Micitype Pretty Good

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Gerardrobertson61 I had just finished reading Oliver Twist and this was the first adaptation(apart from the musical) that I had watched. The changes to the series that were not in the book were not to annoying although I think they could have done Bill's death the same as the book. The acting was fine and I really enjoyed Fagin having that Jewish accent as in the book, exactly how I pictured Fagin when reading it. Oliver and Dodger worked well together, the scenery and the feel of a Victorian London was believable and all in all, I did enjoy watching this adaption of Oliver Twist.It will be interesting to see other versions of this novel and use this BBC interpretation as the benchmark.

mae lipstik Okay, I know Dickens is a classic writer but the plot of his second novel was botched to blazes so I can quite understand why a new remake would want to edit out the major improbabilities, but it made up for what it lacked by an artfully constructed atmosphere of pervasive gloom and menace and by some truly memorable villains.On the plus side, this adaption has a much smoother plot. On the minus what a heinous chunk of bowdlerised rubbish this production is. For example - why is Oliver sold, not bought as he is in the novel? Is that horror too much, of children available to the highest bidder? Why are the lovely visitengland.com cobbles so clean, not the stinking filth of the Victorian city? Fagin has conveniently placed two tier bunk beds in his lair for the boys to sleep in, (I've stayed in worse looking youth hostels), hardly the actions of a man and a gang hunted from hide-out to hide out as he is in the book.What is the flipping point of getting in an actress with the chops of Sophie Okonedo if you are going to mutilate the part to nothing but noble suffering. Nancy was tough, she was a sneak, a player, a genuine conflicted woman in a bad place who could still brag "there's not many people besides me that could have got out of their way." She had the nous to drug Bill Sikes with laudanum... but here she's just a cipher. It's a sad waste of one of Dickens' few interesting female roles.BTW, 19th century London was a lot more culturally diverse than some of the American reviewers here seem to believe: try google for "The London Committee for the relief of the Back Poor" of 1786 for examples. By 1838 many brothels (Dickens' Nancy was a prostitute) offered women billed as "dusky nefertitis" and suchlike.But the worst character destruction must be that of Bill Sikes, formerly the murderous embodiment of brutalised evil, now well a dog loving softie who spends a night in a mill pond protecting Olivers safety and carries him back to London in his arms. The artful dodger complains when not sent on a job with him. The deal with Bill Sikes is you'd have to be mad to want to go on a job with him. He's supposed to be terrifying. Best left alone. Here he's just a misunderstood wus who threatens Fagin for being mean to his dog.The Gothic horror has been bled from Monks' character too, now just a regular upper middle class slimeball, although it's slightly concerning to see the BBC, even in the midst of its very best family-friendly clean up job, keeps a birthmark as a proof that he's born evil.All in all, a washed out, soul-less load of tripe. This adaption might give the story more sense, but it thoroughly loses its soul.

TheLittleSongbird In terms of Dickens dramatisations on televisions, this 2007 dramatisation of "Oliver Twist" is not as good as 2005's "Bleak House" or 2008's "Little Dorritt", both of which were outstanding. In terms of adaptations of this complicated book, it has its downsides but is a solid one. My personal favourite version is the 1948 David Lean film, that had gorgeous cinematography, dramatic music, masterly story-telling, an outstanding Alec Guiness despite the admittedly over-sized nose and a genuinely frightening Robert Newton. This adaptation isn't as good as that version or the timeless 1968 musical, but I personally preferred it over the 1982 TV film with George C.Scott and Tim Curry, that had fine acting but hindered by some questionable plot changes and the 2005 Roman Polanski film, which was decent but bloated. The only one I haven't seen yet is the 1997 film with Elijah Wood, by all means I will give it a chance but I have been told it is one of the worst adaptations of the book.Back on target, the period detail is excellent here with realistic looking sets and well tailored costumes. I for one liked the score, the opening sequence is wonderful, but there are also some dramatic, haunting and beautiful parts when it needed to be. The direction is good especially with Nancy's ghost, the scripting was above decent (I didn't notice any soapish qualities about it) and the pace was good. Dickens's book is insightful but complex in characterisation, particularly with Fagin, there are changes here but the storytelling was not that bad I thought. The acting is mostly very good, William Miller gives Oliver a fair amount of innocence while giving him some steel too. Sophie Okenedo is a subtle Nancy, Gregor Fisher is a suitably grotesque Mr Bumble, Edward Fox is a fine Mr Brownlow and Julian Rhind-Tutt is startling as Monks. The best characterisation though was Tom Hardy as Bill Sikes. Sikes is a turbulent, big, burly and violent man and not only did Hardy meet all of these brilliantly, his interpretation was also emotionally complex.However, there were one or two disappointments. I may be the only one who was disappointed in Timothy Spall's Fagin. I have nothing personal against Spall, far from it, he is an exceptional actor, but Fagin is supposed to be in my opinion oily, vile and manipulative. Fagin here was more reminiscent of WormTail but with an accent and he was too passive. Away from the casting, the other flaw was the length, having been timed during the Christmas season the later part of the dramatisation felt rather stretched.Overall, this is a good dramatisation, not outstanding but worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Kitty03 Dickens' Oliver Twist has been the subject of many adaptations, including the movie version of the god-awful stage musical. It is this one, and a subsequent version made for American television in 1997 that I have seen most recently and it is with those that I make my comparisons. (I have seen all or part of at least 3 others, but not recently, including the Roman Polanski version). In terms of overall realism, this version far outstrips many of the others. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on whether you want a jolly fairy-tale or a sobering social commentary. If the former, don't bother with this version. Despite the presence of a number of good actors, I found some of the performances a bit disappointing. In particular, the lead William Miller was sometimes lacking in emotion. However, this performance brought out something quite different than other versions. In those Oliver is often presented as a gentle innocent. Miller's Oliver, on the other hand, conveys something steely under his youth. He is no victim of circumstance, swept along by events, but a character who has the potential to grow into someone even a Bill Sykes would fear. The performance of Hardy as Sykes was almost completely lacking in the menace that an actor like Oliver Reed could convey even in the silliest of musicals. As Nancy, Sophie Okenado conveyed a totally new version of the character. After the initial surprise, I forgot about the issue of "colour" and could believe in her totally as a character of the time. The savagery of her death, however, was strangely low-key in comparison to the rest of the movie. I thought Timothy Spall was excellent, perhaps the best thing in the movie, giving this Fagin a depth. When he would rather hang than renounce his religion, Spall's Fagin achieves near nobility. Finally, the end of the series was very thought-provoking, contrasting as it did the fates of two young boys: Dodger and Twist. Oliver Twist, child of an upper-class family, is shown in a happy Christmas scene reunited with his loving family and destined to a life of ease. Dodger, on the other hand, who is shown with particular sympathy in this version, is left to find the body of his beloved Nancy and to listen to his protector Fagin's death by hanging. In the end, he walks away a little Sykes in the making. The message is clear.