london777 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.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU Twelve episodes again for this super-classic story, twelve stations on this way of the cross. That gives the director the time he needs to get down to details since he has three times more time than a normal film director. To see the twelve episodes in one go is also a great privilege because each episode is fresh in your memory when you move to the next. This dramatic suspense is essential in this story if you want to enjoy the social Deus Ex Machina used by Charles Dickens to make a bleak and sinister story into a fairy tale.The story is, at the time of Charles Dickens, about the monstrous social system and its social over-exploitation of orphans and the poor. It is the practice of municipal workhouses in which the poor and orphans are enslaved into doing simple tasks that are profitable for the businessmen for whom they are performed. Dying in that environment is a liberation.On the other hand, if you manage to evade that over-exploitation, you can find your freedom in the enterprising life of thieves organized in bands that are real businesses. The end will unavoidably be death by hanging, or if you are lucky forced labor in some distant colony, but you will have enjoyed your freedom during your short career as a thief.Dickens though always has another objective. After describing the worst social conditions possible in Victorian England, he manages to salvage his main characters, here two orphans, with some kind of artificial confession, birth certificates, medallions, etc., that provides these orphans with a pedigree that has no reason to blush or shrink away in front of the decent society of Queen Victoria who requires you to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth.This particular adaptation by the BBC does not frustrate your expectations that were great at the beginning. The villains are real villains. The do-gooders are real selfless souls, the values of society are enhanced and advocated as best. The chief-thief is de-semitized and reduced to what he is a thief leading children into crime. And the children are marvelously well directed. Oliver Twist is a darling that manages some rather cold and distant attitude in situations that would have made many more cry like wimps.Jacques COULARDEAU

terephiel First, I have to say that I'm very impressed with how close to the book this version is. Nearly every detail is exact, which will more than satisfy Dickens purists. This is the only version I know that even includes the other Maylies! Many performances are memorable, including Eric Porter's Fagin, Julian Firth's Noah Claypole, and Miriam Margoyles' Widow Corny. Godfrey James also plays the cruelest Mr. Bumble I've ever seen.Despite the many strengths, however, this version also has its flaws. Though few liberties were taken, they're quite obvious. The first and foremost is the portrayal of Oliver himself. Scott Funnell is a very adorable Oliver, nice looking and playing the character with the same angelic passiveness the character had in the book. Funnell is definitely my favorite Oliver, next to Sam Smith and John Howard Davies of course.In this version, Oliver's age has been drastically changed. Instead of leaving the baby farm on his ninth birthday, he's eight; when working for the Sowerberrys, he's thirteen as opposed to ten. I understand the whole child labor laws back then, but he's even older than the character was at the end of the book (twelve)! Ben Rodska bears absolutely no resemblance to Funnell or Lysette Anthony (who played both Agnes and Rose), and on top of that, is absolutely hideous. Last time I checked, Oliver wasn't red haired, freckled, and speaking in a Cockney accent like Dodger or Claypole would. I also don't believe Oliver would be drinking wine of his own free will, as he is when staying with Mr. Brownlow. If I remember correctly, the only time he did in the book was when he was being forced to rob the Maylies, and though he didn't want to drink it, Sikes and Crackit forced him.There's also the matter of the film quality. It's rather poor, though being from the eighties, it isn't all bad. Personally, I the film should have been shot like a movie, even though it's not one. As someone else has said before, if one were to remake this today with professional sets and the liberties removed, it'd be the greatest Oliver Twist adaptation of all time. All in all, this particular series wasn't half bad. Even so, despite their own liberties, Alan Bleasdale and David Lean's versions will always be my favorites.

scottfunnell 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.