company by the time it was filmed for television as The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (1982), and thus does not appear in that mini series. See more »
The movie is set in the early-to-mid-1800s, but characters sing the hymn "God is working His purpose out" which was written in 1894, 24 years after the death of Charles Dickens. See more »
What happens when the light first pierces the dark dampness in which we have waited? We are slapped and cut loose. If we are lucky, someone is there to catch us and persuade us that we are safe. But are we safe? What happens if, too early, we lose a parent? That party on whom we rely for only everything? Why, we are cut loose again and we wonder, even dread whose hands will catch us now? There once lived a man named Nicholas Nickleby...
See more »
On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at
Traditional Yorkshire folk song; sung to the Methodist hymnal tune "Cranbrook" (1805) (uncredited), written by 'Thomas Clark'
Performed by Kevin McKidd (uncredited), Helen Coker (uncredited), and Jim Broadbent (uncredited)
Sung by John Browdie and Tilda while on their honeymoon in a London public house, accompanied by Mr. Wackford Squeers See more »
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 <.<
16 of 21 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this