This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

While there have been many versions of this famous Charles Dickens tale of the long-suffering kid who grew up to be a dashing young hero in spite of his rough beginnings, this ranks as the most famous and definitely one of the most beloved of all the movie versions of Dickens tales. The film is at its best in the first half with Fredddie Bartholomew as the young boy, born after the death of his father, and watching his long-suffering mother (Elizabeth Allan, also of "A Tale of Two Cities") end up in a horrid marriage to the evil Basil Rathbone which kills her. His step-father has no love for him in spite of having initially been kind (you know it was all an act), and Bartholomew turns to a series of eccentric adults who each influence his character and teach him the integrity he will utilize as a young man in helping his now grown child friends.Among those eccentrics are his mother's companion, the sweet Pegarty (the huggable Jessie Ralph), Aunt Betsy Trotwood (Edna May Oliver), the pickle-pussed spinster aunt who can't stand little boys but falls under his spell, and the slightly shady Micawber (W.C. Fields) who instills him with all sorts of worldly philosophies, some not always appropriate for a little boy. The result is one of those films with great moments, a slice-of-life period piece where plot is secondary to characterization and it is obvious that much was excised from the book to make it of appropriate movie length. This is why T.V. versions have expanded on the story, making it a two-part tale, particularly the outstanding BBC version with future "Harry Potter" stars Daniel Ratcliffe and Maggie Smith.In spite of the dragging in the second half which makes the lack of a linear plot more obvious, this version is lavishly produced, every artistic aspect of it superb, and directed with a precise attention to detail by George Cukor. Sometimes with all of these eccentrics, the film takes on a cartoonish structure, and not every character is fleshed out as strongly as Dickens originally wrote them to be. The shady character played by future "Topper" Roland Young may make some children wince with his "Grinch" like presence, and the nasty characters played by Rathbone and "sister" Violent Kemble Cooper (one of the all time nasty women on film) could give them nightmares.It is ironic that the best moments of the film dramatically speaking are those when the young David truly suffers, especially when he shows up at Aunt Betsy's looking a bit like Oliver Twist. Once Frank Lawton takes over as David grows up, the pacing slows down, although an amusing sequence at the ballet is one of the more memorable moments of the film.

George Cukor, one of the best American master directors, orchestrated one of the best screen adaptations of one of the most beloved novels in the English language. "David Copperfield", the 1935 MGM treatment of the classic, is still one of those pictures that will always be enjoyed by movie fans of all ages.The ingredients that went into the production of Charles Dickens' novel could only have been done by the studio with vast resources as it was the case with MGM. From the superb art direction of the legendary Cedric Gibbons to the Oliver Marsh cinematography and the musical score of Herbert Stothart, all the elements under director George Cukor fell in the right place.The superb casting adds to the glory of the end product. Freddie Bartholomew was one of the best child actors of that era and in his effortless appearance as the young David, set the right tone for the staging of the novel. Add to that the impressive Edna May Oliver who practically steals the first part of the film. W.C. Fields made a wonderful Micawber and the supporting roles were played by a fabulous array of actors not easily matched then, or now. Lionel Barrymore, Frank Lawton, Basil Rathbone, Roland Young, Lewis Stone, Madge Evans, Margaret O'Sullivan, Elsa Lanchester, and the rest, contributed to bring Dickens' immortal story to life.A film to cherish thanks to the vision of George Cukor.

Freddie Bartholemew is absolutely phenomenal as the young David Copperfield. The film starts out with Edna May Oliver with Elizabeth Allan; I thought I was back to the even greater "A Tale of 2 Cities," which starred both along with Basil Rathbone, who as the stepfather, gives new meaning to cruelty. It is the latter subject of cruelty that dominated Charles Dickens' two masterpieces- '2 Cities' as well as 'Copperfield.'The film shows the treachery of early England regarding how children worked forcibly in all sorts of difficult activities. No child labor laws here. The cast is excellent, especially along with Bartholemew, Oliver and Rathbone, there is Jesse Ralph as a kindly, devoted servant. Lionel Barrymore is rather subdued here.While this is a very good film, it does lose some power once Copperfield grows up. It then essentially becomes a love story as well as greed and ultimate redemption.

I was expecting something that captured the time of Dickens and that was well acted. This turned out to be a sentimental look at the times thru rose-colored glasses and most of the actors were chewing the scenery. Almost everyone in the movie was a caricature.During an ocean rescue scene there is no logic at all for anyone to go swimming out to rescue someone, with the wind and surf it would have been impossible to even swim out. Then when they do swim out there seems to be no reason for having done so other then to set up the melodrama. Pretty much everything in the movie is telegraphed so don't expect any surprises.While it has its moments it seems vastly over-rated to me. Not having read the book, perhaps the book is the same way, in which case it's hardly the fault of the movie if it's just following the book. But either way, it was a disappointment. I would never watch it a second time.