With this version, and having not read the original, I never realised the original story was ant-semitic, particularly when Fagin was being sentenced by the Judge, and in this version Fagin was called "fagin the Jew". I guess all the previous versions were censored or adapted as they are described.I was more interested in the story than the acting, although I thought the mood was captured quite well. Edward Fox was fine as Mr. Brownlow, a previous review suggested he was cold but I suspect the actor was correct and portrayed his character according to the period, also this was a drama not a sing song version.As far as I am aware this is the only version to include the references I have described earlier in any version whether TV or Movie.

I feel sorry for anyone who makes his first acquaintance with Dickens' classic through this ill-conceived version that tampers irreparably with the original story.The first mistake was hiring a screenwriter best-known for work on a British soap to write the script. She felt obligated to make it more "hip" by inserting words and dialog that aren't appropriate to the time period, and by completely twisting parts of the plot and some of its main characters. For instance, the comic subplot of Bumble and Corny leaves out some of the best scenes, and instead "sexes up" the Widow Corny. And Oliver himself is changed from a lost innocent into a smart-mouthed punk. (PS - I know that Corny is spelled with an "e" but IMDb's spell- checker keeps changing it.)The casting doesn't help. Timothy Spall, who is wonderful in almost everything he does, never seems to settle in to the character of Fagin, and the make-up and hair artists make him look like an ugly fat woman most of the time. Nancy has changed color, Bill Sykes is nothing more than a yobbo, not the looming villain so well-portrayed by Oliver Reed in the musical version. Even the reliable Edward Fox turns in a two-dimensional performance as Brownlow.The music score is also horrendous, jumping from style to style but never anything remotely Victorian. (Electric guitar? Banjo? Steel drums?)I don't have a problem with making new versions of classics. I also don't have a problem with updating classics, as in WEST SIDE STORY or even Baz Luhrman's ROMEO + JULIET. But what we have in OLIVER TWIST is a warped classic, a hack's idea of making a great plot more palatable for the 21st-century audience. You can change the ambiance or the costumes, but don't give us a new story and claim it's a classic. This type of bilge is running rampant in current British productions (Wuthering Heights, Marple, etc.). Seek out an older version for something that resembles the original, or at least holds the original in high regard. The director and screenwriter for this production obviously see Dickens as raw material to be improved upon. The joke is on them.

I liked this series a lot and would watch it again if repeated. The subtle update in characterisation was particularly effective.There were also many impressive performances from some equally well-known and new faces. A particular highlight was the brilliant performance by Connor Catchpole, who played Pearly, one of Fagin's boys. From the moment he appeared on screen in episode three he captured the essence of the character perfectly and projected a confidence befitting an actor of more senior years.I would confidently conclude that Connor is a star in the making and is currently perfecting his talent at the Performing Arts Department of Bower Park School, Romford, Essex.

This was an enjoyable version that held my attention despite familiarity with the material. It was more detailed than most dramatisations. Timothy Spall was very good. I had some problems with it, however:* The music was intrusive. * Bill Sikes was well acted, but seemed, unless my eyes deceived me, to have perfectly plucked eyebrows. After so much effort was taken with makeup (especially teeth), this was strange. * Julian Rhind-Tutt was weak as Monks, and his hair seemed out of period. * Edward Fox has become a mannered caricature of himself.