It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

This was a great film! The actors were born to play these roles, the characters suited them quite well. The costumes were splendid, and the setting really took the viewer back to the "Twist" times. Might I add that Marc Warren was quite good, award winning if you will. He played the role of Monks beautifully, and although he was a rough guy, you feel sorry for him. (Plus he's cute with out all the black!) Anywho, back to the movie! The movie also added more stuff that the book left out, and it wrapped up the lose ends. And I'm glad to say that there is a happy ending. I recommend buying the film from Amazon.com, I don't know if you can plug other sites here, but oh well. It's a 3 video set.

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.

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.

I would have given it a 10, if it weren't for the commercials. Despite that this was the most detailed rendition of Twist I've ever seen, my 11 and 7 year old children were also completely absorbed by it. Where did all these great actors and actresses come from? Julie Walters in a small but masterfully played part was the only one I ever heard of before. Yet all the characterizations were brilliant - especially, perhaps, that of the bad guys: Fagin, Bill Sykes, Mr. Bumble, and Edwin and Elizabeth Leerford. Nancy and Rose were riveting, too. Bravo!