Un jeune homme compatissant lutte pour sauver sa famille et ses amis de l'exploitation abusive de son oncle, un homme froid et cupide.Un jeune homme compatissant lutte pour sauver sa famille et ses amis de l'exploitation abusive de son oncle, un homme froid et cupide.Un jeune homme compatissant lutte pour sauver sa famille et ses amis de l'exploitation abusive de son oncle, un homme froid et cupide.
Parcourir les épisodes
Photos
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis was the first leading role on television for Nigel Havers.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Breakfast: Épisode datant du 5 septembre 2011 (2011)
Commentaire à la une
This is the first of the many adaptations of Nicholas Nickelby that I have seen, but it left such a horrible impression upon me, that I am looking for better versions - perhaps the 1947 version, or the 2001 version? All I know is that this 1977 version is really awful. Sometimes I wonder where the viewer ratings come from, or from what planet the directors might hail, that they inflict such atrocious performances upon an unsuspecting public.
Most of the leads are quite good - Nicholas and his sister and uncle are all reasonably well played, but it goes steeply downhill from there. Most parts are so ridiculously over-acted that it amounts to crude burlesque, something more along the lines of The Royal Nonesuch, from the performance of the King and the Duke in Huckleberry Finn, than any remotely serious drama.
The place of "honor" goes to Malcolm Reid, whose portrayal of Alfred Mantalini is just about the most nauseating performance I have ever seen on stage or screen. I could hardly hold my lunch down. How can anyone watch such drivel, let alone blithely award high ratings and positive reviews? But most of the other characters were almost as bad. I understand that you have to look at characters within their genre. I do not criticize Cheech and Chong or the Marx brothers for their antics, because that foolery is expected in their particular corner of cinematic expression, but for an adaptation of one of Charles Dickens' classic novels, I expect something a shade more elevated in tone. If you are going to see this disgusting display of cinematic offal anyway, don't forget to bring along a "convenience bag," just in case.
Most of the leads are quite good - Nicholas and his sister and uncle are all reasonably well played, but it goes steeply downhill from there. Most parts are so ridiculously over-acted that it amounts to crude burlesque, something more along the lines of The Royal Nonesuch, from the performance of the King and the Duke in Huckleberry Finn, than any remotely serious drama.
The place of "honor" goes to Malcolm Reid, whose portrayal of Alfred Mantalini is just about the most nauseating performance I have ever seen on stage or screen. I could hardly hold my lunch down. How can anyone watch such drivel, let alone blithely award high ratings and positive reviews? But most of the other characters were almost as bad. I understand that you have to look at characters within their genre. I do not criticize Cheech and Chong or the Marx brothers for their antics, because that foolery is expected in their particular corner of cinematic expression, but for an adaptation of one of Charles Dickens' classic novels, I expect something a shade more elevated in tone. If you are going to see this disgusting display of cinematic offal anyway, don't forget to bring along a "convenience bag," just in case.
- treeroland
- 1 janv. 2023
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Nicholas Nickleby (1977) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre