This type of adaptation of nineteenth century novels nearly always has problems with the young hero. Here, as in David Copperfield, the hero is sweetly saintly, and can consequently easily come over as colourless. Charlie Hunnam manages to get over this better than James D'Arcy did in the TV version that came out around the same time, but the trouble is that he entirely fails to seem remotely like a denizen of the period. He looks exactly like a member of a boy group aimed at pubescent girls, and (see the picture on the DVD) looks as if he enjoys this. The director even has him take his shirt off (for no valid plot reason) in one scene. Overall, he fails to convince.
Smike is also a flop, in my opinion. The trouble is that I saw Lee Ingleby's Smike in the TV version first. Jamie Bell's performance is drab, drab, drab in comparison.
And what can we say about Anne Hathaway, who seems almost like a CGI character? The worst thing is that she cannot disguise her American accent. What is she doing in this film? I suspect it can only be that someone thought she might boost US sales.
Other roles are filled with stalwarts of the British thespian scene who do a good job, but having Barry Humphreys play a woman is out of order in this context.
The TV version is better.
Smike is also a flop, in my opinion. The trouble is that I saw Lee Ingleby's Smike in the TV version first. Jamie Bell's performance is drab, drab, drab in comparison.
And what can we say about Anne Hathaway, who seems almost like a CGI character? The worst thing is that she cannot disguise her American accent. What is she doing in this film? I suspect it can only be that someone thought she might boost US sales.
Other roles are filled with stalwarts of the British thespian scene who do a good job, but having Barry Humphreys play a woman is out of order in this context.
The TV version is better.