Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

TheLittleSongbird I am a huge fan of the book, and while there hasn't been a completely faithful adaptation, quite a few have captured the spirit and have been excellent on its own terms. David Lean's magnificent film is one, the 1968 musical is another and this one was also excellent. The book itself is magnificent, but I can also understand why there hasn't been a 100% faithful version. The story is very complicated and there are so many characters to flesh out so it needs a mini-series of this length to do justice. Lean's film did manage to do it justice because of Lean's usual masterly storytelling and the impeccable performances, and the musical had the wonderful music and Ron Moody.Back to this 1999 mini-series, I cannot believe I haven't seen this before. Not only is it a solid adaptation but it is wonderful on its own terms even with its minor quibbles. It does take a few liberties, but Dickens' feel and spirit is there. The story is very well told, and the changes actually worked mostly because they were developed well. While there is the odd occasion where the odd bit of dialogue might jar with the period, the writing is very good, and the whole mini-series is beautifully directed consistently.Also impressive are the period detail and music. The period detail is quite evocative, with the scenery and sets excellent and the costumes authentic. The photography was nice and fluid too. The music is beautifully composed, and did well to enhance the drama of every scene. The pace is not too fast or slow but comfortably in between. There are many effective scenes especially the I want some more scene and Nancy's death which is quite brutal. In fact, the only real disappointment is Sikes's death, the build up to it is quite intense but the actual death itself came across as rather goofy and rushed.That said, the acting is wonderful. Julie Walters doesn't disappoint, while Alex Crowley is a spirited Dodger. Nancy is also made very vulnerable and quite heart-breaking, while Michael Kitchen(who I recognised immediately from Foyle's War) is a splendid Mr Brownlow. Sam Smith is good as Oliver, I loved his angelic face and the mutterings under his breath, but there were one or two scenes such as in the courtroom when you had to turn the volume up to hear what he was saying. Even better though was Marc Warren, who to me is the best Monks I've seen, it was a hilarious, poignant, creepy and altogether wonderful performance. Robert Lindsey is perfect as Fagin, very oily, vile, manipulative and grotesque with a great judgement of lines, while Andy Serkis's Sikes is brutal and genuinely frightening.All in all, a solid and wonderful mini-series, and one of the better adaptations of the book. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Ephraim Gadsby In some ways, it's good to see some of the subplots that have to be snipped for time in shorter renditions. Unfortunately, what remains is twisted Dickens. Dickens wrote for serial, and sometimes wrote himself into corners. He didn't plan Oliver Twist out from the start, so characters like "Monks" wormed into later installments to help iron out a conclusion. OLIVER TWIST the book is therefore not to be read or judged like a modern novel, but rather a sprawling (though not so sprawling as the nearly contemporary, episodic, and wonderful PICKWICK PAPERS) epic view of Oliver's world, where many extraneous activities take place. Unfortunately, the writers of this "Oliver Twist" have manipulated Dickens to try to tie together all the extraneous material. They've also done unforgivable things to the characters. The way the "Artful Dodger" picked Mr. Brownlow's pockets and the aftermath was shocking. Fagin, a wonderful character in all his many incarnations, has been transformed from a man who teaches boys to pick pockets to a magician of sorts, so he comes off more like a thwarted music hall prestidigitator than a corrupter of morals. And the end of Bill Sykes, as written here, is perverted. Some margin of liberty should be granted movie adaptations. Because of time constraints, and the fact that Dickens' wonderful language cannot be easily transferred to the screen. But this version takes too many liberties and warps too many characters. It's a shame, because it has a nice look to it, and Robert Lindsay, a fine actor, might've been a great Fagin. The worst part of the movie is the backstory. Dickens shoves all of the tale of Oliver's parentage into the final pages of his tale, and much that was inexplicable is there explained. These people have expanded upon that to make a full two-hour stand-alone episode! This not only gives a fraudulent view of how OLIVER TWIST the story is constructed, it undercuts what mystery the book possesses. If you want a solid (if truncated) version of the book, David Lean's 1948 adaptation is still powerful; for an even easier to digest version, the Oscar-winning musical has a true Dickensian look and the characters are all true (Ron Moody, Oliver Reed, and Harry Secombe being standouts) and several tuneful songs. If you want a version where Fagin comes out a figure of persecution, try the one where Fagin is portrayed by George C. Scott. If you're a Dickens purist, give this version a miss; if you never intend to read Dickens, or have tried and don't like Dickens, you might like this version after all.

Kara_007_40 This was a great film! The actors were born to play these roles, the characters suited them quite well. The costumes were splendid, and the setting really took the viewer back to the "Twist" times. Might I add that Marc Warren was quite good, award winning if you will. He played the role of Monks beautifully, and although he was a rough guy, you feel sorry for him. (Plus he's cute with out all the black!) Anywho, back to the movie! The movie also added more stuff that the book left out, and it wrapped up the lose ends. And I'm glad to say that there is a happy ending. I recommend buying the film from Amazon.com, I don't know if you can plug other sites here, but oh well. It's a 3 video set.

Buffy-78 This version gives a new twist on the old story by taking what was a few lines in the book and expanding them over two hours. It's fairly successful, though I can't help thinking some students might think this is what the book is really about. Characters are introduced, changed or expanded, of which the most successful is probably Monks, and the least Agnes. This is not to say that the actors do not try their best.Generally Bleasdale has retained Dickens dialogue but occasionally he adds his own. Whilst on the whole this works it sometimes jars and seems off-key, not because it is badly written but because it doesn't sound nineteenth century.My only real complaint is that sometimes the settings don't really look like London, which makes the action difficult to place geographically. However the sets and costume look very good and the music is suitably atmospheric.