GazerRise Fantastic!

Bob 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.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

martinoconnell This version of Oliver Twist is by far and away the best. It manages to feature virtually all the characters major and minor which so many other versions fail to do. The 1948 version is great but this one trumps it. Godfrey James as Bumble carries off the role very well as does Eric Porter who is truly menacing as Fagin. Frank Middlemass as Brownlow is just how one would imagine that character. The two actors play Oliver was a master stroke of casting. I could watch this again and again for the acting alone and the brilliance of the set. Well done to all concerned. Other versions fall wide of the mark but this stays faithful to the story. Even Mrs. Corny is played to a tee by Miriam Margoyles.

maksquibs OLIVER TWIST films live or die by their Olivers and this ultra-faithful six-hour British mini, dies with two inadequate Olivers. Not that the rest of the cast does much better. No one seems able to sustain the heightened characterizations Dickens needs, giving us a sort of loud, generic hamminess that quickly wears out its welcome. Even so, it's a treat to (just once) get all the story (the Artful Dodger has some surprising character turns), and it's certainly preferable to a recent mini-series which added a 'clarifying' preface. Memorable versions by Frank Lloyd, David Lean & Carol Reed each lose almost half of the story; for the better say I. With early Dickens, small sins of omission do wonders for story construction, especially in keeping Oliver in personal danger for the climax.

keith-moyes Oliver Twist is probably Dickens's best loved book. It has been well served by the movie and TV industry. This adaptation is my personal favourite, but in saying that I mean no disrespect to several other fine versions.I recently watched it almost back-to-back with Alan Bleasdale's revisionist 1999 version. It was fascinating to compare the very different approaches they took to the book.As I said in my review of the 1977 Nicholas Nickleby (you have read that, haven't you?), you can sometimes be too faithful to Dickens. That is relevant here, because Oliver Twist is one of his most preposterous stories.Oliver runs away to London. In a city of a million people he is immediately spotted by Monks (who has never seen him), his bitter enemy, and runs into the Artful Dodger.He is taken in by Fagin. On his very first pick-pocketing excursion, the very first victim is Mr Brownlow, who just happens to be deeply involved in the mystery of his birth. He is captured. Although he is apparently a thieving street urchin, Mr Brownlow takes him into his house as if he was a long-lost son.The very first time he ventures out of the house on his own, Oliver is spotted by Nancy and returned to Fagin.He is kept prisoner for weeks and then farmed out to Sikes to assist in a burglary. This second victim, Mrs Maylie, also happens to be deeply involved in the mystery of his birth. He is again captured. This thieving street urchin is embraced by a second character as a long-lost son. Is that boy lucky, or what?The whole book is a farrago of improbability and coincidence.Bleasdale tackles the issue head on. He retains all Dickens's improbable incidents but stitches them together in a much more plausible way. In his version, it is no coincidence that Monks spots Oliver; that he meets the Artful Dodger; that Mr Brownlow is his first victim; that he is recaptured when he is; that Mrs Maylie is the second victim; and that she too takes him in. From the beginning, Oliver is just a pawn in Monk's plot. Even Mr Brownlow's charity is made more reasonable. He is a philanthropist and it is not the first time he has done something like this.This is an interesting approach to the book, but for me it doesn't quite work. Bleasdale's detailed back story means that Oliver does not actually appear for over two hours and Monk's continual machinations in the background mean that Oliver is ultimately reduced to a bit-player in his own story.Alexander Baron, who wrote this version, takes a diametrically opposed approach to the book's absurdities. He just shrugs his shoulders and says: "That is the story Dickens wrote. That is the story people love. So be it!" He gives us a very faithful and very complete version of the book. It is good to see all the sub-plots and marginal characters, that are usually down-played or omitted altogether, given their full weight in the story (Noah Claypole, for example). The result is a great rendition of a classic story. Despite the ludicrousness of the plot it only confirms what a superb storyteller Dickens was. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.This series also benfits from a good Director, cast and Production Designer.Gareth Davies gets all the actors on the same wavelength so that the performances are all well-judged and consistent. Eric Porter's Fagin is as good as any and Michael Attwell's Sikes is probably the best I have seen. For once, I can see why Nancy might have been attracted to this thug.The juvenile cast are fine. The Rodska brothers are more than adequate and Oliver, in particular, is appealing without being too angelic. David Garlick's Artful Dodger is a real scene stealer.This follows through into the minor characters. We get their eccentricities without losing their reality. For example, Mr Grimwig gets to 'eat his head' an appropriate number of times, but Edward Burnham shows that he is fully aware of this potentially irritating verbal tic, so it never becomes tiresome. Similarly, Godfrey James's Mr Bumble manages to deliver his "the Law is a ass" without making it sound like a famous quotation. And so on.I doubt we will ever see a better acted Oliver Twist.Equally impressive is the production design by Michael Edwards. In a Dickens drama it is always tempting to overdo the squalor of the Victorian slums (David Lean probably did). It can leave the actors stranded in what looks like a series of Nineteenth Century engravings, rather than in real locations. This production gets it about right. The slums are suitably grubby and ramshackle but still plausible.The photography is also amazing. Most of this serial was shot on videotape but it has the visual texture and crisp editing that you usually only get with film. For once, the medium isn't the message.If you already have your own favourite Oliver Twist, but haven't seen this one yet - give it a try.You might just change your mind.

metalligirl666 Oliver Twist is one of my favourite Dickens's stories, and this production is the best I've ever seen. The director has somehow managed to restore the dark and Gothic mood of the 19th century London. The cast is brilliant as well. Especially the villains, with Eric Porter as Fagin, and David Garlick as Artful Dodger. Michael Attwell as Bill Sikes also performs a superb acting, I've never seen any other actors who played Bill Sikes doing it so brilliantly. He manages to picture the real Bill Sikes with all the evil characteristics, beside his weak points like any other human beings, especially in the scene after killing Nancy. For those who like the story, I strongly recommend to watch this production. I think it is the most loyal production to the actual text.