Directing: B-
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: C+
Editing: B

This is a tricky one. It may come as a surprise to many that I have never read a single novel by Charles Dickens—an oddity that I hope one day to rectify—but it would also come as no surprise that I have seen many film adaptations of Dickens novels. Because, of course, who hasn’t? And I usually enjoy them quite a lot.

This new adaptation of The Personal History of David Copperfield, by director Armando Ianucci (In the Loop, The Death of Stalin), however, leaves me a bit bemused. Well, except for the fact that, in my looking through Ianucci’s past filmography, it seems this is a truly rare director with a consistent record of making movies other critics on average like notably more than I do.

Indeed, although this David Copperfield is a period piece that goes far back in time than his other works, the filmmaking style becomes recognizably distinctive when regarding Ianucci’s filmography. But the thing is, the most interesting thing about this film is its casting of nonwhite actors in several of the key parts, including the title role—and, quite rightly, that fact in an of itself turns out not to be all that interesting at all. It’s not a gimmick, nor does it particularly make any difference.

The character, David Copperfield, is played by Dev Patel, and he fits well into the part. In fact, by and large, I enjoyed the acting all around, and quite like the cast overall, including Tilda Swinton as David’s Aunt Betsey; Hugh Laurie as Betsey’s cousin Mr. Dick; Gwendoline Christie as David’s stern step-aunt Jane; and Ben Wishaw, unusually unattractive as the villainous Uriah Heep, among others. (If you’re wondering about other nonwhite actors in the cast, a perfectly reasonable desire after my calling attention to it, these include Nikki Anuka-Bird as the snobby Mrs. Steerforth; Rosalind Eleazar as David’s friend Agnes; and Benedict Wong as Agnes’s father Mr. Whitfield, also among several others.)

But, acting alone is not enough, and I found this Personal History of David Copperfield to be too frenetic for its own good, the the persistently zigzagging handheld cinematography a constant distraction. I may not have ever read any Dickens, but I understand it to be fairly dense; here Ianucci tries rather too hard to cram too much story into a mere two hours. I suspect it’s a lot easier if you have read the novel, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record given how often I say this, a film should stand on its own merits. I have not read the novel and I found the plotting often incomprehensible, difficult to follow. This plots the entirety of Copperfield’s childhood and young adult life, and the characters are countless.

To its credit, this film does have several visually clever editing transitions, which would be easier to enjoy were the rest of the editing such that I could keep all the characters and the story threads straight. And, although by all accounts the novel is far more serious, the story here is presented as much more farcical, and I will admit to laughing out loud several times. This movie does have its moments. Audiences with a better working understanding of Dickens’s work will perhaps enjoy it the most. For the rest of us, however, this is a lesser work of Dickens adaptation, at best a moderate disappointment.

*It’s too bad when great actors are in something that could have been better,*

Overall: B-