I would like to refute jhb-4's comments on the 1969 version of "David Copperfield". obviously this person has not read Dicken's novel. The movie was great, and although it skimmed over much of the book (for lack of time), it generally covered the story in full, and good detail.
Sometimes I wonder why people just don't like something, and I wonder at this person who said the movie was "dull". Far from it. The movie is a very good depiction of a great novel.
Linda Huthmaker/Torrance, Ca. I don't know what else to say on the subject, but I have lived in England, myself, and can honestly say that this movie has all the earmarks of a well-done BBC production, mainly filmed in the Northern part of England. If anyone would like to release a new production of "David Copperfield"-go for it.
Sometimes I wonder why people just don't like something, and I wonder at this person who said the movie was "dull". Far from it. The movie is a very good depiction of a great novel.
Linda Huthmaker/Torrance, Ca. I don't know what else to say on the subject, but I have lived in England, myself, and can honestly say that this movie has all the earmarks of a well-done BBC production, mainly filmed in the Northern part of England. If anyone would like to release a new production of "David Copperfield"-go for it.