mae lipstik 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.

kateruggles 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

toxina90 Yes I understand this had a mixed bag of a reception. However, speaking as someone who hasn't read the book, I have an open mind towards this adaptation. I can say I was looking forward to it - having loved the BBC's amazing 'Bleak House'.Overall I think the story is well executed and Dicken's literature is treated with respect - but some people have pointed out differences from the book - which is a shame - yet I feel as a whole they didn't damage this too much.Performances overall are very strong. I loved Gregor Fisher from 'Rab. C Nesbitt' as Mr. Bumble, the lead role of Oliver was good too - his performance wasn't annoying surprisingly. Timothy Spall is ace as Fagin, I think the first to use an Eastern European accent (quite brilliantly) he has a warm presence, which makes him perfect to look after a group of orphans. Sophie Okonedo is simply brilliant as Nancy - a very subtle performance. Her demise for me - was quite upsetting. Edward Fox is brilliant as usual as Mr. Brownlow, and Julian Rhind-Tutt gives a startling performance as the dreaded 'Mr. Monks'. For me however out of them all, top marks have to go to Tom Hardy who brilliantly played the turbulent Bill Sykes. His presence is felt throughout - Hardy isn't over the top, and therefore his performance is all the more menacing. The cast in my opinion - is truly memorable - all are excellent.Finally I will talk about the setting and score. The slums of London are captured brilliantly - with bleak and bustling streets - gloomy workhouses and upper class residents are particularly effective in creating a realistic Victorian era London. The music is a big thing which has either impressed or repulsed. It has even been described as 'schizophrenic' by some. You could say this in that it sometimes comes across as a random and unpredictable cacophany - yet this for me was only a first impression. After a while I began to appreciate how and when the music was used - so overall I can say I liked the score very much - particularly the brilliant opening credits sequence where the main characters are sort of slide-showed, and the music is used well in moments of dramatic tension and character anguish. Hopefully the rather different use and approach to the score in a period drama - will be more seen as innovative as opposed to disruptive or unnecessary.My only bad point about this adaptation would really be the length. Indeed - it was timed for the BBC's build up to Christmas season - so we couldn't really expect more than a weeks coverage. With the first episode on Tuesday 18th December lasting an hour - the rest up until the finale on Saturday 22nd only lasted half an hour. This happened I think with the brilliant aforementioned 'Bleak House' but that mini-series had a lot more hour long episodes. I think this adaptation would have been that bit better if it had lasted perhaps two weeks. Then again - short and sweet might have been the best. I also think one of the top EastEnders writers penned this - and as much as I loved the script and pace of this great drama - I could still pick up a hint of the soap-ish quality - hence I gave it 9 instead of 10/10.Be that as it may - I simply loved this adaptation. I can't wait buy it on DVD - and highly recommend it. I hope it gets aired in the US soon - I know they love our period dramas. Even if the script or content or music or whatever is a letdown to adamant fans of Dicken's novel - I highly recommend this for the performances alone. Don't miss it!