Thanks for the memories!

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

I didn't even know about this version until a few days ago, and when I did hear of it I was sceptical. Would an animated film with animals as the characters of Dickens's wonderful book work? So I watched it. For those who love the book and expecting a faithful adaptation, I suggest you look elsewhere like the TV version with Daniel Radcliffe, Ian McKellen, Bob Hoskins and Maggie Smith. This version of David Copperfield is a condensed one, and those who would read the book and see this will probably say the only resemblance to the book are the characters, which to some extent is true.That said, on its own merits David Copperfield(1993) is surprisingly entertaining if admittedly obscure. The pacing sags a bit in the middle and I didn't care for Betsy Trotwood's(who is merely more than a 10 minute screen time or so cameo) song. Flaws aside, the traditional animation is nice and colourful and the character designs are really quite good. The music was a surprise, with exception of one, the songs especially "Is There Anyone" are very nice and the background scoring is memorable too. The characters are fine-David is likable, Agnes is beautiful and innocent, Mr Micawber is humorous and wise and Murdstone is a villain through and through- while the script has its fair share of humour and poignancy. What elevates the film most though is the voice acting, Julian Lennon and Sheena Easton are earnest and effective enough but the real kudos goes to Michael York who is superb as Murdstone.All in all, obscure and not so faithful but definitely worth watching if you are willing to see the film on its own merits. 8/10 Bethany Cox

My family taped this animated version of Charles Dickens' family classic when it came on TV during Christmas holidays; we still have it to this day. I love this wonderful animated film. I also love it that anthromorphic animals are used as the story's characters in the tradition of the Walt Disney film "Robin Hood." And I love that some of the main characters are cats; I love cats. You know, I kind of liked Agnes as a duke's daughter. In a way she's almost like a princess.If I had to choose which film adaptation of this classic story is the best: the 1935 live-action version with W.C. Fields, Edna May Oliver, Basil Rathbone and Freddie Bartholomew? or this one? I would choose both. So overall, I will always love this film and I still have yet to read the actual novel; but that is OK.

I still remember this movie and I must have seen it when I was about 4 years old. I'm now 17! How's that for being memorable? I admit that I haven't read the book even now, though I have read Great Expectations so it can't be said I don't respect Charles Dickens. People shouldn't rate this movie so hard if one, you're not a child, and two if you are a hardcore fan of the book. Anyways.. I just thought I'd get that out of my system and if anybody knows where I can possibly buy the DVD please let me know! Also, I should let some of you fans out there know that the picture they have for this movie isn't from the movie as we can all remember it involved cats and monkeys, not people.

This is one of the oddest adaptations of 'David Copperfield. It's not merely because only about one-third of the novel is adapted to conclude with a totally contrived plot, it's also because human characters are turned into anamorphic characters for no good artistic reason (because it looks funny? Is fun for the kids?). Can you imagine David and his mother as cats, Mr. and Mrs. Micawber as monkeys? Disney, so often derided for 'butchering' classics, doesn't even do that - except in the case of 'Robin Hood' which, even though being quite pedestrian for Disney-standard, is a whole lot more entertaining than this silly movie with forgettable songs. This movie just shows that you can do anything with Dickens: dumb it down, twist it around -with the underlying message - hey, Dickens was just for kids! If you love good animated features, put on any Disney-classic instead, if you love Dickens and DC in particular, any adaptation is better than this one (I highly recommend the BBC-version with Daniel Radcliffe)