Oliver Twist

I am a huge Dickens fan. I have read Oliver Twist, and have even written college papers on the novel. This movie is by far the best version of Oliver Twist ever made (this includes David Lean's movie, the Polanski version, and the musical). The casting is superb; Robert Lindsay (Fagin) is one of the best character actors I have ever seen, Michael Kitchen plays Mr. Brownlow to perfection, and Andy Serkis (Bill Sykes) brings out every ounce of Bill's brutal personality with excellent feel for the character. Yes, the movie necessarily takes what the novel originally revealed in the last pages (concerning Oliver's parentage and the mystery surrounding his birth) and more fully dramatizes it; this is the nature of the beast. Making movies about books is difficult enough, especially with Dickens' panache for complicated plots. But this version of the movie brings out every element of Dickens' story with taste and excellence. One of the best Dickens adaptations out there.

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

I have just been watching this for a second time on cable TV here in Australia and I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time. Full marks to Robert Lindsay as Fagin...but what an eye-opener for me was Edward Leeford/Monks played by Marc Warren. I thought to myself, "Where has this guy been hiding?" but then looking at his profile on IMDb he has done - and is doing - so much work that I can't believe that I've only just noticed him. No-one has made this much of an impression on me since I was awakened to the talents of Tim Roth. Who will be the next brilliant actor - male or female - to come out of hiding and surprise us all?

Surely Oliver Twist has been 'done to death' by now. It must be one of the popular standard novels for dramatisation; and nearly every fan of historical dramas must have seen several versions of it.

And now for something completely different. This version is a modern re-writing of the story and does not follow the novel closely. Or at least, it follows it very loosely. At the end of episode one Oliver has only just been born. And born in graphic detail -- rather more realistic than a midwifery video. Half the first episode is spent in Rome.

In this modern re-telling Oliver's antecedents are explained in detail: his parentage, his weak-willed father, his exploited mother, his evil, murderous mother and insane half-brother. How Agnes Fleming's portrait is found in Mr Brownlow's house is explained; the story of the locket is told in loving detail. And all this with the excellence in recreating the 19th century that only the British can muster.

If you are a purist who likes your Dickens to follow the book as closely as possible then this recreation may not be for you. I love Dickens but nevertheless found this version -- the story behind the story -- to be a marvellous, entertaining dramatisation.

Oliver Twist is a journalist's novel. The principal character has only one real purpose- as a foil for a range of villainous or inadequate or officious or bungling adults. He barely utters a thousand words in the novel, in the film he is never silent. In this version, the novel has not merely been arranged - it has been totally re-written by someone who has completely missed Dicken's intention: to show us the effects of utilitarian government in late Georgian society. Instead of using the huge range of ideas and the profound commentary- a story which contains enough for several films, the writer rifles the ideas and tries to modernise the language, at once destroying the authority of Dickens' voice and destroying some of his most memorable effects. Dickens is not so far away from us that his language needs translation and most people are literate enough to follow his ideas and arguments. The issues of the novel are as relevant today as they were then - the abuses of authority, attitudes to the destitute, exploitation of the young. Instead, Brownlow shares his sitting room with his housekeeper and asks for 'a large brandy' as though in a saloon rather than his home - this is just sheer ignorance. Fagin is politically corrected - a circus conjurer rather than Dickens' child exploiter and murderer by proxy. Fagin is based on a real person. A real moderniser might have wanted to develop those aspects of Ikey Solomons that Dickens couldn't put in print in 1836. Meanwhile, the novel is trimmed so that characters who are dead before the novel opens are brought incompetently to life and occupy large chunks of time. There is soap-opera violence instead of the real thuggery of public hangings and casual murder. Unlike David Lean, this team seem to be unable to capture Dickens' burning indignation, his contempt for self-serving officialdom. The glaring parallel between the effects of the 'respectable gentlemen' of 'the board' and of the 'merry old gentleman', Fagin on unprotected and unwanted children is missed.

This film has no more relevance to Dickens work than the Lionel Bart musical - an excellent cast and a lot of money completely wasted!