Own the rights?
16 out of 18 people found the following review useful: I Want Some More, 27 February 2004 Author: TemporaryOne-1 from Orlando, Florida, USA
This adaptation of Oliver Twist surpasses David Lean's spectacular version.Oliver Twist is dark, brutal, and gritty, and it truly depicts the The Slums Of London, the Filthly Slums as Dickens' himself experienced it.Alan Bleasdale penned the screenplay, and Oliver Twist was apparantly a labour of love for him. He had envisioned making Oliver Twist for his whole life, and finally sat down in 1997 to actualise his Twistian visions.The first installment is Bleasedale's own creation; the 2nd & 3rd are the core of Oliver's hard life. The violence depicted in the series is harsh - this is not the same Masterpiece Theatre that we grew up with. The Artful Dodger is a cruel rogue in this one. Nancy is a whipping post. Sikes is woman-beater. Mr. Bumble is a nasty gold-digger. Oliver is physically abused, starved, and even walled up briefly. This version features outstanding performances by Michael Kitchen, Robert Lindsay, Andy Serkis, Marc Warren, and Sam Smith, the young boy who plays Oliver. When Smith says, "I want some more", you get the chills.Serkis & Marc Warren give exemplory, BAFTA-worthy performances as their characters. Warren reaps the benefits of Bleasedale's writings. Edward Leeford/Monks was a shady character in the novel; Bleasedale developed Monks, giving him a history, and Warren externalizes that history with shocking, authentic realism.Thank you Alan Bleasedale, thank you PBS/BBC.
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful: What an eye-opener!, 24 October 2005 Author: Lew Graham from O'Sullivan Beach, South Australia
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?
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Excellent adaptation, 30 March 2000 Author: Bernie-56 from Melbourne, Australia
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.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Why change a great story?, 22 December 2003 Author: terraplane from London
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.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: I've seen better, 7 April 2000 Author: Stephanie K
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.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Hoots, 30 December 1999 Author: dennis-77 from St. Helens, UK
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.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Absolutely marvelous!, 13 June 2006 Author: farwesternsky from United States
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.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful: This is a truly inspired version of the classic Dickens story., 15 March 2000 Author: martinu-2 from Oxfordshire, England
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.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Marc Warren is hilarious, 16 March 2000 Author: boycem (boycem@tmpw.com.au) from Sydney, Australia
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.
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful: A new twist, 13 January 2000 Author: Buffy-78 from UK
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.
Add another review
