Oliver Twist

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.

The BBC really know how to 'do' Dickens.

From Dudley Simpson's haunting title music to Eric Porter's sinister Fagin, this is truest adaptation of the book that I know.

The production values are spot-on, capturing the filth and seediness of Dickens' London. Michael Attwell is the most menacing of Bill Sykes and Ben Rodska makes Oliver innocent without being too goody-goody.

If that were not enough, the length of the production (6 hours) means that, for once, the sub-plots are included and the main plots are laid out as Dickens wrote them.

If 6 hours is too long then David Lean still represents the safest bet but, for the purist, this will probably never be improved upon.

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.

This is an excellent version, well-acted, long enough to permit inclusion of Dickens' myriad confusing plots that keep the viewer guessing. It is broken into 12 28-minute episodes, reminiscent of the way Dickens serialized his novels. I dare anybody to watch just one - every one's a cliffhanger inviting you onwards. The acting is outstanding, though the strong dialect caused me to miss some lines. As Scott Funnell has noted in an earlier comment, the child actor who coincidentally has the same name does an outstanding job (and is rather adorable) as the young Oliver, as does the actor playing the larger (but according to Scott less important) role of the older Oliver.

This is one of a whole series of superb BBC adaptations of the major Dickens novels, every one a gem. Like some of the others, the DVD re-release of Oliver Twist includes as an extra an excellent performance by Simon Callow as Charles Dickens, reading a lengthy passage from the novel, recreating Dickens' own reading tours that played to packed houses. Don't miss it!

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.