Recensioni degli utenti

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.

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 is a fairly well-made version of an old chestnut. Casting and sets are up to BBC's usual high standards, just the music made me pause sometimes (sort of New Age klezmer). The story has a great flaw: the scenes in Mr. Brownlow's house are dull and uninspired, while the scenes in the orphanage and Fagin's hide-away are bursting with life. It's as if Dickens could only trust the criminal side of the story to be truthful. The lop-sided story is still very moving.

I liked Timothy Spall as Fagin very much; he went far to erase some faint memories of Alec Guinness in the part. Spall is more subtly Jewish than Guinness was. Sarah Lancashire is riotously funny, and quite vicious too, as Mrs. Corny. Julian Rhind-Tutt is appropriately villainous as Monks.

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.

Not the greatest production of Dickens' classic, let down in the main by mixed acting and an over-intrusive musical score at odds with the period in which the drama is set. The casting is unusual to say the least, in particular a coloured actress plays Nancy and although Sophie Okonedo acts well she doesn't quite carry off the novelty. Also Gregor Fisher is unconvincing as Mr Bumble, Edward Fox barely registers any emotion in his part and Tom Hardy as Bill Sykes fails to demonstrate the innate psychopathy, indeed the way the part is played, you almost feel the director is straying dangerously close to glamourising and thus garnering sympathy for what is, on the page a yobbish brute. The whole is dominated by Timothy Spall's take on the Fagin part. For me he grossly overacts in a very mannered way and repels this viewer with some slightly distasteful mannerisms. Better are Sarah Lancashire as Bumble's selfish scheming wife and Rob Brydon in a fine comic turn as a judge with attitude but against that, the child acting is very poor, they merely seem to read their lines, certainly no Jack Wild here and the only really imaginative scenes are those where the murdered Nancy's ghost haunts Sykes as he takes Oliver hostage on his escape to the country and back. This was a made for TV mini-series and it shows. A great story reduced in the re-telling.

A wonderful and very modern retelling of a classic story. Quirky and charming in equal measures, this particular take on Oliver Twist is a worthy watch indeed, and even riveting at times. If you happen to come across a copy in your local video shop, I will personally vouch for this title as money well spent.

Though just a miniseries, I and several friends of mine all agreed that this adaptation of the Charles Dickens' novel may well have stood itself in good stead on the big screen. Sharp and clever pacing makes sure the viewers attention is continually upheld and a bouncing, almost vaudevillian soundtrack is used to wonderful effect (note the fantastic opening credits). The portrayal of London's squalid tenements are vividly painted in their every frame; costume and make-up were very skillfully handled.

Performances, on the whole, lean towards sparkling. Timothy Spall stole the show in his portrayal of Fagin; Tom Hardy made a startling and utterly believable turn as Bill Sikes. The female roles were excellently cast - Sophie Okonedo shone as the ill-fated Nancy; Morven Christie played the character of Rose with grace and heart; and Sarah Lancashire, in the role of Mrs Corny, was quite frankly fantastic. William Miller handled the role of Oliver admirably, never overacting - his utterance of the infamous "Please, sir, I want some more" sets the tone of his performance from the start.

I would urge anyone who asked to seek this title out. If the mixed reviews have left you doubting, ignore them. Grab a copy and make up your own mind. Gritty, smart, stylish and poignant, Coky Giedroyc and Sarah Phelps have birthed a winner in their adaptation of Oliver Twist. A gem.

Ten out of Ten

Having many successful versions of this immortal Charles Dickens's book, the BBC made in for TV presented as series, the writer Sarah Phelps introduces some slight changes on the original story, as the black character as Nancy, also on Bill Sakes as a remorseful guy, the full length offer enables us know more hidden details if someone hadn't an opportunity to read the book, according Sara the book is too much complex at first reading, sometimes stuck and often hook you again, they made a good job indeed, nearest on the best previous adaptations, for me allowed me learn about the misbegotten Fagin which was splendidly personified by the bulky and remarkable actor Timothy Spall, a role at his size, here ushered more human than others early versions, introducing his religion's roots as true Jewish, revealing multiple layers from the odd Fagin, displaying his chatting with the black bird Ezekiel, funny and weird, the boy William Miller was perfectly cast to play Oliver and Adam Arnold as Artful Dodger staggered us with a haughty acting, Tom Hardy is another high point to share, he is bad as hell, however after his blood boils up hereupon making harshness, afterwards he recovers your mind softy, extraordinary adaptation from BBC that requires to everyone takes a look!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8

With this version, and having not read the original, I never realised the original story was ant-semitic, particularly when Fagin was being sentenced by the Judge, and in this version Fagin was called "fagin the Jew". I guess all the previous versions were censored or adapted as they are described.

I was more interested in the story than the acting, although I thought the mood was captured quite well. Edward Fox was fine as Mr. Brownlow, a previous review suggested he was cold but I suspect the actor was correct and portrayed his character according to the period, also this was a drama not a sing song version.

As far as I am aware this is the only version to include the references I have described earlier in any version whether TV or Movie.

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.

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.

Awesome version of a classic! Costumes, scenery, acting, all phenomenal. Very good production. Definitely the best version of Oliver Twist out there. Wish the same crew would make a version of all the Charles Dickens classics!

Huge fan of Dickens and the Oliver Twist novel. This version does it so much justice. Yes, it leaves a few things out to account for time, but nothing crucial to the plot of the story. Everyone is portrayed so beautifully, Rose's goodness, Nancy's bravery, Fagin's strange way of being kind and evil at the same time. The actors... my God. Just watch this. You won't regret it.

I liked this series a lot and would watch it again if repeated. The subtle update in characterisation was particularly effective.There were also many impressive performances from some equally well-known and new faces. A particular highlight was the brilliant performance by Connor Catchpole, who played Pearly, one of Fagin's boys. From the moment he appeared on screen in episode three he captured the essence of the character perfectly and projected a confidence befitting an actor of more senior years.

I would confidently conclude that Connor is a star in the making and is currently perfecting his talent at the Performing Arts Department of Bower Park School, Romford, Essex.

I got to know the importance of relation with people, seeing this movie. Oliver, the hero of this movie, I thought that he has beautiful heart truly. I angry that Fagin who made a good child like Oliver steal. The criminal put the blame on one of Oliver.

In the Orphanage in which Oliver was employed, there are not only a bad child. A woman called Nancy differs from everybody. Nancy protected Oliver in front of everybody. I regard Nancy having protected, for she would not want he to be deeply involve in crime Oliber wrong. I think that Nancy has learned theft since she was child, so she would like you to become like her.

In the middle stage, I expect that he is deeply involve in crime, but thanks to her help, he regained him. I thought it important to live obediently. I would live like Oliver to stick to own will to the end.

Okay, I know Dickens is a classic writer but the plot of his second novel was botched to blazes so I can quite understand why a new remake would want to edit out the major improbabilities, but it made up for what it lacked by an artfully constructed atmosphere of pervasive gloom and menace and by some truly memorable villains.

On the plus side, this adaption has a much smoother plot. On the minus what a heinous chunk of bowdlerised rubbish this production is. For example - why is Oliver sold, not bought as he is in the novel? Is that horror too much, of children available to the highest bidder? Why are the lovely visitengland.com cobbles so clean, not the stinking filth of the Victorian city? Fagin has conveniently placed two tier bunk beds in his lair for the boys to sleep in, (I've stayed in worse looking youth hostels), hardly the actions of a man and a gang hunted from hide-out to hide out as he is in the book.

What is the flipping point of getting in an actress with the chops of Sophie Okonedo if you are going to mutilate the part to nothing but noble suffering. Nancy was tough, she was a sneak, a player, a genuine conflicted woman in a bad place who could still brag "there's not many people besides me that could have got out of their way." She had the nous to drug Bill Sikes with laudanum... but here she's just a cipher. It's a sad waste of one of Dickens' few interesting female roles.

BTW, 19th century London was a lot more culturally diverse than some of the American reviewers here seem to believe: try google for "The London Committee for the relief of the Back Poor" of 1786 for examples. By 1838 many brothels (Dickens' Nancy was a prostitute) offered women billed as "dusky nefertitis" and suchlike.

But the worst character destruction must be that of Bill Sikes, formerly the murderous embodiment of brutalised evil, now well a dog loving softie who spends a night in a mill pond protecting Olivers safety and carries him back to London in his arms. The artful dodger complains when not sent on a job with him. The deal with Bill Sikes is you'd have to be mad to want to go on a job with him. He's supposed to be terrifying. Best left alone. Here he's just a misunderstood wus who threatens Fagin for being mean to his dog.

The Gothic horror has been bled from Monks' character too, now just a regular upper middle class slimeball, although it's slightly concerning to see the BBC, even in the midst of its very best family-friendly clean up job, keeps a birthmark as a proof that he's born evil.

All in all, a washed out, soul-less load of tripe. This adaption might give the story more sense, but it thoroughly loses its soul.

Her most outstanding merit is what we may call the perfect balance of evil in the film. Fagin is evil in his greed and mischief of goyim world Sykes is evil in his resentment which find its roots in his biography The judge is evil in his prejudices and arrogance. Mr. Brownlow is evil is his socially inherited ignorance of poverty and the very harsh conditions of the poor.

All characters are credible in our present day perspective. Coky Giederoyc is sensible, cultured, pityfull, and fair in the treatment of all characters and considers the context, the time, the beliefs of the era. True that she sacrifices some features of the original novel but this is done in benefit of the better understanding of this social novel. A 10 for this extraordinary director!!

So beloved are the Dickens novels that each new adaption of them sees fresh scrutiny. Everyone has an idea in their heads of how the characters should look/sound.

I thought this mini series was OK, without ever being great. There are good portrayals, and others where I felt too many liberties had been taken.

I liked Timothy Spall in his role of Fagin. He brought a fresh spin on it, that was engaging.

It was a hit and miss adaption for me though on the whole.

I have seen virtually all the versions of Oliver Twist. The 1985 BBC production is by far the most complete and faithful and makes the story make sense far better than any other version. It also has some perfect casting and is a really enjoyable production. Many will love the 1968 musical for the songs and the perfect Mr Bumble (Harry Secombe), and the 1948 David Lean version for the perfect Fagin (Alec Guinness). But the 1985 version is the definitive. This 2007 version was very watchable but at the end of the day it is way too short, cuts out way too much to do the story justice or allow it make sense, and is just pretty lacklustre. It looks nice but has no substance. Tom Hardy is the perfect personality for a guy like Bill Sykes, he is one of the few actors today who really lets loose of their darkness and brings it to their characters. But I think there have been better Bill's, even if he is the most believable menacing. Timothy Spall is a great actor but embarrassing as Fagin. If you didn't watch it at Christmas in 2007 when it was on when you were relaxing I think you can probably skip this version.

Even Though we Gen-Xers adore the 1968 Musical Film but this version is A-Ok for those who like spoken word instead of sung through.

Fagin is Also Sympathetic yet Concerned towards Oliver as well.