I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Admirable film.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Okay, I know Dickens is a classic writer but the plot of his second novel was botched to blazes so I can quite understand why a new remake would want to edit out the major improbabilities, but it made up for what it lacked by an artfully constructed atmosphere of pervasive gloom and menace and by some truly memorable villains.On the plus side, this adaption has a much smoother plot. On the minus what a heinous chunk of bowdlerised rubbish this production is. For example - why is Oliver sold, not bought as he is in the novel? Is that horror too much, of children available to the highest bidder? Why are the lovely visitengland.com cobbles so clean, not the stinking filth of the Victorian city? Fagin has conveniently placed two tier bunk beds in his lair for the boys to sleep in, (I've stayed in worse looking youth hostels), hardly the actions of a man and a gang hunted from hide-out to hide out as he is in the book.What is the flipping point of getting in an actress with the chops of Sophie Okonedo if you are going to mutilate the part to nothing but noble suffering. Nancy was tough, she was a sneak, a player, a genuine conflicted woman in a bad place who could still brag "there's not many people besides me that could have got out of their way." She had the nous to drug Bill Sikes with laudanum... but here she's just a cipher. It's a sad waste of one of Dickens' few interesting female roles.BTW, 19th century London was a lot more culturally diverse than some of the American reviewers here seem to believe: try google for "The London Committee for the relief of the Back Poor" of 1786 for examples. By 1838 many brothels (Dickens' Nancy was a prostitute) offered women billed as "dusky nefertitis" and suchlike.But the worst character destruction must be that of Bill Sikes, formerly the murderous embodiment of brutalised evil, now well a dog loving softie who spends a night in a mill pond protecting Olivers safety and carries him back to London in his arms. The artful dodger complains when not sent on a job with him. The deal with Bill Sikes is you'd have to be mad to want to go on a job with him. He's supposed to be terrifying. Best left alone. Here he's just a misunderstood wus who threatens Fagin for being mean to his dog.The Gothic horror has been bled from Monks' character too, now just a regular upper middle class slimeball, although it's slightly concerning to see the BBC, even in the midst of its very best family-friendly clean up job, keeps a birthmark as a proof that he's born evil.All in all, a washed out, soul-less load of tripe. This adaption might give the story more sense, but it thoroughly loses its soul.

In terms of Dickens dramatisations on televisions, this 2007 dramatisation of "Oliver Twist" is not as good as 2005's "Bleak House" or 2008's "Little Dorritt", both of which were outstanding. In terms of adaptations of this complicated book, it has its downsides but is a solid one. My personal favourite version is the 1948 David Lean film, that had gorgeous cinematography, dramatic music, masterly story-telling, an outstanding Alec Guiness despite the admittedly over-sized nose and a genuinely frightening Robert Newton. This adaptation isn't as good as that version or the timeless 1968 musical, but I personally preferred it over the 1982 TV film with George C.Scott and Tim Curry, that had fine acting but hindered by some questionable plot changes and the 2005 Roman Polanski film, which was decent but bloated. The only one I haven't seen yet is the 1997 film with Elijah Wood, by all means I will give it a chance but I have been told it is one of the worst adaptations of the book.Back on target, the period detail is excellent here with realistic looking sets and well tailored costumes. I for one liked the score, the opening sequence is wonderful, but there are also some dramatic, haunting and beautiful parts when it needed to be. The direction is good especially with Nancy's ghost, the scripting was above decent (I didn't notice any soapish qualities about it) and the pace was good. Dickens's book is insightful but complex in characterisation, particularly with Fagin, there are changes here but the storytelling was not that bad I thought. The acting is mostly very good, William Miller gives Oliver a fair amount of innocence while giving him some steel too. Sophie Okenedo is a subtle Nancy, Gregor Fisher is a suitably grotesque Mr Bumble, Edward Fox is a fine Mr Brownlow and Julian Rhind-Tutt is startling as Monks. The best characterisation though was Tom Hardy as Bill Sikes. Sikes is a turbulent, big, burly and violent man and not only did Hardy meet all of these brilliantly, his interpretation was also emotionally complex.However, there were one or two disappointments. I may be the only one who was disappointed in Timothy Spall's Fagin. I have nothing personal against Spall, far from it, he is an exceptional actor, but Fagin is supposed to be in my opinion oily, vile and manipulative. Fagin here was more reminiscent of WormTail but with an accent and he was too passive. Away from the casting, the other flaw was the length, having been timed during the Christmas season the later part of the dramatisation felt rather stretched.Overall, this is a good dramatisation, not outstanding but worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.

A wonderful and very modern retelling of a classic story. Quirky and charming in equal measures, this particular take on Oliver Twist is a worthy watch indeed, and even riveting at times. If you happen to come across a copy in your local video shop, I will personally vouch for this title as money well spent.Though just a miniseries, I and several friends of mine all agreed that this adaptation of the Charles Dickens' novel may well have stood itself in good stead on the big screen. Sharp and clever pacing makes sure the viewers attention is continually upheld and a bouncing, almost vaudevillian soundtrack is used to wonderful effect (note the fantastic opening credits). The portrayal of London's squalid tenements are vividly painted in their every frame; costume and make-up were very skillfully handled.Performances, on the whole, lean towards sparkling. Timothy Spall stole the show in his portrayal of Fagin; Tom Hardy made a startling and utterly believable turn as Bill Sikes. The female roles were excellently cast - Sophie Okonedo shone as the ill-fated Nancy; Morven Christie played the character of Rose with grace and heart; and Sarah Lancashire, in the role of Mrs Corny, was quite frankly fantastic. William Miller handled the role of Oliver admirably, never overacting - his utterance of the infamous "Please, sir, I want some more" sets the tone of his performance from the start.I would urge anyone who asked to seek this title out. If the mixed reviews have left you doubting, ignore them. Grab a copy and make up your own mind. Gritty, smart, stylish and poignant, Coky Giedroyc and Sarah Phelps have birthed a winner in their adaptation of Oliver Twist. A gem.Ten out of Ten