This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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.

Oliver Twist is probably Dickens's best loved book. It has been well served by the movie and TV industry. This adaptation is my personal favourite, but in saying that I mean no disrespect to several other fine versions.I recently watched it almost back-to-back with Alan Bleasdale's revisionist 1999 version. It was fascinating to compare the very different approaches they took to the book.As I said in my review of the 1977 Nicholas Nickleby (you have read that, haven't you?), you can sometimes be too faithful to Dickens. That is relevant here, because Oliver Twist is one of his most preposterous stories.Oliver runs away to London. In a city of a million people he is immediately spotted by Monks (who has never seen him), his bitter enemy, and runs into the Artful Dodger.He is taken in by Fagin. On his very first pick-pocketing excursion, the very first victim is Mr Brownlow, who just happens to be deeply involved in the mystery of his birth. He is captured. Although he is apparently a thieving street urchin, Mr Brownlow takes him into his house as if he was a long-lost son.The very first time he ventures out of the house on his own, Oliver is spotted by Nancy and returned to Fagin.He is kept prisoner for weeks and then farmed out to Sikes to assist in a burglary. This second victim, Mrs Maylie, also happens to be deeply involved in the mystery of his birth. He is again captured. This thieving street urchin is embraced by a second character as a long-lost son. Is that boy lucky, or what?The whole book is a farrago of improbability and coincidence.Bleasdale tackles the issue head on. He retains all Dickens's improbable incidents but stitches them together in a much more plausible way. In his version, it is no coincidence that Monks spots Oliver; that he meets the Artful Dodger; that Mr Brownlow is his first victim; that he is recaptured when he is; that Mrs Maylie is the second victim; and that she too takes him in. From the beginning, Oliver is just a pawn in Monk's plot. Even Mr Brownlow's charity is made more reasonable. He is a philanthropist and it is not the first time he has done something like this.This is an interesting approach to the book, but for me it doesn't quite work. Bleasdale's detailed back story means that Oliver does not actually appear for over two hours and Monk's continual machinations in the background mean that Oliver is ultimately reduced to a bit-player in his own story.Alexander Baron, who wrote this version, takes a diametrically opposed approach to the book's absurdities. He just shrugs his shoulders and says: "That is the story Dickens wrote. That is the story people love. So be it!" He gives us a very faithful and very complete version of the book. It is good to see all the sub-plots and marginal characters, that are usually down-played or omitted altogether, given their full weight in the story (Noah Claypole, for example). The result is a great rendition of a classic story. Despite the ludicrousness of the plot it only confirms what a superb storyteller Dickens was. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.This series also benfits from a good Director, cast and Production Designer.Gareth Davies gets all the actors on the same wavelength so that the performances are all well-judged and consistent. Eric Porter's Fagin is as good as any and Michael Attwell's Sikes is probably the best I have seen. For once, I can see why Nancy might have been attracted to this thug.The juvenile cast are fine. The Rodska brothers are more than adequate and Oliver, in particular, is appealing without being too angelic. David Garlick's Artful Dodger is a real scene stealer.This follows through into the minor characters. We get their eccentricities without losing their reality. For example, Mr Grimwig gets to 'eat his head' an appropriate number of times, but Edward Burnham shows that he is fully aware of this potentially irritating verbal tic, so it never becomes tiresome. Similarly, Godfrey James's Mr Bumble manages to deliver his "the Law is a ass" without making it sound like a famous quotation. And so on.I doubt we will ever see a better acted Oliver Twist.Equally impressive is the production design by Michael Edwards. In a Dickens drama it is always tempting to overdo the squalor of the Victorian slums (David Lean probably did). It can leave the actors stranded in what looks like a series of Nineteenth Century engravings, rather than in real locations. This production gets it about right. The slums are suitably grubby and ramshackle but still plausible.The photography is also amazing. Most of this serial was shot on videotape but it has the visual texture and crisp editing that you usually only get with film. For once, the medium isn't the message.If you already have your own favourite Oliver Twist, but haven't seen this one yet - give it a try.You might just change your mind.

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!

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.