Nicholas Nickleby (2002)

Director:

Douglas McGrath

Writers (WGA):

Charles Dickens (novel)
Douglas McGrath (screenplay)

Release Date:

29 May 2003 (New Zealand)

Genre:

Drama

Tagline:

Every family needs a hero.

Plot:

A young compassionate man struggles to save his family and friends from the abusive exploitation of his coldheartedly grasping uncle.

Plot Keywords:

Father | Sister | Uncle | Mother | Exploitation

Awards:

Nominated for Golden Globe. Another 1 win & 3 nominations

Cast

Stella Gonet	...	Mrs. Nickleby
Andrew Havill	...	Mr. Nickleby
Henry McGrath	...	Child Nicholas Nickleby
Hugh Mitchell	...	Boy Nicholas Nickleby
Poppy Rogers	...	Child Kate Nickleby
Jessie Lou Roberts	...	Young Kate Nickleby
Charlie Hunnam	...	Nicholas Nickleby
Romola Garai	...	Kate Nickleby
Tom Courtenay	...	Newman Noggs
Christopher Plummer	...	Ralph Nickleby
Anne Hathaway	...	Madeline Bray
Jim Broadbent	...	Mr. Wackford Squeers
Angela Curran	...	Parent
Jamie Bell	...	Smike
Juliet Stevenson	...	Mrs. Squeers

MPAA:

Rated PG for thematic material involving some violent action and a childbirth scene.

Runtime:

132 min

Country:

UK | USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

DTS | Dolby Digital

Certification:

Iceland:LH | USA:PG (certificate #39321) | Ireland:PG | France:U | Australia:M | Brazil:14 | Finland:K-11 | Germany:12 | Netherlands:6 | New Zealand:PG | Singapore:PG | UK:PG | Italy:T | Argentina:Atp | Chile:14 | Canada:PG

Filming Locations:

Churchill College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England, UK

Company:

Hart-Sharp Entertainment

Trivia:

French visa # 111470.

Goofs:

Anachronisms: Madeline Bray can be seen clearly with pierced earring holes. Pierced ears were not of regular use until more than a decade later. At the time, only rich women pierced their ears.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Vincent Crummles: What happens when the light first pierces the dark dampness in which we have waited? We are slapped and cut loose. If we are lucky, someone is there to catch us and persuade us that we are safe. But are we safe? What happens if, too early, we lose a parent? That party on whom we rely for only everything? Why, we are cut loose again and we wonder, even dread whose hands will catch us now? There once lived a man named Nicholas Nickleby...

Movie Connections:

Featured in Creating a Classic: The Making of 'Nicholas Nickleby' (2003) (V)

From Some1 Who Didn't Read the Book

This is a film adaptation, if you follow what others said, an altered plot even *based* on the book. If you wanted to see the book dramatized, then I guess you'll be disappointed. But I, however, wanted to see Alan Cumming, so I rented it. I don't care that it's supposed to be Dickens. I had to convince my husband to watch it because he hated the book. In fact, ours would not be described as Dickens house. We are not fans. We don't attend literary societies and haven't gone to university for literature. Neither are we fans. The closest we can come to liking Dickens is Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

What our perceptions are, will not be so elite as my fellow commenters here, but if you want a straight unbiased perspective on this film, do read on.

We found the acting inspirationally good. We would stop at times to comment to one another how excellent the acting is. Especially when Nicholas gets into a fury over his sister in Hawk's face. When he gets angry at the schoolmaster, Squeers, is equally good. The actors did a great job and the film was at once both charming and idyllistic and at other times, cruel and unforgiving. It definitely portraits a time long since past, a way of thinking, the gentry and the way society was at the time within a fictional story written by Charles Dickens. This is another version written by someone else. Regardless, it has its own merits. There are ALWAYS elitists around to hen scratch at any and all adaptations of classic works to film and usually it looks to me to be on principle alone if nothing else. The last comment said the acting was terrible, but really, it was fantastic, so I don't think they even watched beyond like 15 minutes of the film or whatever point they believed it deviated from the book. Let's face it, I haven't even read the book, but I know it would take many hours of time like the extended versions of the complete Lord of the Rings to capture it faithfully, in which case I wouldn't have finished watching it because it would be a) too damn long and b) far too boring because it'd be faithfully like Dickens. This version is shorter and appeals to me a lot more than the drivel shoved down my throat in the classroom at an age when I actually appreciated classic literature far more. And to reinforce this point, I don't remember a damn thing from that, because it was so boring.

So it is NOT the faithfully adapted verbatim snorefest it would have been. It is a very good film. I think only Dickens fans will moan about it. Otherwise, no one else would have a problem with it. Everyone's a critic. I don't usually post here, hardly ever post anywhere. But this is a great film and I came here to IMDb just to see who played Nicholas. Ladies will want to watch it just for his looks <.<