Is this version better? - The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (2002) Discussion

[–] nancy-161 19 years ago

This version! This one! THe one with what's-her-face from Princess Diaries was awful! The Nicholas had two emotions- crying and getting angry. This Nicholas is Sooooo handsome! Don't you think? He's a much better actor. THe one with blonde hair was fat, too, and bad big blubbery lips. Yuck.

reply

[–] elementofchange 19 years ago

I've only seen this one - so I wouldn't waste my time with the other version that just came out. There was a morbid vibe in this version that I liked. But that's just me. =B

reply

[–] crazy_girl2 18 years ago

Yeah i agree. No one in the 2002 version was at all attractive. People like Kate and Madeline are actually pretty in this version as opposed to the idiots we had to watch before who were also really bad actors. Micholas cannot be a blonde anyway. it just isn't right! This one is more true to the book as the other version left loads of stuff out and the Nicholas in this one is more believable and fitter.

reply

[–] nancy-161 18 years ago

I'm glad everyone agrees. Didn't you think his big blubbery lips were disgusting when they kissed? Yuck.

reply

[–] SailGirl06 19 years ago

Yes. This version is wonderful and the 2002 is just so-so.
Charcters in this are amazing and you really appreciation what super casting and acting was done. Not a weak actor in the whole thing and most were exceptionally good.
Highly recommend it.

~ I guess it comes down to a simple choice really. Get busy Living, or get busy dying~

reply

[–] kevinelem 18 years ago

I've seen both movies and read the book. I like both of them. This version has a lot more from the book as it is much longer and it explains things better than the other. For those reasons I found it very entertaining.

I like the actors a little better in the 2002 version although I may be slightly prejudiced because I saw that version first and quite liked it and they were mostly familiar to me. I especially enjoyed the way the Squeers and Ralph Nickleby were portrayed in the '02 version. Jamie Bell is a better Smike in my opinion too.

I don't think either version portrays Mrs. Nickleby accurately. Both Kates were so-so. I wish both versions quoted the book ver batim more often. For me, for now, it's a toss-up.

reply

[–] crazy_girl2 18 years ago

The acting in this one is so much better.Smike is way more believable in this version and Nicholas and Kate suit their parts much better here. Charles Dance is v. good as Ralph Nickleby compared to 2002 version.

reply

[–] blueskies836 18 years ago

I definitely preferred this one. I've never read the book, but I've seen both this and the movie adaptation of NN. I enjoyed the movie, but preferred this one because it was longer, and therefore had more time to develop plot and character - the Squeers family, for me, were much funnier in this adaptation. Fanny Squeers and Tilda Price are inimitable. Charles Dance is definitely my preferred Ralph Nickleby. Still not sure which actor I prefer as Nicholas. But Smyke's great vulnerability and frailty make him a more appealing figure than the Smyke of the movie, and the Madeleine of this version conveyed a charm which Anne Hathaway lacked in the movie. I quote one my previous posts: if you prefer the lighter Hollywood treatment, go for the movie. If you want something with greater intensity and less sprightly in pace, then this is probably the better version.

reply

[–] nancy-161 18 years ago

But please, this nicholas is handsomer? You at aleast admit that, everybody? RIGHT? The blonde dude is ugly as i don't know what.

reply

[–] blueskies836 18 years ago

Ahhh, I dunno. I thought they were both very handsome. Nothing wrong with Charlie Hunnam except the haircut, perhaps ... maybe he looked a little too 'Ken' like. Te-he.

reply

[–] tre_wingo 18 years ago

Ok so I saw this one first on tv and I had to buy it. Then one day my friend brought over some movies and had the one with Charlie Hunnam and I was so upset with all changes and other stuff they took out, yeah I know they had to shorten it so they could make it a movie under 2hr but they left out alot with the sister. We couldn't feel her pain and understand why Nicholas dissliked his uncle so much. And I don't know if it was just me or what but did Charlie Hunnam play Nicholas as littel too gay with his cousin? You know at the part where he's just about to die? I did not like that at all. I'd give it a 4 out of 10 for effort Because the book was great and so was the movie The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby. This movie I'd give a 10 out of 10.

reply

[–] elcynic 17 years ago

"And I don't know if it was just me or what but did Charlie Hunnam play Nicholas as littel too gay with his cousin?"

It's just you... good god, the guy was DYING, people are allowed to get emotional without worry if they are "too gay." Oy.

reply

[–] toby_masson 17 years ago

Nothing will ever beat the RSC Production that was filmed for Channel 4 in the early 80's. If you were impressed by this interpretation, seek out the DVD and set aside a weekend to bask in it's glory

reply

[–] Addicted-to-Films 17 years ago

I prefer this adaptation. Of course it was longer and more detailed...but this one the story flowed better and the acting to was much much better...the other one...i found a little comical at times.

http://addictedtofilms.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] nancy-161 17 years ago

Thanks everyone! For agreeing this version is better! you're right, the one with Charlie Hunnam was quite gay. this one was such better acting! And so much more serious! In the CH one they did the typical american thing of making it a lighthearted comedy!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]