I haven't saw this version of David Copperfield. I already have issues with Daniel's acting in Harry Potter, but I'm wondering, there is absolutely no way he could be as good as Freddie Bartholomew. If anyone has every saw the 1935 version and this one, please respond!
shareWhy don´t you read the comments about this adaption? I haven´t seen the 1935 version - but I found Daniel Radcliffe to be very convincing as David Copperfield and this is my favourite Dickens novel)
(But - I also think he´s a great Harry Potter, so you´ll probably not trust my opinion ...)
I did read the comments, but none of them provide the information I am interested in... what I'd really like is for someone who has watched both versions to compare them, really.
I do trust your opinion! I just think that his acting leaves a lot to be desired, but I have to say, I was very impressed with GOF. I hope he keeps up that standard for the next film!
I haven't see the 1938 version but Dan is a much better actor here than he was in the first three Harry Potter films, where he was just dire.
share[deleted]
The other version I was referring to is from 1935.
share[deleted]
You should, it's very good.
shareI think this is possible Dan's best performance, he's the most natural he's ever been.
Dan isn't a very good actor though, I must admit, but I liked him in this.
Sorry, I disagree...Dan's an excellent actor, esp. in this one and in the later HP films. He was just fantastic in Ootp, HbP,and DH1. I understand he has won several British awards.
shareAs someone who has seen the earlier version several times, I must say I vastly preferred the later one - the earlier one is so dated compared with it - I know that seems odd, because we are discussing a period piece after all, but I much preferred Bob Hoskins as Wilkins Micawber to W C Fields, and Maggie Smith to , I can't remenber, was it Dame May Whitty? - anyway, I prefer Maggie S. And the whole thing just struck me as more realistic - the Hollywood version was very sound stage and back lot, IMHO.
And Freddie Bartholomew always made me want to clip him round the ear, anyway, to be honest.
George... don't do that!
I have seen both - unfortunately Daniel isn't as good as the boy in the 1935 version - even though when Daniel was this age he could act a whole lot better.
"When I light a candle at midnight I say to the darkness I beg to differ"-Sr. Helen Prejean
Well, if what I read was correct, the 1935 version sucked anyway. This one was a lot better in tone, realism, drama, and characters. And please: Dan was awesome! No little boy could be more precious or tear-jerking
shareIt must have been incorrect - as I watched it not very interested (I thought it was too old for me) but it became compelling - a very good version in my opinion.
"When I light a candle at midnight I say to the darkness I beg to differ"-Sr. Helen Prejean
What I read was the screenplay someone made by writing down all the dialogue in the film. I'm not totally sure it was the screenplay for the 1935 movie version of the story, but if it was, it really did suck.
Maybe it wasn't the screenplay for the 1935 version that I'm thinking of. From what you say, it doesn't sound like it at all. Whatever version that screenplay was from, it was terrible.
Either way, I still think Dan was awesome in this film. :P
I think Dan's acting improved as he became older. But for a child that young, he was so impressive. So few children that age can master the vivid facial expressions and even his eyebrows moved so much for a kid that young. What a sophisticated, talented little boy. And that sophistication and talent sure grew with the equally expressive, sophisticated Harry Potter.
shareI saw and love both versions! Although the 1935 is my favorite. Daniel was really good as a child. Soooooooooooooo cute as well. I get a lot of heat for saying he sucks as Potter.
I'll have to see the 1935 version, but I love, love, LOVE Daniel in this one; he does a swell job as young David and I just wanted to hug him, he was so, so cute. Dan is great as Harry also.
I esp. love Daniel's crying scenes; he does a real job with tears and slanted brows and all. One scene that stands out in my mind is when David is crying over his mum's marrying that awful Murdstone and Murdstone comes up and orders everyone but David downstairs. Murdstone threatens a still-weeping David and you can just see Daniel really swallow there; I kind of like how Dan's thin red little lips just pressed together as he swallowed trying to stem the tears that kept running down his face.
It was a good prelude to his part as Harry since we know Harry does a fair amount of crying, esp. in the later films.
I saw the 1986 version and while that actor was all right, he just wasn't as convincing as Daniel.
Oh, the poor little darling! I never saw that scene, or not for years. Dang, it's been a while since I visited this topic. Gots some catching up.
shareI have seen that version and I agree Daniel did fine but not as good as Freddie Bartholomew
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I haven't seen the '35 version yet, but it's on my shorter list of to-see movies.
I just want to say that Daniel Radcliffe is VERY good in this series. I haven't seen the Harry Potter movies in quite a while, so I'm not in a position to compare. But I thought he was incredibly convincing as David Copperfield.
It's no surprise he was cast as Harry, since large sections of those books are basically rehashes of David Copperfield.
Do not click on this link without my permission: http://meonvarioustopics.blogspot.com