In the Internet Movie Database, there are more than 20 productions of the Dickens classic "Oliver Twist" -- films, TV movies, mini-series, the musical spin-off, etc. -- with the first film dated 1909.
Given this, why would director Roman Polanski want to bring his own version of something that's been done past death to the screen? Does he have some wild new insight or interpretation to offer? Is the orphan Oliver now a transvestite? Has the Artful Dodger gone spiritual? Will all the dialogue be spoken in Portuguese?
No, "Oliver Twist" as presented by Roman Polanski is pretty much the same as Oliver Twist presented by anyone else, except perhaps it's a bit duller.
Oliver himself (Barney Clark) is a distressingly blank fellow kicked about by circumstance. Oscar-winner Ben Kingsley gives a gnarled performance as boy-thief den-master Fagin, but it becomes more curious than compelling as the film slogs on. And while the movie does have that classic British, period-piece, streets-of-London, scruffy-versus-stuffy thing going on, so do any number of other far more interesting films.
It may be time to declare a moratorium on adapting Charles Dickens to film. His works changed the course of fiction writing, no question, and still stand as adorably epic children's tales. But has any production in the past decade of "A Christmas Carol," "Nicholas Nickleby," "Great Expectations" or whatever really added anything of interest?
Polanski's "Oliver Twist" certainly doesn't. It's efficient and thoroughly unmemorable.
If your kids have never heard the tale, you might take them to this movie, or you might rent any number of videos or you might -- shocking suggestion -- actually try reading it to them.
No matter what, don't be surprised if it's awfully familiar to them.