Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Dreadfully Boring

I may not be quite as gushing as the first review, but I do disagree respectfully with the negative reviewer. I found this animated adaptation to be surprisingly good, of the three animated adaptations- the other two being Burbank's version and The Adventures of Oliver Twist- this one is the best. Okay it is not in the same league as the 1948 David Lean and the 1968 musical Oliver!, but it is far better than the disappointing Elijah Wood version and the strange 1933 film that has only historical value going for it. Maybe some scenes are on the rushed side, and Fagin's voice lacks colour. But this is an animated adaptation that succeeds more than it fails. I will admit that I have seen better animation, though I will be unfair in listing any so I am not going to, but there is also far worse out there. It is still quite good though, what has been described as flat actually adds in terms of colour palette to the darker aspects of the story and the backgrounds are on the most part very handsome. The character designs are not as stiff as I thought they would be. I thought the music was lovely as well, the incidental music has a hauntingly beautiful edge and the songs are well-meaning and tuneful. Again there has been both better and worse. The dialogue is engaging and never feels corny, while there are several cute, dark and very emotional moments in the story and the characters still have the impact they ought to, even if Fagin has been more oily and manipulative in other adaptations. Even with the additional animal characters, who did serve a purpose to the story and didn't feel bizarre or out of place, there is evidence of fidelity to the source material, and considering how Dickens is notoriously difficult to adapt(even for mini-series with as much as 15 episodes) that is to be deserving of credit. The voice acting on the whole is good too. Overall, a laudable animated adaptation and a surprisingly good one too, considering how I was expecting to not like it very much. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I don't usually comment on movies here but since there is only one review up and it is so absolutely negative, I felt I had to respond. I saw this movie as a young child and have seen it many times since then and I have always loved it. It was my first introduction to the Oliver Twist story and I found it to be sweet and enchanting. I thought the animation was fine, quite good for the time, I certainly didn't find it 'flat' like the other reviewer said, I mean if he is comparing it to Disney masterpieces or Pixar, it certainly cant compete, but it certainly isn't a problem for you to enjoy the film.I also found it hysterical at times! There was a lot of laugh aloud moments for me, particularly the kitchen fight with the cooks and Oliver. Talk about slapstick comedy! The music is also very good. I enjoyed all the songs as well. It was sorta reminiscent of Charlotte's Web in terms of style, you know the cartoon they did with the spider and the pig back in the '70s as well. It was incredibly moving at times as well. I shed a tear especially near the end when one of the main characters dies. And I thought the frog that Oliver has as a pet was adorable! I think people can take things too seriously sometimes. The other reviewer was way off the mark. I certainly thought this was better than Madagascar which I just saw recently, which had a very weak story, and only so-so visuals if you ask me. This cartoon had Charles Dickens as a literary source and you can't get much better than that.

Warner Bros released this onto video as part of a very uneven collection of animated movies that ranged from the exquisite Watership Down to the stylized Hobbit, and the dissappointing Nutcracker. This is probably the worst in the series.Actually this has got to be the worst adaptation of Oliver Twist available from the many film, miniseries, and television adaptations that have been done. From the cheap, flat animation, to the tuneless songs and drab color palate - there is nothing to enjoy here. The voices (especially songs) frequently have harsh American accents in what is supposed to be London in the mid 1800's. What voices that do have accents are stereotypes with the possible excpetion of Davy Jones from the Monkees who has the right accent but for a singer can't seem to give anything at all with an already uninspired song. The storyline is partially faithfull to the book, but minus any interest or excitement. Bizarre touches such as giving Oliver a sachrine pet frog with a pink collar and a penchant for providing comedy bits at odd moments, and giving Fagan a pet vulture, bat, and crow to mug and misbehave when meaner story bits need attending, provide a strange counterpoint to what should be a very dark story. Oliver Twist isn't really a children's book and was written with an adult audience in mind. This attempt to turn it into Disneyesque Cinderella story is sachrine and uninspired. If you must look for a children's version of this story try the Coles Notes musical version Oliver! or the animated Oliver and Company (that inexplicably makes them all dogs, but still manages to entertain). Avoid this at all costs!

Two days ago I was leaving a video rental with three tapes on my hands when I saw this "Oliver Twist". I couldn't hold my curiosity once I really enjoyed the book written by Charles Dickens. I must confess I didn't expect very much of it, but after watching this good animation I concluded it's possible to make good adaptations of great novels in a light and simple way.my rate 7/10