Clarissa Mora
The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.
Bessie Smyth
Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.
Yash Wade
Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
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.
tlloydesq
It is not easy televising Dickens. His novels are so vivid you have a picture of the characters in your mind. This series uses its 12 29 minute parts to make the images its own and enhance them. I could get carried away with superlatives so let's look at the negatives which really centre on the Maylie household. This takes up the best part of 2 or 3 episodes and is pretty dull. The first couple of episodes are difficult but that is part of the acclimatisation process noted above. Now onto the superlatives.The BBC has done an amazing job in conjuring up both the riches of the middle classes but more importantly the desperate poverty on the streets. The state of Fagin's quarters and Sykes' disgusting one room hovel are hard to contemplate. The state of the Thames is reminiscent of Dickens' telling.The acting is top class. Too many to mention but Eric Porter as sly, devious, charming and mercenary Fagin is one, Michael Attwell brings menace to Bill Sykes. Pip Donaghy triumphs as Monks. Godfrey James as bully boy Mr Bumble and Miriam Margoyles as his soon to be domineering wife. The list goes on. So refreshing to see a case of actors building on substantial roles.The story is modified: Betsy disappears altogether and Monks takes on a starring role. The last few parts are riveting as the net closes. I could go on. TV does not get much better
terephiel
First, I have to say that I'm very impressed with how close to the book this version is. Nearly every detail is exact, which will more than satisfy Dickens purists. This is the only version I know that even includes the other Maylies! Many performances are memorable, including Eric Porter's Fagin, Julian Firth's Noah Claypole, and Miriam Margoyles' Widow Corny. Godfrey James also plays the cruelest Mr. Bumble I've ever seen.Despite the many strengths, however, this version also has its flaws. Though few liberties were taken, they're quite obvious. The first and foremost is the portrayal of Oliver himself. Scott Funnell is a very adorable Oliver, nice looking and playing the character with the same angelic passiveness the character had in the book. Funnell is definitely my favorite Oliver, next to Sam Smith and John Howard Davies of course.In this version, Oliver's age has been drastically changed. Instead of leaving the baby farm on his ninth birthday, he's eight; when working for the Sowerberrys, he's thirteen as opposed to ten. I understand the whole child labor laws back then, but he's even older than the character was at the end of the book (twelve)! Ben Rodska bears absolutely no resemblance to Funnell or Lysette Anthony (who played both Agnes and Rose), and on top of that, is absolutely hideous. Last time I checked, Oliver wasn't red haired, freckled, and speaking in a Cockney accent like Dodger or Claypole would. I also don't believe Oliver would be drinking wine of his own free will, as he is when staying with Mr. Brownlow. If I remember correctly, the only time he did in the book was when he was being forced to rob the Maylies, and though he didn't want to drink it, Sikes and Crackit forced him.There's also the matter of the film quality. It's rather poor, though being from the eighties, it isn't all bad. Personally, I the film should have been shot like a movie, even though it's not one. As someone else has said before, if one were to remake this today with professional sets and the liberties removed, it'd be the greatest Oliver Twist adaptation of all time. All in all, this particular series wasn't half bad. Even so, despite their own liberties, Alan Bleasdale and David Lean's versions will always be my favorites.
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.
