Oliver Twist

The performances are excellent all around. Sophie Okonedo is a fine Nancy, so thoroughly believable as is Tom Hardy, Timothy Spall and Sarah Lancashire. The children playing Oliver and Dodger give subtle performances, so were obviously directed extremely well.

I did not have any problems with the changes to the narrative and I know the novel well, but in the time constraints of the series, I thought the changes made sense. At first I thought the music surprising but very quickly I felt it suited the style of the story telling.

Very fine effort from the BBC, they are so thorough with period dramas, I can't remember the last time they stuffed one up.

I'm surprised that this adaptation of the Dickens classic has received so many negative reviews and that there are comparisons with the musical which is a whole different type of production. All the performances are very strong, although I think that the Artful Dodger could do with a few more acting lessons. I thought that Tom Hardy, Sophie Okonedo and Timothy Spall were particularly outstanding. Viewers seem to expect the characters to be fairly one-dimensional and stereotyped - just because Bill Sykes is a psychopath doesn't mean he has to yell all the time! I think that the director did a good job of portraying the harshness and grime of Victorian London and the cruelty and depravity of the era also. I don't want to see Dickens adaptations through a soft focus lens, this is what I want from a period piece. I do agree about the randomness of the music though.

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

This was an enjoyable version that held my attention despite familiarity with the material. It was more detailed than most dramatisations. Timothy Spall was very good. I had some problems with it, however:

* The music was intrusive.

* Bill Sikes was well acted, but seemed, unless my eyes deceived me, to have perfectly plucked eyebrows. After so much effort was taken with makeup (especially teeth), this was strange.

* Julian Rhind-Tutt was weak as Monks, and his hair seemed out of period.

* Edward Fox has become a mannered caricature of himself.

I feel sorry for anyone who makes his first acquaintance with Dickens' classic through this ill-conceived version that tampers irreparably with the original story.

The first mistake was hiring a screenwriter best-known for work on a British soap to write the script. She felt obligated to make it more "hip" by inserting words and dialog that aren't appropriate to the time period, and by completely twisting parts of the plot and some of its main characters. For instance, the comic subplot of Bumble and Corny leaves out some of the best scenes, and instead "sexes up" the Widow Corny. And Oliver himself is changed from a lost innocent into a smart-mouthed punk. (PS - I know that Corny is spelled with an "e" but IMDb's spell- checker keeps changing it.)

The casting doesn't help. Timothy Spall, who is wonderful in almost everything he does, never seems to settle in to the character of Fagin, and the make-up and hair artists make him look like an ugly fat woman most of the time. Nancy has changed color, Bill Sykes is nothing more than a yobbo, not the looming villain so well-portrayed by Oliver Reed in the musical version. Even the reliable Edward Fox turns in a two-dimensional performance as Brownlow.

The music score is also horrendous, jumping from style to style but never anything remotely Victorian. (Electric guitar? Banjo? Steel drums?)

I don't have a problem with making new versions of classics. I also don't have a problem with updating classics, as in WEST SIDE STORY or even Baz Luhrman's ROMEO + JULIET. But what we have in OLIVER TWIST is a warped classic, a hack's idea of making a great plot more palatable for the 21st-century audience. You can change the ambiance or the costumes, but don't give us a new story and claim it's a classic. This type of bilge is running rampant in current British productions (Wuthering Heights, Marple, etc.). Seek out an older version for something that resembles the original, or at least holds the original in high regard. The director and screenwriter for this production obviously see Dickens as raw material to be improved upon. The joke is on them.