StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Motompa Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

leplatypus Fugitive Polanski explained he made this movie for his children because he couldn't show them his other movies ! Well, as a adult, i found the movie depressive, gloom, sad and i would be a kid it would have surely left me terrified, upset ! For 2 hours, you watch a poor orphan suffering in his body, heart and mind and honestly there's nothing to enjoy ! I don't know the motive of Dickens too but it's not the first time I would be disappointed by such a gritty, acid writer ! Sure you will understand how English capitalist got their capital by spoiling ordinary families and make them die at work but there are other less difficult works to get it !

ShootingShark Oliver Twist, an orphan in Victorian times, runs away to London to seek his fortune, where he falls in with a gang of pickpockets led by the crooked Fagin. Oliver is caught by the police but rescued by Mr Brownlow, a kindly old man who takes pity on him, but Fagin and his cronies are keen to have Oliver back ...This adaptation of the beloved classic novel by Charles Dickens is a solid, entertaining picture throughout - well made, well acted, evocative and atmospheric. The dirty squalor of the backstreets Oliver finds himself trapped in are both beautiful and horrible, and the movie presents Victorian society realistically without over-emphasising the injustice and poverty. Best of all, it grasps the tone of the characters and their relationships just right; Oliver's warm-hearted pity for Fagin, Sykes' vicious distrust of everyone, Nancy's forlorn hope for a better life. Polanski exploits each character flaw and confrontational scene for maximum dramatic effect, but does so unobtrusively and quietly, giving the film a sense of tenderness amidst the harsh realities. The entire cast are excellent, with Kingsley and Foreman in the flashy key roles, but I particularly like Strong as the foppish accomplice, Toby Crackit. Perhaps most importantly for a period piece Polanski uses people who look the part; veteran British actress Liz Smith, who plays the old woman who rescues Oliver on the road, conveys more depth in one scene with just her face than some TV actors do in an entire career. There's nothing to criticise in this fine drama, except possibly the need for a new version of this story, since both the 1948 black-and-white David Lean version and the 1968 Lionel Bart musical version are outstanding (there are also at least five TV movie/miniseries adaptations). Polanski was well qualified to make it, given the horrors of his own childhood in the Krakow Ghetto, but if nothing else it's a terrific adaptation of a nineteenth-century classic for a twenty-first century audience. A British-Czech-French coproduction, shot in Prague and featuring a lovely string score by Rachel Portman.

TheLittleSongbird The 1948 David Lean film is a classic, that is well worth watching for the outstanding performance of Alec Guiness. This adaptation was very good indeed, but I do think it is inferior to the 1948 film.The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and the cinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portman was beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction is excellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it is fairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming and vulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and the other boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character's death was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were very well staged and perfectly captured on camera.However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess I was disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he just wasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily and manipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in his performance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness, it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, and evidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something was holding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn't quite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the 1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dog should've got it. I did like the fact that the film tried to be faithful to the spirit of the book, but it felt a little bloated at times.Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that I preferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.