harrytrue As far as I can tell, no version of "Oliver Twist" follows Dickens' novel faithfully. I think you should read the novel, and use your imagination to create your own story.There are a lot of differences in the movie. One is that Oliver Twist is aware shortly after he moves in with Fagin and his gang, that they are involved in stealing to survive (Fagin cites Robin Hood-a good example-Robin Hood can be considered a terrorist). Oliver has no problems with stealing to survive, unlike the novel.In the novel, as one email writer noted, Fagin is called "the Jew". Dickens noted that all the other villains in "Oliver Twist" (and his other novels) are gentiles. Also, Fagin is a secular Jew. Religion has no part in his life. Jews have not benefited from Fagin, who is a lot darker in the novel.Fagin is not the "nice" character that he is in "Oliver!", but a lot nicer than the character in the novel. In "Oliver Twist", Fagin sets up Sikes to kill Nancy (who dies for different reasons in the novel). Fagin hangs for this. In the movie, Sikes has all the blame. In this movie, Oliver (who is a calculating as Fagin) admits that had Fagin not taken him in, he would be dead now. A modern version is that the looters in New Orleans were often the first to bring food to the people. Oliver and Fagin hug and depart to their separate lives.

terraplane As we are all too aware, nothing nasty ever happens in the wonderful world of Disney.Why,then,did Disney try their dead hand at Charles Dickens great novel of social injustice,child abuse,crime and poverty? Do not watch this appallingly bad film which shares little with the book other than the name.At least Lionel Bart's 'Oliver!' had a couple of decent songs in it.

BadWebDiver This is almost a good version of the story. Alex Trench plays a sweet, innocent hero very nicely, while Richard Dreyfus throws himself into the role of Fagin with relish. And Elijah Wood really tries to make the Artful Dodger work. It seemed a perfect choice for him after his portrayal of Huckleberry Finn in THE ADVENTURES OF HUCK FINN, and I like the way he tries to get an authentic Cockney accent by doing a Cary Grant impression. The trouble is though he's way too old for this role here (at least compared to the book). If he'd played this immediately after Huck Finn, he would have been perfect. {Someone should really write an essay comparing and contrasting those two characters, it would be a really interesting assignment.)SPOILER WARNINGThe script really doesn't understand the story that well. I cannot imagine for one moment Oliver would even contemplate going back into the dreaded Workhouse after he's been thrown out - especially to retrieve a locket (which in the novel by the way, he's not even aware of). And the treatment of Mr Bumble as a bit part cameo is disgraceful. This hardly seems like the sort of person who would utter a memorable line like; "If the Law thinks that, then the Law is an Ass and a Bachelor - and God help the Law!"And the way that the Dodger and Oliver meet up, when the Dodge STOPS Oliver from stealing doesn't ring true at all. His explanation that it would attract too much attention from the Law sounds ridiculous. It would be much more beneficial for the pro thieves to let the the rank amateurs get caught and keep the Law happy, while the experts get away with it.And adults seem to forget that teens and pre-teens don't really see each other as equals. Most pre-teens find teenagers somewhat of a threat. And when you think about it, Oliver up to the point he goes to London thinks that kids are generally okay and trustworthy, while the older folks are an obvious menace. Which is why if say Nancy or Sykes or Fagin tried to grab Oliver off the street he'd be a lot more wary and terrified. He trusts the Dodger more because he sees the Dodger as an ally and a nice kid like himself - if shrewder to city living. (The fact that the Dodger is one of the most corrupt kids around is something Oliver couldn't possibly know).The script seems to ignore the basic theme of the story that Oliver has to get though this ordeal without a blemish to his character. If he is corrupted in any way whatsoever, he loses; because he is no better than the ones around him. (Of course this is more apparent in the novel where Monks wants him to be corrupted to gain the inheritance of their father).

ourumov I think that this is probably the worst version of Dicken's superb novel ever. I think people should definately give up on making new and "better" films of Oliver, as there are already enough terrible ones. In the first few scenes of being introduced to Fagin in this movie, all the characters pronounced his name wrong.. as if it were Fajin. I nearly burst into laughter at this, and even more so when gradually throughout the feature his name was changed to its correct sound.Overall, I think the entire movie was a schamozzle. It did not revolve much around the book AT ALL.