A.O. Scott of the New York Times called it a "bracingly old-fashioned" film that "does not embalm its source with fussy reverence. Instead, with tact and enthusiasm, Mr. Polanski grabs hold of a great book and rediscovers its true and enduring vitality." He added, "The look of the movie . . . is consistent with its interpretation of Dickens's worldview, which could be plenty grim but which never succumbed to despair. There is just enough light, enough grace, enough beauty, to penetrate the gloom and suggest the possibility of redemption. The script . . . is at once efficient and ornate, capturing Dickens's narrative dexterity and his ear for the idioms of English speech." [2]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said the film "is visually exact and detailed without being too picturesque . . . The performances are more vivid and edgy than we might suspect; Kingsley's Fagin is infinitely more complex than in the usual versions." [3]

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle observed, "Roman Polanski, who was stranded in Paris without his parents during World War II, clearly understands the predicament of the title character . . . Personal experience doesn't cause the director to emphasize the biographical parallels, nor does it lead him into subjectivity or sentimentality. On the contrary, Polanski's firsthand knowledge that such things can really happen to a boy results in a grounded and unusually matter-of-fact adaptation . . . [He] does justice to Dickens' moral universe, in which the motives and worldview of even the worst people are made comprehensible." [4]

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone rated the film two out of four stars, calling it "drab and unfeeling" and "lacking the Polanski stamp." He thought, "As played by Barney Clark, Oliver seems bereft of personality. And Harry Eden as the Artful Dodger . . . lacks the comic spirit to animate the role." [5]

Todd McCarthy of Variety said, "Conventional, straightforward and very much within what used to be called the Tradition of Quality, this handsome film is a respectable literary adaptation but lacks dramatic urgency and intriguing undercurrents . . . Kingsley does a fine job, instilling Fagin with a certain feebleness and insecurity that make him more pathetic than hateful. Unfortunately, it's a level of performance unmatched by most of the other actors . . . Crucially, Barney Clark is disappointingly wan and unengaging in the title role, giving the film a hole in the middle; when he disappears for a spell in the latter-going, it's a bit of a relief." [6]

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly graded the film B+ and commented, "On the face of it, Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist . . . is in the tradition of every faithful Oliver Twist ever filmed — a photogenic, straightforward, CliffsNotes staging of Charles Dickens' harrowing story . . . Yet precisely because this is by Roman Polanski, it's irresistible to read his sorrowful and seemingly classical take, from a filmmaker known as much for the schisms in his personal history as for the lurches in his work, as something much more personal and poignant." [7]

Steve Persall of the St. Petersburg Times graded the film C+ and commented, "Polanski plays it safe, which is to say dutifully dull, by staging Dickens' tale of child abuse and class conflict in a fashion that hasn't changed much since David Lean's 1948 adaptation. Polanski simply has better costumers and carpenters than Lean to fake 19th century London's grimy side. This is a superior rendition of the same old thing but it's still the same old thing . . . Kingsley's grotesque, over-the-moon performance is embarrassing; cackling through latex wrinkles and false teeth probably misshapen from gnawing on the scenery . . . He makes Fagin little more than an eccentric foster grandfather rather than the wicked exploiter Dickens described. Ron Moody's musical take on the character in 1968's Oliver! seemed more dangerous. Alec Guinness' portrayal in Lean's version, reviled for its hammy nature in some circles, is almost subdued by comparison." [8]

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian called it "a decent, watchable film, not obviously more powerful or personal than a teatime-telly version. It is an adaptation with gusto and spirit, content to let the central story do the work, having had a thicket of minor characters and subplots chopped out. There are no great flourishes of cinematography, no novelties of interpretation or design other than to put Fagin closer to the centre of the story and make him a little more sympathetic . . . Polanski respectfully reproduces Dickens's combustible black-comic rage. But despite the pain and fear, the hangings and the beatings, there is always a nagging disquiet that what Polanski thinks he is giving us is basically a much-loved children's classic. He is directing a handsome repro edition . . . bound in celluloid calf and lightly sprinkled with the picturesque movie dust of Old London Town. His Oliver Twist does not flag or lose its way and it is always watchable, but the book's original power and force have not been rediscovered." [9]

Philip French of The Observer said, "Behind the opening and closing credits . . . are Gustave Doré's steel engravings of London and its inhabitants. They are elegant, appropriate and suitably atmospheric. What comes between them is much less satisfactory . . . In a generally disappointing, though by no means badly acted film, two brief performances stand out. As the outrageously peremptory and overbearing magistrate Mr Fang, Alun Armstrong is both funny and shocking, while Mark Strong combines comedy and menace as the dandyish burglar with the great name of Toby Crackit." [10]