User reviews

The Oliver re-make cycle can stop now that we have this amazing version. I saw it when it first played on Itv back in 1999. After seeing the downfall that was Oliver Twist (2005) I made it my business to find this version so i was able to see an amazing, moving and thrilling story.This four part series is directed beautifully and magically enough it includes something that the Roman Polanski version forgot Emotion! The story of Oliver Twist runs on emotion and great characters! Through-out this version the audience are invited to follow and believe the story about the poor boy that asked for more. With great direction and performances (Julie Walters, Robert Lindsay, David Ross, Andy Serkis and Sam Smith as Oliver) along side stunning lighting and costume this mini series will provide high entertainment. If you were unimpressed by the Polanski version I highly recommend this one!

I am a huge fan of the book, and while there hasn't been a completely faithful adaptation, quite a few have captured the spirit and have been excellent on its own terms. David Lean's magnificent film is one, the 1968 musical is another and this one was also excellent. The book itself is magnificent, but I can also understand why there hasn't been a 100% faithful version. The story is very complicated and there are so many characters to flesh out so it needs a mini-series of this length to do justice. Lean's film did manage to do it justice because of Lean's usual masterly storytelling and the impeccable performances, and the musical had the wonderful music and Ron Moody.

Back to this 1999 mini-series, I cannot believe I haven't seen this before. Not only is it a solid adaptation but it is wonderful on its own terms even with its minor quibbles. It does take a few liberties, but Dickens' feel and spirit is there. The story is very well told, and the changes actually worked mostly because they were developed well. While there is the odd occasion where the odd bit of dialogue might jar with the period, the writing is very good, and the whole mini-series is beautifully directed consistently.

Also impressive are the period detail and music. The period detail is quite evocative, with the scenery and sets excellent and the costumes authentic. The photography was nice and fluid too. The music is beautifully composed, and did well to enhance the drama of every scene. The pace is not too fast or slow but comfortably in between. There are many effective scenes especially the I want some more scene and Nancy's death which is quite brutal. In fact, the only real disappointment is Sikes's death, the build up to it is quite intense but the actual death itself came across as rather goofy and rushed.

That said, the acting is wonderful. Julie Walters doesn't disappoint, while Alex Crowley is a spirited Dodger. Nancy is also made very vulnerable and quite heart-breaking, while Michael Kitchen(who I recognised immediately from Foyle's War) is a splendid Mr Brownlow. Sam Smith is good as Oliver, I loved his angelic face and the mutterings under his breath, but there were one or two scenes such as in the courtroom when you had to turn the volume up to hear what he was saying. Even better though was Marc Warren, who to me is the best Monks I've seen, it was a hilarious, poignant, creepy and altogether wonderful performance. Robert Lindsey is perfect as Fagin, very oily, vile, manipulative and grotesque with a great judgement of lines, while Andy Serkis's Sikes is brutal and genuinely frightening.

All in all, a solid and wonderful mini-series, and one of the better adaptations of the book. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I have just been watching this for a second time on cable TV here in Australia and I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time. Full marks to Robert Lindsay as Fagin...but what an eye-opener for me was Edward Leeford/Monks played by Marc Warren. I thought to myself, "Where has this guy been hiding?" but then looking at his profile on IMDb he has done - and is doing - so much work that I can't believe that I've only just noticed him. No-one has made this much of an impression on me since I was awakened to the talents of Tim Roth. Who will be the next brilliant actor - male or female - to come out of hiding and surprise us all?

Oliver Twist was on at the same time as another costume drama so we taped Oliver and the other one and also watched the other. It was dull, so the next week I watched Oliver Twist. I wish I had watched it from the start. It inspired me to read the book, although I wish I hadn't, I much prefer this version. The writer has changed much over it making it seem more vicious but more human as well. On the acting front it was hilarious, very nearly over the top and just right for a Dickens melodrama. The one character who I thought was fantastic was Monks, the actor who played him deserves a BAFTA or something. In the book he is a thoroughly nasty and boring character, in this he is nasty but interesting as well. I liked the way it looked, it was very grubby, and you could see why Oliver was liked by everybody, which was a bit different. The end episode is great and had me nearly in tears. A really good production.

I am a huge Dickens fan. I have read Oliver Twist, and have even written college papers on the novel. This movie is by far the best version of Oliver Twist ever made (this includes David Lean's movie, the Polanski version, and the musical). The casting is superb; Robert Lindsay (Fagin) is one of the best character actors I have ever seen, Michael Kitchen plays Mr. Brownlow to perfection, and Andy Serkis (Bill Sykes) brings out every ounce of Bill's brutal personality with excellent feel for the character. Yes, the movie necessarily takes what the novel originally revealed in the last pages (concerning Oliver's parentage and the mystery surrounding his birth) and more fully dramatizes it; this is the nature of the beast. Making movies about books is difficult enough, especially with Dickens' panache for complicated plots. But this version of the movie brings out every element of Dickens' story with taste and excellence. One of the best Dickens adaptations out there.

This is a truly inspired version of the classic Dickens story.

Alan Bleasdale has devised an explanation of the events which lead up to Oliver's mother arriving at the workhouse, and fleshes out minor characters such as Monks and Mrs Leeford.

Some characters stand out:

• Fagin is mesmerising when played as part-villain and part-magician: the final scenes in the condemned cell are powerful as well as surprisingly moving, even if some of Robert Lindsay's nervous tics are rather too reminiscent of his portrayal of Michael Murray in GBH!

• Michael Kitchen makes a perfect Mr Brownlow: his rather pompous Oxford-English accent is exactly as I imagined Mr Brownlow having read the novel.

• Andy Serkis is superbly cast as Bill Sikes - I cannot imagine a more terrifying and brutal portrayal.

• Marc Warren's portrayal of Monks makes this rather shadowy character come alive in a way that Dickens' description never could, even if the double-act between the domineering Mrs Leeford and the inept and epileptic Monks is comical and farcical at times.

A few minor details have been altered: the "crib at Chertsey", owned by Mrs Maylie and her daughter Rose, becomes Mr Brownlow's country residence, and Rose Maylie becomes Rose Fleming, Oliver Twist's aunt. However (in my opinion) these changes serve to bring together several unrelated threads of the novel and actually improve the story.

Some have taken Alan Beasdale to task for rewriting some aspects of the original Dickens story, but I think it was all for the best. It may not match the original story, but taken completely on its own it is nonetheless very compelling and captures the essence of the original well enough while adding some nice new elements.

This is a top notch production in every respect... writing, direction, acting, music, sets, costumes, etc. Robert Lindsay as Fagin is astounding among an absolutely terrific cast, with Sam Smith playing just the right light note as Oliver and Marc Warren a dutifully creepy Monks.

I've seen the whole thing twice now and enjoyed it even more the second time, with the six hours of it seeming to fly by. 10 out of 10

This was a great film! The actors were born to play these roles, the characters suited them quite well. The costumes were splendid, and the setting really took the viewer back to the "Twist" times. Might I add that Marc Warren was quite good, award winning if you will. He played the role of Monks beautifully, and although he was a rough guy, you feel sorry for him. (Plus he's cute with out all the black!) Anywho, back to the movie! The movie also added more stuff that the book left out, and it wrapped up the lose ends. And I'm glad to say that there is a happy ending. I recommend buying the film from Amazon.com, I don't know if you can plug other sites here, but oh well. It's a 3 video set.

I would have given it a 10, if it weren't for the commercials. Despite that this was the most detailed rendition of Twist I've ever seen, my 11 and 7 year old children were also completely absorbed by it. Where did all these great actors and actresses come from? Julie Walters in a small but masterfully played part was the only one I ever heard of before. Yet all the characterizations were brilliant - especially, perhaps, that of the bad guys: Fagin, Bill Sykes, Mr. Bumble, and Edwin and Elizabeth Leerford. Nancy and Rose were riveting, too. Bravo!

I have always loved this story - the hopeful theme, the excellent characters and Dickens' realistic and meticulous descriptions. So when this was aired, all my friends told me to watch it, because it was really good. So I did. And I enjoyed it. It didn't stick to the book too often, and Mr Bumble and Fagin weren't that Dickensian, but Monks was brilliant and there were some ingenious moments of direction. Then I watched the final episode, and was so disappointed. Someone else said they were almost in tears by the end. I was too - it was so poor. It was as though the scriptwriter skimmed through the book and made the rest up. It was rushed, especially during Sikes' escape, and as a result lacked any feeling to it. The only feeling was in the one place it shouldn't have been - Sikes. Dickens wrote him as an unfeeling, brutal character. If at any point he loved Nancy, he would never have said so, least of all to Fagin. That one line, "I loved her, Fagin" ruined everything the film had going for it. Unbeliveable. Which describes Fagin. Pathetic. Alec Guinness was so much better - he was realistic. As was Frances L. Sullivan. I don't think that guy who played Mr Bumble realised that the character was a poke of fun at the parish beadles. As well as the dodger... if Dickens wrote that he was around Oliver's age, do you think the dodger was MEANT to be around Oliver's age? On the other hand, as well as Monks' superb acting, Rose Maylie (sorry, Fleming) was pretty good, as was Nancy, except she didn't show any love for Bill. They must have got the two mixed up. I much prefer Lean's 1948 version. It may be abriged, but it's better than the expanded attempt at Dickens.

Surely Oliver Twist has been 'done to death' by now. It must be one of the popular standard novels for dramatisation; and nearly every fan of historical dramas must have seen several versions of it.

And now for something completely different. This version is a modern re-writing of the story and does not follow the novel closely. Or at least, it follows it very loosely. At the end of episode one Oliver has only just been born. And born in graphic detail -- rather more realistic than a midwifery video. Half the first episode is spent in Rome.

In this modern re-telling Oliver's antecedents are explained in detail: his parentage, his weak-willed father, his exploited mother, his evil, murderous mother and insane half-brother. How Agnes Fleming's portrait is found in Mr Brownlow's house is explained; the story of the locket is told in loving detail. And all this with the excellence in recreating the 19th century that only the British can muster.

If you are a purist who likes your Dickens to follow the book as closely as possible then this recreation may not be for you. I love Dickens but nevertheless found this version -- the story behind the story -- to be a marvellous, entertaining dramatisation.

The joy of creation is never altered by any circumstance. Being a 5 year old in a 5,000,000,000, year old world, certain phenomena cannot be overlooked. As one of the greater cultivations of the human race's picture production feats, Oliver Twist display a unique fondness to juvenile struggles. I here people say "Be Umbol"- ( A rough translation is Be Humble), yet there is no proper epitome of this doctrine. In other advices BE HUMBLE. Oliver twist does this. If he can you CAN too. This message/review is a testament to a worldly theory. And make sure....... DO NOT WRITE REVIEWS UNLESS CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH. Thank you---- Doug McLee Inc. (TM)(c)(R)

This version gives a new twist on the old story by taking what was a few lines in the book and expanding them over two hours. It's fairly successful, though I can't help thinking some students might think this is what the book is really about. Characters are introduced, changed or expanded, of which the most successful is probably Monks, and the least Agnes. This is not to say that the actors do not try their best.

Generally Bleasdale has retained Dickens dialogue but occasionally he adds his own. Whilst on the whole this works it sometimes jars and seems off-key, not because it is badly written but because it doesn't sound nineteenth century.

My only real complaint is that sometimes the settings don't really look like London, which makes the action difficult to place geographically. However the sets and costume look very good and the music is suitably atmospheric.

I understood that Mr. Bleasdale was a Dickens' director when, in GBH (1991), I saw an news hound being gored with the point of a gamp while he was peering through the slot of a letter box.

Here In Australia, where, according to the Leeford succubus, our natives are too plucky, we have only seen the first episode, and I should just like to agree with Mr. Underwood and the mysterious Dennis-77 that Mark Warren's performance as the scorbutic Edwin Leeford is exceptionally fine.

Apart from James Whale's Borris Karlof make up, it is a flawless piece of comic acting.

Thank you England for sending us Uriah Heap, Mr. Micawber, Abel Magwitch and Mark Warren.

This production suffers from two problems. The locations in Prague look exactly like..........locations in Prague. There are plenty of places in London and even Paris that have the right Victorian look. But Prague is cheaper. Secondly, if you making a mini series then there is enough screen time to really get into the detail of Dickens' book. So why get in scriptwriters that seem to think they are better writers than Dickens and allow them to change significant parts of the story, leave out whole chapters of perfectly valid storyline and finally change the whole Bill Sikes death scene? On the whole the acting was very good, Julie Walters and Robert Lindsay deserve a special mention.But ultimately this was very disappointing.

In some ways, it's good to see some of the subplots that have to be snipped for time in shorter renditions. Unfortunately, what remains is twisted Dickens. Dickens wrote for serial, and sometimes wrote himself into corners. He didn't plan Oliver Twist out from the start, so characters like "Monks" wormed into later installments to help iron out a conclusion. OLIVER TWIST the book is therefore not to be read or judged like a modern novel, but rather a sprawling (though not so sprawling as the nearly contemporary, episodic, and wonderful PICKWICK PAPERS) epic view of Oliver's world, where many extraneous activities take place. Unfortunately, the writers of this "Oliver Twist" have manipulated Dickens to try to tie together all the extraneous material. They've also done unforgivable things to the characters. The way the "Artful Dodger" picked Mr. Brownlow's pockets and the aftermath was shocking. Fagin, a wonderful character in all his many incarnations, has been transformed from a man who teaches boys to pick pockets to a magician of sorts, so he comes off more like a thwarted music hall prestidigitator than a corrupter of morals. And the end of Bill Sykes, as written here, is perverted. Some margin of liberty should be granted movie adaptations. Because of time constraints, and the fact that Dickens' wonderful language cannot be easily transferred to the screen. But this version takes too many liberties and warps too many characters. It's a shame, because it has a nice look to it, and Robert Lindsay, a fine actor, might've been a great Fagin. The worst part of the movie is the backstory. Dickens shoves all of the tale of Oliver's parentage into the final pages of his tale, and much that was inexplicable is there explained. These people have expanded upon that to make a full two-hour stand-alone episode! This not only gives a fraudulent view of how OLIVER TWIST the story is constructed, it undercuts what mystery the book possesses. If you want a solid (if truncated) version of the book, David Lean's 1948 adaptation is still powerful; for an even easier to digest version, the Oscar-winning musical has a true Dickensian look and the characters are all true (Ron Moody, Oliver Reed, and Harry Secombe being standouts) and several tuneful songs. If you want a version where Fagin comes out a figure of persecution, try the one where Fagin is portrayed by George C. Scott. If you're a Dickens purist, give this version a miss; if you never intend to read Dickens, or have tried and don't like Dickens, you might like this version after all.

I have seen most versions of Oliver. I found this difficult to come by in the UK. I had to find a DVD on ebay, which was in a cardboard sleeve that was given away with the Daily Mail in 1999. I will explain what is unique about this version (and was controversial to some).

It is split into 4 x 90 min episodes. The first episode is about the events that happened before Oliver was born. Events that aren't necessarily written in the novel, at least not in the beginning of the novel. But events that we learn about later in in the novel as Oliver comes to learn more about his family connections and his origins. This is something never done before in any version of Oliver. However, it is quite a clever way to structure things and really helps the audience make sense of the convoluted backstory that becomes important in the later stages of the story. Because Oliver is actually a very complicated novel. It is not simply: boy leaves workhouse and travels to London where he meets Fagin and Bill who ultimately receive poetic justice, as is the case in the 1968 musical. It is a much broader story about Oliver's young life and his coming to learn who he is and who his family is in the face of challenges from malevolent members of his family who are trying to exploit him (Monks etc) as well as difficult living circumstances and poverty and characters in London (Fagin etc). If you have only ever seen the 1968 version, which doesn't even feature Monks and cuts out much of the importance of the novel then you will have no clue what is happening in the first 90 minutes of this adaptation. So I can imagine there would have been many people who switched this version on in 1999 and would have been wondering how in the world this was anything to do with Oliver Twist. So in this sense it is a version for the purists, or at least those interested in the complete and proper story of Oliver Twist, the Parish Boy's Progress.

After the first episode, the story continues on as normal, but with some amendments. Some characters are amalgamated and storylines abridged. Therefore despite its best intentions with outlying the backstory at the beginning, it is much less clear and easy to follow as the definitive 1985 version. And overall, though I admit it is a clever way at laying the novel out, it just wasn't particularly enjoyable and tbh it dragged. The casting wasn't great and the production was missing a spark. It is not the most faithful, but one of the most faithful version of Oliver. But falls short on enjoyability.

Watch the 1985 BBC production for the definitive and complete version of Oliver Twist. Many will enjoy the 1968 version for the songs and perfect Mr Bumble (Harry Secombe). Fair enough, but it is not really Oliver Twist, only a romantic heavily abridged version. Some will remember Alec Guinness as the perfect Fagin in David Lean's 1948 version. Fair enough. But the 1985 version is the one. I wouldn't bother hunting this 1999 version out as it offers nothing the the 1985 doesn't do better, and it is far less enjoyable.

Oliver Twist is a journalist's novel. The principal character has only one real purpose- as a foil for a range of villainous or inadequate or officious or bungling adults. He barely utters a thousand words in the novel, in the film he is never silent. In this version, the novel has not merely been arranged - it has been totally re-written by someone who has completely missed Dicken's intention: to show us the effects of utilitarian government in late Georgian society. Instead of using the huge range of ideas and the profound commentary- a story which contains enough for several films, the writer rifles the ideas and tries to modernise the language, at once destroying the authority of Dickens' voice and destroying some of his most memorable effects. Dickens is not so far away from us that his language needs translation and most people are literate enough to follow his ideas and arguments. The issues of the novel are as relevant today as they were then - the abuses of authority, attitudes to the destitute, exploitation of the young. Instead, Brownlow shares his sitting room with his housekeeper and asks for 'a large brandy' as though in a saloon rather than his home - this is just sheer ignorance. Fagin is politically corrected - a circus conjurer rather than Dickens' child exploiter and murderer by proxy. Fagin is based on a real person. A real moderniser might have wanted to develop those aspects of Ikey Solomons that Dickens couldn't put in print in 1836. Meanwhile, the novel is trimmed so that characters who are dead before the novel opens are brought incompetently to life and occupy large chunks of time. There is soap-opera violence instead of the real thuggery of public hangings and casual murder. Unlike David Lean, this team seem to be unable to capture Dickens' burning indignation, his contempt for self-serving officialdom. The glaring parallel between the effects of the 'respectable gentlemen' of 'the board' and of the 'merry old gentleman', Fagin on unprotected and unwanted children is missed.

This film has no more relevance to Dickens work than the Lionel Bart musical - an excellent cast and a lot of money completely wasted!

I thought that this was quite a good take on the dickens classic apart some of the acting. Julie Walters as always amazing bUT some of the main characters were terrible espessialy oliver played by sam smith the casting was bad if he was the best child for the job he was awful he can not act to save his life i hope never to see him on screen or stage again but he was quite amusing he was so bad but apart from him it was good

This film is one of the best movies based on one of Dickens' novels that I have seen. (seen it 3 times, matter of fact - all 6 hours, not a minute wasted!!) Fortunately, the screenwriter chose to ignore the shallow, dull, and offensive novel and take his inspiration from Dickens' more carefully written works. Colorful, imaginitive, and painstakingly detailed, Rye's film truly brings Dickens' celebrated style to life.

The 1999 television miniseries has been heavily criticized for its free adaptation of Charles Dickens' story. I watched it with an open mind, but I'm afraid I must agree with the critics. Dickens would be turning in his grave if he saw it. Since all of Dickens' works are in the Public Domain, any writer is allowed to bastardize his stories without any consequence. Alan Bleasdale thought it would be interesting to create a completely absurd two-hour prologue to Oliver's birth, with characters that aren't even alluded to in the novel. No one is likable, or even fleshed out completely, and it's turned into a hackneyed melodrama that makes you reach for the fast-forward button more than once.

I really tried to give it a chance, especially since I have a soft spot in my heart for the 1968 musical (which obviously changed the tone). But plain and simple, it isn't a good adaptation. If you want to watch a story about an evil wife who kills her husband, then orders her brain-damaged son to kill her husband's mistress's unborn child so that she can be the sole beneficiary, chances are you have no desire to watch Oliver Twist. This "version" makes no sense. It isn't even very well made. It drags on far too long, the acting is one-dimensional, and attention to detail is missing. During one of the scenes with Oliver's mother, her bra strap is showing. There have been so many other adaptations (I've seen six), so just pick a different one to watch.