O Herói da Família

NICHOLAS NICKLEBY (2002) ***1/2 Charlie Hunnam, Christopher Plummer, Jamie Bell, Jim Broadbent, Anne Hathaway, Tom Courtenay, Alan Cumming, Edward Fox, Romola Garai, Stella Gonet, Barry Humphries, Nathan Lane, Timothy Spall, Juliet Stevenson. Wonderfully entertaining realization of Charles Dickens' literary classic about the good natured 19th Century titular young man (nicely played by the dashingly handsome Hunnam of late of the beloved tv series `Undeclared') whose adventures of the heart and destiny begin when his father suddenly dies leaving him in the care of his family resorting to their only living relation in London, the wealthy yet contemptable Uncle Ralph (Plummer in game form; disdainfully dour) whose life ambition outside of accumulating wealth apparently is to make his nephew's existence a living hell. Hunnam is in splendid company of the cream of the crop of British acting with a few Americans sprinkled in the mix (the fetching Hathaway as his destined love and amiable ham Lane as the leader of a traveling acting troupe) of this remarkable adaptation by filmmaker Douglas McGrath.

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.

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 <.<

Stunning photography, outrageous characters and a powerful, emotional story: that's Nicholas Nickleby, the 2002 adaptation from the famous book by Charles Dickens. I have not read that book, so this story was new to me and I couldn't help but be impressed.

Hopefully, most people are still satisfied to see good people triumph in the end. With a Dickens story, you know there will be a lot to overcome, too, and lots of suffering and heartache along the way to a happy ending.

Douglas McGrathdid a fine job directing this film. Dick Pope, director of photography (cinematographer) made England look as beautiful as any Merchant-Ivory film I've seen. Start-to-finish the landscape of England never looked prettier. Pope performed the same kind of magic two years later in "The Illusionist," a gorgeous-looking movie. Kudos to Rachel Portman for a magnificent score, too, with a beautiful, sweeping theme song. This movie is a treat for the ears, as well.

Charlie Hunnam as Nicholas Nickleby was adequate; Christopher Plummer as his Uncle Ralph was very good and Jamie Bell as the unforgettable "Smike" was excellent. It's hard to believe he's the same kid who played "Billy Elliott" just a couple of years ago.

Jim Broadbent and Juliet Stevens as the wicked, evil husband-and-wife-team who run DotheBoys Hall, a boys boarding school, were also memorable. Dickens also had cruel people mistreating little boys and these two personify cruelty.

Two beautiful women: Anne Hathaway's as Nicholas' love "Madeline Bray" and Romola Garai as his sister "Kate" were both pleasant and easy on the eyes. As for supporting actors, I enjoyed them all as well, getting an extra smile from Timothy Spall and Gerald Horan and "Charles and Ned Cherryble" The same can be said for Nathan Lane and Alan Cumming, who provide much-needed comic relief and whimsy.

I did not recognize Tom Courtenay as "Newman Noggs." I guess I still picture him from his younger and much thinner years. It's been almost 25 years since I last saw him in "The Dresser" and he's changed quite a bit.

One other thing that was fun to observe in this film: everyone's vocabulary! , I loved how they expressed themselves, the good and the bad people

Of the many well-put sentences delivered in this well-intentioned and high-minded film, I remember Nickleby saying near the end,

"Weakness is tiring, but strength is exhausting."

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.