Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Nice effects though.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Good adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel.The story of a young man, Nicholas Nickleby (played by Charlie Hunnam). His father dies, leaving him, his mother and sister to fend for themselves. They seek assistance from his father's brother, Ralph (played by Christopher Plummer), who helps them. However...A great tale of survival and resourcefulness and good vs evil. Also, how when good but weak people band together they can conquer any evil.Solid direction. Not overly ambitious, but works well. Does drift in parts though.Good performances from the main cast, generally - Charlie Hunnam, Christopher Plummer, Jamie Bell, Jim Broadbent, Romola Garai, Tom Courtenay, Anne Hathaway. Edward Fox is his usual irritating self, though in this case it is appropriate for the vile character he plays.

Charles Dickens classic Nicholas Nickleby gets a fine remake in this 2002 version with Charles Hunnam in the title role. Definitely the prettiest Nickleby you'll find in any version. I would expect nothing less from a star in Queer As Folk. He and Anne Hathaway certainly make an attractive pair of lovers.In fact though Hunnam's very bisexual appeal gives an added dimension to this version. The relationship with young Smike played tenderly and touchingly by Jamie Bell is what drives this particular story. The best scene in the film is the death scene of the crippled and sickly Smike with Jamie Bell giving so far a career role performance.Hunnam's antagonist throughout the film is his Uncle Ralph played by Christopher Plummer. He's the rich older brother of Hunnam and Romola Garai's father who makes out like he's interested in their welfare. In fact he sends young Nicholas to a cruel school run by Jim Broadbent and his wife Juliet Stevenson. As for Garai he essentially uses her as a come on to rich and dissolute minor nobility so they'll invest with his brokerage house.After giving Broadbent a well deserved thrashing Nicholas escapes the school with the crippled and sickly Bell. There is definitely a very homoerotic tinge to their relationship in their scenes together. In his short life Bell has experienced nothing but cruelty. Basically he falls in love with the first person who has shown him kindness and the fact that Hunnam is one beautiful twink is a bonus. All their scenes are beautifully played and will move you to tears.As for the end, let's say a lot of Plummer's sins come back to haunt him in the end and the Nickleby name is no longer disgraced. This is a wonderful version of the Dickens classic with an outstanding performance by Jamie Bell.

If you have not seen the 1947 version with Derek Bond, Cedric Hardwicke, you would really give yourself a treat by doing so. It is an excellent version, vastly superior to this one. Virtually every actor and portrayal is fuller and fitter. The view and flow are entirely more pleasing. It is much better tied together. I needed the previously seen version to help tie this 2002 one together - it is so chopped. I eagerly sought out the book after seeing this some time ago. It is one I had not read, and very much desired to after viewing the earlier version. I am sure I would have given the book a skip had this been the version I had seen first. Thankfully, the 1947 version is still being shown by TCM and may be available on DVD. One needs a good version of any classic, and the 1947 Bond/Hardwicke one settles it for me with Nickleby. I agree with others who consider that it sets the standard. Unfortunately, it was not followed in this version, which is really quite wretched.

This is not one of my favourite Dickens stories but any Dickens is worth pursuing. So I'm marking this against other Dickens productions too.The older actors are all outstanding. You mightn't think Barry Humphries could make a convincing "wife" in a "serious film" but he certainly does and I think Dickens, a fine actor himself, would have loved this performance.I was a little disappointed by some of the younger actors - they aren't quite up to the standard of their elders although they make a reasonable go of it. Perhaps the problem is partly that they had such a formidable cast of older actors to live up to. For Nicholas I would have preferred to see the acting depth of say Steven Mackintosh who gave such a brilliant performance as the hero John in Our Mutual Friend - which version is also one of my most favourite Dickens dramatisations, the other being the incomparable Tale of Two Cities with Dirk Bogarde.Nicholas is a feisty young man who stands up for himself and reasons out how to proceed and gains results. He isn't much a victim of events. The actor wasn't quite dynamic enough for the achievements the character manages. There wasn't enough on his love life either - that was settled just too briefly and easily. Oh, there you were, I knew, now let's get married. Not much more than that! Of all the actors, Christopher Plummer stood out for me as Ralph Nickelby. What a superlative actor he is! And also James Fox as the horrible predatory lecher - full of menace. I felt the girl who was to be forced to marry him escaped the net much too easily. We needed more tension, more fear, more horror but it seemed Nicholas walked in, told off Fox and Ralph and she said "I thought it was the best thing to do, to get my father's debt cancelled, but OK I won't worry about that now," and out she strolled with Nicholas, leaving the villains staring after them - and there was no comeback.I felt the denouement happened rather suddenly - I needed more time to see the evidence being gathered against Ralph and Plummer wasn't given quite enough time to deal with all the final revelations and most particularly the discovery that his son had lived but also had been badly treated for years and recently had died. We needed more about his background that is now revealed, and just what swindling he'd been up to - in more detail that is.These flaws are partly due to the usual length and complexity of Dickens' plots but there are shorter adaptations of Dickens that work well. All in all, there wasn't enough tension around the hero. Things went far too easily for Nicholas. I compare this quite light Dickens film to the grindingly grim and exciting tension of some notable Dickens' adaptations I've particularly liked - Our Mutual Friend, David Copperfield, Tale of Two Cities,Little Dorritt 2 versions, Bleak House 2 versions. Nickleby misses somewhat - because of the scripting.That said, it's hard to fail with a Dickens adaptation and I commend this as well worth seeing once though I doubt twice.