zombiefan89 There's a lot of hate going around saying it's not as good as the book, but really, movies never are! Having never read the book, I have no idea how the story was supposed to go, but I had seen Oliver and Company. I was very confused by this movie. From the start, it was very difficult to tell Olivier apart from the other boys when he was in the orphanage. Well, until he recited the famous line of asking for seconds, which it was Gruel, it probably only cost them $2 to feed the entire orphanage! So many questions came up over the course on the movie. Why he didn't just stay with that nice old woman he met on his way to London. It was obvious she wouldn't have minded him staying. Of course if he had not gone to London, it would have been a very dull movie. For that matter, why were those thieves so hell-bent on keeping Oliver? I much preferred the motivation in Oliver and Company, where they were innocently trying to rescue him. Moreover, why use Oliver to break into that rich man's house? Another more experienced boy would have been much better suited for the job. It's a very confusing movie.

kneiss1 This movie simply looks stunning. Set, costumes and camera-work create a beautiful atmosphere. Every actor does a perfect job and fits perfectly into their role. Especially Fagin (Ben Kingsley) has been impressive. He might have become immortal inside cinema history with this performance. All other actors/characters turned pale beside him. So if this movie is flawless, why didn't I give it 10 points? There are a few things that have been done great, but could have been done even better. For example the dog. The dog just didn't have the presence it should have been given. He didn't look scary, nor mystic. The symbolism barely worked in the movie. A better film score might have helped a lot. The music stayed too much in the background and was pretty much never moving. I also found that the first quarter of the movie was quite boring story-wise. But after that the story developed a lot and is totally stirring and interesting.I love dark movies, it's one of the reasons why I liked this movie a lot. It totally doesn't feel like a family movie. Cheerful situations are rare, colors are always dark. This movie might not be to the liking of children and can barely be called a family movie with its pessimistic tone, brutality and darkness.

beresfordjd How disappointed am I!! I like Roman Polanski's work usually-Just loved The Pianist, but this film is so bereft of emotion and atmosphere it could have been made by just about anyone. The costumes and sets are well done but do not look grubby enough for the period and the descriptions that Dickens gives. So many versions have been done so much better-given that Oliver! (the musical) managed to convey the atmosphere I find it hard to understand how Polanski could not manage it. No-one looks right or acts convincingly apart from Ben Kingsley. An actor would have to go a long way to top Robert Newton or Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes and the Bill Sykes in this is not up to it. It seems so true to the book and yet Monks and his motive is not part of it.It is a difficult story to tell with all the richness and characters that Charles Dickens supplies but RP should have tried- much harder.

Christopher Evans My summary may be a slightly harsh joke but this film was truly disappointing in a big way! I am a huge fan of dickens and Oliver Twist in particular, I am also a big fan of Polanski. To see this film, which for me is a failure in most departments, was quite a shock! Dickens' story is tremendous but is told badly in this film as it stresses the weaker aspects at the expense of more interesting parts. Maybe Polanski was trying to be different but that was a big mistake. Famous and much loved parts of the story are loved for a reason. The ending with Oliver visiting Fagin in prison, various small scenes along Oliver's journey to London or with subsidiary characters such as Bill Sikes' associate etc are shown in depth. They are dull and lack any impact. Stronger characters and parts of the plot are reduced to include this weaker material.The boys playing Oliver and Dodger are both charming and well acted but seem to not get fully utilised by the director who is on as poor form as I've seen. Kingsley as Fagin is a bit of a mess, miles away from Alec Guiness or Ron Moody's portrayals in classic film versions. Far worse is Bill Sikes who is not remotely charismatic and not scary either; totally unlike Oliver Reed and Robert Newton's earlier portrayals. The Bumbles were very disappointing as were other parts and I didn't get any emotional attachment to Nancy either. My overall feeling was of boredom in this overlong waste of great resources.