Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn orphan named Oliver Twist meets a pickpocket on the streets of London. From there, he joins a household of boys who are trained to steal for their master.An orphan named Oliver Twist meets a pickpocket on the streets of London. From there, he joins a household of boys who are trained to steal for their master.An orphan named Oliver Twist meets a pickpocket on the streets of London. From there, he joins a household of boys who are trained to steal for their master.
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
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.
I thought that this was an exceptional production, particularly because it starred a young Scott Funnell. At such a young age, his performance was nothing less than remarkable, evoking emotions on a primeval level. I cannot speak more highly of this young superstar, except to say that he has a bright future ahead, matched only by his aspirations and delusions of grandeur. The supporting cast put in an admirable performance too, despite the show stopping form displayed by the Funnell. It was something i wish i did in my youth. Watch this because you will soon find that nothing can match it for sheer pluck and tenacity.
An almost perfect version of Oliver Twist. The biggest problems with any Oliver adaptation is Monks' storyline, everything with the Maylies, and Oliver being related to Brownlow... all of which is a key part of this book faithful miniseries, which is part of why I love BBC adaptations of literary classics. However, all that unnecessary and contrived backstory and subplots are of Dickens' doing, not really the writers of the series.
Oliver being related to Brownlow feels incredibly contrived, convenient, and forced, and I think it is a better story if Brownlow simply takes pity on the half starved and sickly Oliver because he is a good person, instead of the weird bloodline spiritual connection alluded to in the book. As much maturity and realism Dickens created, these elements are stupid and silly.
I also must say, with everyone in the supporting cast being PERFECT, Nancy, Bill, Fagin, Brownlow, Mr Bumble and Ms Corney, The Dodger... but the one casting choice that was lacking something was Oliver himself. The first actor who plays the younger Oliver was good, and I really wish they kept him through the whole thing, because the older version of him was incredibly boring, and left next to no impression. His accent is oddly muddled, what I think may be Irish, it was a little distracting, and like I said, he had little to no personality whatsoever, which didn't exactly make me sympathize with him like you are supposed to.
I have to say that Jackie Coogan is still my favorite Oliver, with his big puppy dog eyes, scruffy hair, and adorable persona. He is one of the only Olivers to shine through what is arguably a rather bland character. I guess he is sort of like Alice of Wonderland in that way, being the character everything is happening too, guiding you from one place to the next, meeting a variety of characters. You almost see things through his eyes.
Anyway, all that didn't bog down the series as much as my biggest problem with this series, that being the horribly boring romance between Rose and Harry, which feels like it came straight from an annoying Jane Austen story. It was almost unbearable. Compare this to the romance between Bill and Nancy, and you have some ACTUAL drama on display, that isn't the typical period piece crap that a theater kid would fawn over. Ugh, I really hated it.
I love the story of Oliver Twist, I have since I was 9 years old, and watched the 2005 version all the way through. After that, from the age of 9-13, I watched every version out there, all except two or so, which is what I have done with all my favorite stories growing up.
I saw this miniseries when I was 9, and liked it okay, being a huge fan of other faithful BBC literary miniseries adaptations as a kid, like "The Secret Garden" and "A Little Princess". I watched this version again the other day, and liked it more than I had done before, enough to where I want to watch through all 5 something hours of it all over again.
The BBC is great because they let things play out, as if you are actually watching the lives of human beings, not a movie that is hyper focused with getting from point A to point B. And the TV video tape picture quality of these BBC serials is the definition of "cozy" for me. Not one of my favorite BBC literary adaptations from around this time, nor my favorite version of Oliver, but one of the best and most faithful adaptations to date, which I suppose that is a little for better or worse in this instance.
Oliver being related to Brownlow feels incredibly contrived, convenient, and forced, and I think it is a better story if Brownlow simply takes pity on the half starved and sickly Oliver because he is a good person, instead of the weird bloodline spiritual connection alluded to in the book. As much maturity and realism Dickens created, these elements are stupid and silly.
I also must say, with everyone in the supporting cast being PERFECT, Nancy, Bill, Fagin, Brownlow, Mr Bumble and Ms Corney, The Dodger... but the one casting choice that was lacking something was Oliver himself. The first actor who plays the younger Oliver was good, and I really wish they kept him through the whole thing, because the older version of him was incredibly boring, and left next to no impression. His accent is oddly muddled, what I think may be Irish, it was a little distracting, and like I said, he had little to no personality whatsoever, which didn't exactly make me sympathize with him like you are supposed to.
I have to say that Jackie Coogan is still my favorite Oliver, with his big puppy dog eyes, scruffy hair, and adorable persona. He is one of the only Olivers to shine through what is arguably a rather bland character. I guess he is sort of like Alice of Wonderland in that way, being the character everything is happening too, guiding you from one place to the next, meeting a variety of characters. You almost see things through his eyes.
Anyway, all that didn't bog down the series as much as my biggest problem with this series, that being the horribly boring romance between Rose and Harry, which feels like it came straight from an annoying Jane Austen story. It was almost unbearable. Compare this to the romance between Bill and Nancy, and you have some ACTUAL drama on display, that isn't the typical period piece crap that a theater kid would fawn over. Ugh, I really hated it.
I love the story of Oliver Twist, I have since I was 9 years old, and watched the 2005 version all the way through. After that, from the age of 9-13, I watched every version out there, all except two or so, which is what I have done with all my favorite stories growing up.
I saw this miniseries when I was 9, and liked it okay, being a huge fan of other faithful BBC literary miniseries adaptations as a kid, like "The Secret Garden" and "A Little Princess". I watched this version again the other day, and liked it more than I had done before, enough to where I want to watch through all 5 something hours of it all over again.
The BBC is great because they let things play out, as if you are actually watching the lives of human beings, not a movie that is hyper focused with getting from point A to point B. And the TV video tape picture quality of these BBC serials is the definition of "cozy" for me. Not one of my favorite BBC literary adaptations from around this time, nor my favorite version of Oliver, but one of the best and most faithful adaptations to date, which I suppose that is a little for better or worse in this instance.
This version keeps a lot more of the novel than most, but most of this material lacking in other versions covers the Maylie sub-plot, which is mawkish and conventional Victoriana.
Many reviewers have commented that the series does not stint on the squalor of Hanoverian London (the action takes place in pre-Victorian times). I actually disagree and feel that it sanitizes things. Reviewers write of the "cramped" rooms when I thought they were were more spacious than many a million pound flat in today's London.
The direction, camera-work and score were plodding TV quality only, and the actors in some parts unsubtle. Bill Sykes looked the part, and for once you could see why Nancy might have been attracted to him, but his acting skills were one-dimensional. I liked Eric Porter's Fagin. It was based on the Guinness version, but without the anti-semitic element which is embarrassing in the earlier movie.
Too many of the children's roles suggested middle-class kids from drama school.
I give the makers credit for faithfulness and not attempting smart-ass interpolations or anachronistic social comment, and maybe enjoyment would be enhanced by watching in the original 12 half-hour episodes, but viewing it purely as a "movie" it is fairly dull, especially compared to David Lean's masterpiece. Sharper editing would help to speed things along.
Many reviewers have commented that the series does not stint on the squalor of Hanoverian London (the action takes place in pre-Victorian times). I actually disagree and feel that it sanitizes things. Reviewers write of the "cramped" rooms when I thought they were were more spacious than many a million pound flat in today's London.
The direction, camera-work and score were plodding TV quality only, and the actors in some parts unsubtle. Bill Sykes looked the part, and for once you could see why Nancy might have been attracted to him, but his acting skills were one-dimensional. I liked Eric Porter's Fagin. It was based on the Guinness version, but without the anti-semitic element which is embarrassing in the earlier movie.
Too many of the children's roles suggested middle-class kids from drama school.
I give the makers credit for faithfulness and not attempting smart-ass interpolations or anachronistic social comment, and maybe enjoyment would be enhanced by watching in the original 12 half-hour episodes, but viewing it purely as a "movie" it is fairly dull, especially compared to David Lean's masterpiece. Sharper editing would help to speed things along.
Oliver Twist is one of Charles Dickens' most famous books and also one of his best. This adaptation is excellent, like most of the 70s-80s BBC Dickens serial adaptations, and ranks along with the 1948 David Lean film and the 1999 mini-series as one of the best adaptations of Oliver Twist as well as the most faithful. If there was anything that wasn't quite right(personal opinion of course) it was that Rose and Nancy could have been more affectionate with Oliver. Other than that, this is Dickens as it should be done. The costumes and sets are sumptuous as well as richly detailed, you can literally smell the grimy seediness which goes to show how strong the atmosphere is. The adaptation is also shot with natural skill and intricacy. The music is simple yet haunting, while the dialogue is very Dickenesian in spirit and thoughtfully written. The story is adapted faithfully, with Oliver being with Mr Sowerberry for five years and Monks being introduced earlier being the only really glaring liberties, and is told compellingly. Even with the long length and deliberate pacing, the adaptation never did feel tedious. The acting carries the production beautifully, Scott Funnell is an adorable younger Oliver, making an impression even when in just two of the twelve episodes, while Ben Rodska carries the rest of the adaptation in the same role- but older- with innocence and steel without falling into the sickly sweet category. Eric Porter's Fagin is wonderfully oily, vile and manipulative while Michael Attwell's Bill Sykes is both frightening and tormented. Amanda Harris is a vulnerable and sympathetic Nancy, and there's also the likable Rose Maylie of Lysette Anthony, Pip Donaghy's startling Monks and David Garlick's rascally Artful Dodger. There are fewer Mr Bumbles crueller and more grotesque than that of Godfrey James, Frank Middlemass is a kind and noble Mr Brownlow and Miriam Margoyles, Julian Firth and Gillian Martel also handle their roles adeptly. Overall, really excellent and will please any Dickens or literary fans. 9/10 Bethany Cox
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesOf the 30 or so filmed versions of the same Charles Dickens novel (excluding indirect adaptations and parodies such as Oliver & Compagnie (1988)), this is considered the most complete and accurate adaptation, as it manages to depict almost all of the characters and incidents from the book.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Terrance Dicks: Fact & Fiction (2005)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Oliver Twist have?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée6 heures
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Oliver Twist (1985) officially released in India in English?
Répondre