Oliver Twist Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Oliver Twist (Clark) is an orphan, who is soon kicked out of the orphanage and thrown into a terrible home. The bad treatment Oliver receives, forces him to run off to London. Here, he is soon picked up by the Artful Dodger (Eden) and taken to Fagin (Kingsley). Fagin treats Oliver well, but is it the life Oliver really wants?
| Barney Clark | Oliver Twist |
| Jeremy Swift | Mr. Bumble |
| Ian McNeice | Mr. Limbkins |
| Richard Durden | Unkind Board Member |
| Timothy Bateson | Parson |
| Andy de la Tour | Workhouse Master |
| Laurie Athey | Workhouse Boy |
| Joseph Tremain | Hungry Boy |
| Peter Copley | Dining Hall Master |
| Andy Linden | Mr. Gamfield |
| John Nettleton | 1st Magistrate |
| Tony Noble | 2nd Magistrate |
| Michael Heath | Mr. Sowerberry |
| Roman Polanski |
7.00 out of 10 (5804 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good film, but inferior to the David Lean classic.
posted on 22 Aug 2009The 1948 David Lean film is a classic, that is well worth watching for the outstanding performance of Alec Guiness. This adaptation was very good indeed, but I do think it is inferior to the 1948 film.The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and the cinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portman was beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction is excellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it is fairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming and vulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and the other boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character's death was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were very well staged and perfectly captured on camera.However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess I was disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he just wasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily and manipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in his performance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness, it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, and evidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something was holding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn't quite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the 1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dog should've got it. I did like the fact that the film was faithful to the book, but it felt a little bloated at times.Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that I preferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Absolutely Perfect
posted on 20 Aug 2009Perfect, there is no better way to describe this wonderful production by Roman Polanski. This time honoured story by one of the world's greatest writers has been given excellent treatment by a fantastic director.First, the acting is quite good, not just as one would expect from Ben Kingsley (who out does himself as the scheming cantankerous Fagin), but from the child actors as well, most notably Barney Clark and Harry Eden (who play Twist and Dodger, respectively). Another notable aspect of the cast is they all speak with a thick 19th century British accent, and yet manage to be perfectly intelligible to the audience.As for the story, well, what can I say, it's Dickens! Some characters are of course cut from the book, and some plot points and elements are missing, but that is to be expected when a book is translated into a film. Despite the cuts, the movie is very faithful to the book, and one could hardly ask for a better translation of written medium to the visual.Despite wonderful acting and excellent story, my favourite part of this movie is definitely the visuals. The set and costume crew has done an amazing job of recreating the London in which Oliver lived. Every nuance of London, from the slums to the well to do areas has been very faithfully realized on screen. The squalor of the back alleys is almost palpable as the characters trod through the mud, and one is almost tempted to doff their hat when the scenery moves to the middle class homes.Overall, I can find very little to not praise about this movie, the only thing I can find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems a bit sparse in some areas, and perhaps a bit too repetitive. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of any genre.
Not at all as bad as the critics say it is
posted on 04 Aug 2009This movie may lack some faith to the novel, but only in better ways. A filmmaker's loyalty should be to the movie more than the book, anyway, lest the film turn into little more than a visual aid. They do that on made-for-the-BBC movies, but there's no need for it here.The most important plot change, and the best, is the removal of all those preposterous coincidences found in the book. While Dickens can be forgiven (these things were common in novels of the day) Polanski would not.But never mind all this. It is the fist movie in a long time that's based on a Georgian-Victorian-era British novel that has a life of its own. (...above comment about BBC...) Although there's hardly a quote in the movie that isn't also spoken verbatim in the book I didn't find myself drearily anticipating the next line. It looks better than any of the previously filmed versions; not just in costume and set design, either -- some scenes, especially the "game", are better choreographed than any part of the 1968 musical. The characters Barney and Toby seem less like they were in the novel and more like a live action Honest John and Kitty from "Pinocchio." The Artful Dodger is underused here, but the movie's real focus is on Fagin.This film is recommended to anyone, but the younger kids will probably get bored. (Show 'em the musical.)
A Visually Stunning but Emotionally Uninvolving Oliver Twist
posted on 27 Jul 2009Charles Dickens' famous story of the perseverance of the individual in the crumbling society of poverty in mid 19th century London has been scripted for film many times: the catalogue lists 19 versions and that doesn't include some films using the matrix of the story only. The results are variably successful: David Lean's 1948 version is brilliant, Renny Rey's 4 part mini series in 1999 was good, Tony Bill's TV film in 1999 had the flavor, the musical version 'Oliver!' was a resounding success, and even Jacob Tierney's 'Twist' from 2003 with the pickpockets as male hustlers had its magic moments. Now here comes Roman Polanski with yet another adaptation of the warhorse novel, and while there are many fine aspects of this version, there are many problems that seem to be overlooked.Polanski creates a visual masterpiece of England and especially London of 1850, opting for sepia and brown tones to give the dark film a sense of the muck and filth that were de rigueur in that time of dirt streets and horse drawn carriages. His sets do appear to be backstage constructions but they offer the right atmosphere. There are some fine actors involved, especially Ben Kingsley as one of the more successful Fagin interpreters. But somewhere along the line Polanski let the scenery and costumes take over and the screenplay and direction offer us the shell outline of the story but the fine actors are not given the opportunity to become fleshed out adequately to allow us to really care about them.At 130 minutes the film seems to drag and to lack attention to character development, but it is a visual treat. The ingredients are all here but somehow the cake didn't rise. As with Dickens' novel, Oliver Twist needs to tug at our hearts: this one just doesn't. Grady Harp
creates a matter-of-fact world in a postcard perfect image
posted on 07 Jul 2009Polanski's gloomily picturesque movie for children. For children? As much as the book was written about a child (and few) and works well as a children's story, it is definitely one for mature minds too. The movie is exactly that. As the basic story of a child trying to survive in the Big Bad World, it works. And as a piece of classic art - each finds something for himself - it works better. One of the most important things for me when I had walked away from the cinema was the feeling of complete satisfaction. Polanski creates a matter-of-fact world in a postcard perfect image but such that we are not "taken away" to that era, but simply there. With all the temptation that he may have, Polanski never once gets seduced by Burton or Gilliam. He wants to tell us a story, and no amount of grandeur (actor, sets, make-up or effect) wavers him even for a bit. Ben Kingsley, who initially is just him, becomes invisible from his second scene itself and all you see is the wonderfully wretched Fagin. (Here onwards I assume you are aware of the story) My favourite performance of the movie (and I shall retort to cliché: So many good ones to choose from) is Sykes. Jamie Foreman starts off as just another character, grows into a proper supporting part and then manifests into a real and nasty villain, Real being the keyword here. What makes him such a wonderful character is the believability endowed to him that a small fiend may go savagely worse, but still stay humanly evil. Needless to say, the performances and art is top-rate. What a great way to be introduced to Polanski!
A Nutshell Review: Oliver Twist
posted on 04 May 2009"Please sir, may I have some more?" Ah, the immortal line from Charles Dickens' classic, from the book Oliver Twist, telling the story of an orphaned boy, with sheer incredible luck and a melancholic, likable face. The book has been remade into movies countless of times, and this one is Roman Polanski's take.I haven't read the novel (yes, I heard gasps of horror) so I can't offer a scene for scene comparison. So perhaps you could shed some light on the short summary I'm about to give. The first 10 minutes will highlight the immortal line where Oliver is sent to a factory made up of orphaned boys. There, he gets sold to a coffin maker, where he makes his escape. Throughout his journeys, he meets up with many benefactors who assist him in one way or another. Some good, like Mr Brownlow, and some bad, like Fagin, who's the caretaker of a group of child pickpockets.And it is in London where Oliver was picked up by the Artful Dodger, and introduced to the rest of the crew led by Fagin. He learns the trade, but in a botched first attempt, gets sort of rescued by Mr Brownlow, and has his first taste of a decent life.However, the lowlifes are afraid of him squealing their whereabouts to the police, and hence, recapture Oliver and uses him to steal from Mr Brownlow. And of course I won't bore you with the details but suffice to say that the main villain of the show, Bill Sykes, an associate of Fagin, gets more screen time than Oliver himself towards the end.It's a lavish production, with big sets. The streets of Old London were beautifully created, and so was the soundtrack chugging so indiscreetly in the background. Ben Kingsley, as Fagin, disappears into his role behind the makeup - you'll hardly recognize him, and Barney Clark as Oliver seemed likable enough too, and provided enough emotions to punctuate the final scene.So for those, like me, who have not read the book, this should prove to be an invaluable 130 minute introduction to the real thing. Sure you can have more, by picking up the book.
A Moving Masterpiece From a Master of Cinema
posted on 24 Apr 2009When I first heard Roman Polanski was going to make Oliver Twist his next project, I found it curious. Why would he go from The Pianist in 2002, a harrowing, realistic account of Holocaust horrors, to Oliver Twist, something of an uplifting, child-friendly story, three years later? Did he just want to lighten up and take a breather? He says he wanted to make a film his children could relate to. This makes Oliver Twist, the film, seem more and more curious to me. Because Polanski's Oliver Twist is a very dark and very deep film.We all know the story – an orphan boy tries to escape a life of dreadful torment and winds up in a gang of young pickpockets, lead by a flamboyant old man named Fagin.Now, I have not read Charles Dickens' novel, so I cannot critique Oliver Twist as an adaptation. However, the film is so delicate and emotional that I feel it transcends any critiques on adaptation accuracy. This film is not a lighthearted fairy tale, but a beautiful drama crafted by an experienced master of cinema.First of all, Polanski has a gift for getting great performances out of his actors. The most striking performance in Twist is delivered by Ben Kingsley, whom Polanski extracted such a terrific performance from eleven years prior in Death and The Maiden. He exhibits such a charming and exuberant nature, you can't help but feel a certain fondness for him, no matter how sinister he may seem at times. He's just a lovable old man. Jamie Foreman does a great job as Bill Sykes, creating one of the most menacing and easily hate-able villains I've ever seen. Barney Clark does a pretty good job for a child actor. He's never irritating and quite convincing. The rest of the cast is fairly strong all around, as well.I could go on and on about how Oliver Twist is masterfully lit and how well the cinematography works, but it rises above technical critiques. I felt such a consistently overwhelming string of emotions while viewing it that I find it difficult to compose this review. The film made me feel uplifted and hopeful before devastating me with disappointment, and then did it all again and again and again, and that, to me, is a remarkable feat. (On a side note, I would also like to add that this is all underscored wonderfully by Rachel Portman's excellent score.) And this is just one way that Polanski is a true master of cinematic perspective. The viewer experiences every emotion that Oliver experiences, and Polanski does it not through gimmicks or manipulation, but through what is shown and not shown. When Oliver is torn away from what could prove to be a loving household, which he has never experienced, he is left with a terrible feeling of guilt and fear. Fear not of what is going to happen to him, but of what his wonderful almost-parents would think of him. The viewer never sees their reaction, but is left with an unbearable sense of not knowing. It's like a punch to the gut, and it hurts.In a lot of ways, Oliver Twist is a surprisingly logical progression from The Pianist. Both are films that examine the best and worst elements of humanity, and ultimately portray a message of hope. While The Pianist used the real-life horror of The Holocaust to convey this, Oliver Twist uses a fictional 19th Century England. Polanski uses moments of horrible cruelty (including a particularly hard to watch scene of incredibly brutal violence) and moments of nearly inexplicable kindness and decency to create a poignant tapestry of humanity and all that it is capable of. He even does it, at times, with a simple juxtaposition of imagery.Oliver Twist is a gorgeous, moving, and enlightened masterpiece from a seasoned director who knows exactly what he wants and how to achieve it. Roman Polanski is one of the true masters of the motion picture, and if Oliver Twist does prove to be his last film, it is an unexpectedly strong note to go out on.
Underwhelming
posted on 24 Apr 2009The story is told competently, but also blandly. There's no major surprises (pleasant or otherwise) and little about the movie is remarkable.Ben Kinsley did an excellent job. But other performances are good but not eye-catching. At times the movie feels hasty and mechanical -- it moves along rather smoothly, but at the same time the briefness of the coldness and warmth expressed in each scene leaves the audience rather underwhelmed.Some bright spots: Great props -- the imitation of the Victorian London was impressive. Loyalty to the original source -- the plot stuck closely to the novel with little melodramatic additions and few omissions.
Solid but with little originality
posted on 20 Apr 2009I couldn't help getting a feeling of déjà vu whilst watching this film. Maybe, it was because I know the book well, and because the film often mimicked techniques used in earlier versions. I expected more from Polanski, having been marvelled by his adaption of Tess of the Durbevilles. So, on the whole I was a little bored and quite disappointed. The performances were up to scratch and the scenario, whilst taking some liberties, did do justice to Dickens' story. Perhaps, if anything it was all too clean. Surely, a master like Polanski could have done more to reflect the actual squalor so vivid in Dickens' own descriptions.
Here is Polaski, Here is Dickens, Here is Oliver...
posted on 14 Apr 2009When I first heard Polanski is adapting Oliver Twist as a movie, I went to the store and grabbed a copy of the Dickens original novel, as I had not read it. I was preparing myself for this treat from Polanski as he is one of my favorite among the working directors across the globe. When I started with the movie, I was having a feeling that Polanski is skipping a lot as compared to the novel but once I finished, I really liked this version of the classic tale of the wretched orphan boy called Oliver. Polanski is loyal to Dickens story and the movie is well groomed and moving.All three, Polanski, Dickens and Oliver himself share many experiences in common. As Dickens was left almost alone at the age of 12, and had to find a job in a boot making factory to make a living, Polanski was separated from his parents at the age of 12 during the holocaust, and both might have faced situations grief, loneliness and starvation similar to those faced by Oliver. Both might have experienced ill-treatment and benevolence from fellow beings, and both rose to prosperity surpassing the ill fate to which they were subjected, and I think that may the reason for Polanski to attempt on this novel.Ronald Harwood's screenplay, though it excludes some of the details, is proficient enough, as it created much of the situations and characters of the novel adequately. It's my feeling that books, when made into a movie, fail most of the time to reach the audiences, but it does not happen here. Ben Kingsley's Fagin, necessary to say, is fantastic. In the scene prior to the last when Oliver asks Fagin to pray with him, Oliver says, "You were kind to me", in addition to what the novel says. This one line gives a whole new dimension to the character Fagin and makes it more complex. I think this is the point of this new adaptation. Much of the details of the old London are painfully recreated, and the cinematography, even though not picturesque, is magnificent. This movie as a whole was a fantastic treat and I give a rating of 8/10.
Polanski does cinema TV
posted on 08 Apr 2009How can you not disappointed when the director behind Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby makes such a mediocre version of the classic Oliver Twist. There's little ambition, little will to actually go beyond the art direction, and make this a classic in its own right, and not just because it is based on the classic novel. The photography is lazy; too many mid-shots, the frames are too comprised: if Polanski was trying to depict a hopeless position which is that of the main character, he does not convey it well, because we are not frustrated at the way Oliver is being treated, but at the way we are not permitted to see what is beyond him.Towards the end, Polanski must have felt he needed to do something to explain his will to film such a child-friendly story, so he decides to let darkness fall, so as to only be able to see a quarter of the movie. The ending is a let down. It's not very exciting, and not built well...the people we are supposed to hate become nice guys, apart from Bill, who right at the last minute becomes a good guy, because he dies when he hears his dog bark, and he realises he has forgotten his best friend (although he tries to kill him only a few minutes earlier).Not executed well, but this does not destroy what Polanski created in a whole career. Ben Kingsley is perhaps the best thing in the film, with his mad, kind but at the same time dark thief lord character, but he too becomes pantomimical in the end when he turns crazy. And for goodness sake, why are there always those ten minutes too much in every film after the seventies? WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Oliver asks if he can have some more, and the people around you nod, intellectually looking as if "they knew this bit well".
I loved Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist
posted on 19 Feb 2009Even though most film adaptations of novels can never totally capture the essence of a story the way the original author of the book does, Roman Polanski's film adaptation of "Oliver Twist" does not disappoint. The casting of all of the key characters was excellent, especially for Oliver, Fagin and Sikes. The costumes, scenery, and in particular the scenes of the crowded streets of 19th Century London, were all in my view, the way Dickens vividly described in the book. In fact, my overall criteria for evaluating this film is answering this one question - how well does this film tell the story as vividly and accurately as Dickens would have wanted it to be told? Polanski nailed it. There was not anything left out to the point of taking away from the intent of the original author. I recommend this film to anyone who loves Charles Dickens, as well as others who are not familiar, but who would be interested in learning more about his works.
Lean (1948) version better
posted on 09 Feb 2009Doesn't hold up to the Lean version. There's a reason why Lawrence of Arabia is considered one of the greatest films ever because it was directed by David Lean one of the movies' true artists. That's not to say Polanski isn't an artist but its pretty hard to beat the (1948) David Lean version of this film.First of all it's filmed in a gritty black and white, which if you ever seen pictures of the real London in the 1830's, looks very similar to the city Dickens inhabited. The new version has some excellent photography particularly the countryside but the older version is somehow more haunting and real.Sometimes black and white photography is a better choice.Think of Citizen Kane in colour .The acting in the older film, all the casting, is far superior in the Lean version- with the possible exception of Ben Kingsly as Fagin. Also the Polanski version has the strongest Oliver yet. I know for some that may be hard to believe.Fagin is a great character for any actor to tackle and Kingsley does a great job particularly in the early scenes with Oliver. Kingsley's Fagin is more sympathetic than Alec Guiness' (1948) but Guiness was equally memorable in the role both charming and bizarrely menacing at the same time. I really like the woman who played Nancy in the new version, I don't remember the name of the actress, she seemed genuine and very beautiful and there was a strong suggestion of her being a prostitute which the older films didn't show. It seems the most logical choice of profession for a young woman living in the London slums in the 1830's , the novel's setting. The Bill Sykes portrayed in this version doesn't hold a candle to either Oliver Reed - in the 1968 musical or Robert Newton (1948). Both these actors conveyed much more dark violence and realism in the role of a thief right on the knife's edge. Also Francis L. Sullivan is a much superior,loud mouthed , comic , Mr. Bumble.Polanski's Oliver Twist will appeal to people who have not seen the classic Lean version but that's okay Polanski does a reasonably good job of telling the story it's just that it feels like a Masterpiece Theatre version of the story instead of the real thing.
a rare treat
posted on 05 Feb 2009A totally engrossing cinematic experience. The film is brimming with magnificent performances - among them, Sir Ben Kingsley as a pitiable Fagin, a pitch-perfect Barney Clark as Oliver, Jamie Foreman as a terrifying Bill Sykes. The viewer is transported into another world as the production stunningly re-creates the Victorian era in all its grime...and fussiness too. AO Scott in the NY Times put it succinctly when he says of the film, ""Oliver Twist" 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." Highly recommend!
Where's the Polanski Twist on "Twist?"
posted on 03 Feb 2009The set designs, costuming, cinematography, and all British casting of Roman Polanski's ultra-faithful adaptation of Dicken's oft told tale are so finely detailed and etched onto film that its almost surreal. Perhaps it is in this modern master's attention to detail where we find his twist on "Oliver Twist." I was one of the people hoping Polanski was going to take this tale to dark and dangerous places it had never been before. One way or another we all knew this story, either from the book, the David Lean film version, or the iconic musical from the 1960's. It needed a new twist, and Polanski did something no one ever expected. His twisting of the tale was so subtle, that he forces the viewer to pay attention to both the physical and thematic details to save themselves from boredom. It's a bold and dangerous game for a director to play in this day and age.Polanski does a fine job capturing the sense of humor and social commentary on Victorian London Dickens always bestowed upon his audience in the first half while showing the tiny bits of humanity in each character as Oliver passively survives one tragedy after another. In an almost maddening attempt to keep the film clean enough for children, Polanski is forced to keep the menace and heartbreak in the later half of the tale dressed in beautiful dark lighting and hyper-intelligent camera angles. All of the violence is kept off screen, and Nancy's murder is especially well done with an exquisite tastefulness and only one artistically simple shot of blood in a doorway upon her friend discovering her body. The moonlit rooftop finale with young Oliver and the villainous Bill Sykes is photographed so well that it detracts you from the fact that there is a complete lack of suspense because you already know how it's all going to end.This may not be the sick twist Polanski fan's had hoped for, but it's an interesting and fascinating to watch twist none the less.
a couple of liabilities aside, this is a splendid, simple-yet-complex Dickens rendering
posted on 18 Jan 2009Roman Polanski has said he made Oliver Twist, following The Pianist, as something for his kids. It should be argued, however, that an auteur he has to put himself in the film as well, that something inherent to him comes out either through technique or the story and themes of the characters. It's in fact very fitting that it comes right after The Pianist because it is (and you can see more details in the likes of Ebert's review) closer to the spirit of Polanski's experience during the Holocaust than the Pianist was. With his most recent works he's crafted personal stories of survival in squalor and devastation, while also retaining and honoring the power of the stories themselves. And with Oliver Twist, his basic task is not to get too much in the way of Dickens, which he and Harwood (mostly) do to a favorable extent.It's like a classic fable from millenia ago, but with the "twist" of torrid urban melodrama, scathing barbs on class struggle and the oppression of children and, even, the criminals of London. Oliver (Barney Clark) escapes from a bad chimney-sweeper stepfather following a stint at a workhouse, walks 70 miles to London, and exhausted and with bad feet is taken in by the "artful dodger" and his quasi father figure: Fagin (Ben Kingsley, a natural for a character archetypal with little subtle moments in the big expressions), a pickpocketer who teaches his little minions how to pickpocket for him. There's also a girl, Nancy, and a really bad guy in Sykes (Jamie Foreman, perfectly vicious when he needs to), and these make up the story as unfolds for little Oliver - not to mention another surrogate father in Mr. Brownlow. Like pieces to a precise form, Oliver Twist pits these characters in a story of conscience in a world gone to the dogs, and where justice is always solved with a hanging.While (according to those who have read the book, which unfortunately I have not) the movie strays from the book in the second half, it doesn't really feel compromised in Polanski's hands. He keeps to a spirit of darkness but also fresh humor that comes naturally out of Dickens's world. I loved a little but pivotal scene where Oliver is accused of pickpocketing a man outside the bookstore, and his name is taken as "Sam Waters" instead of "some water" in his state. And beneath the grime and grit of the production design there is, as compliment to Polanski's original intent, appeal for (not quite young) kids who can take in and identify with the hero's struggle to find himself as a complete outsider and loner. Beneath the side of the story that (obviously) contains statements about London's tragedies and the little notes of crime in the underworld with the likes of Sykes, Oliver Twist strikes best when it's an emotional tale, with those who come close to Oliver as really strong figures of strength (hence the final scene with Oliver and Fagin being one of the best in any Polanski film).There are little squabbles to be had with such a huge and sprawling production, but not many. If one stands out it's the musical score by Rachel Portman, which feels a little too conventional and even bland for the material. And once or twice the sweeping camera movements and the digital effects make it feel like a whole new, strange Polanski from the one who used immediate close-ups and controlled hand-held camera movements in the 60s and 70s. But for him to have such good control as he does of the production displays his versatility; he can direct usually just as strongly as he can around mid 19th century London as he could war-torn Poland. His Olver Twist has technical proficiency and the stuff of handsome epics, but it also has (not always sentimental) hear to it, and a personal connection that elevates it.
A Long Visual Feast of Detail of a Hard Knock Life
posted on 18 Jan 2009For the first half of this "Oliver Twist" I thought that Roman Polanski had chosen to do yet another version of the Dickens tale because kids today tend not to watch black and white films so won't see David Lean's classic and a movie provides a Cliffnotes take on a plot for kids with short attention spans so get restless with the mini-series adaptations that have captured the story more fully.This first half has wonderful character actors with distinctive faces that match Dickens's names and colorful descriptions as bureaucrats and hypocrites are humorously pilloried. The settings are well established from the dark, dank work house setting for that classic line - "More sir" -- to the endless pastoral road to London. The vignette at the undertakers' and the mournful boy parade are also charming. This opening section is very effectively from a child's view point. Throughout the film, the background mattes are the most beautiful that I've seen in films in years and the sets are filled with details.But things got confusing once the lad arrives in London, though the market scene and the trek through the slum look great. The child actors (including Polanski's children) are pleasant, and have excellent middle class diction which, while that makes them understandable to an American audience, is not too believable. As a family, they all seem too much like the cheerful group out of the musical version than the novel. Amusing that the credits included pickpocket consultants. Harry Eden seems to be too young to be the Artful Dodger but he's nicely insouciant, if a bit bland.Ben Kingsley's Fagin is problematical, but not in the usual way. He's virtually completely de-Judaicized until, jarringly, near the end, but he just doesn't seem threatening enough. Perhaps making him more sympathetic is to make him more complex. But his switch to toadying to Bill Sykes isn't a sharp enough pecking-order turn. As the punishments he gives aren't as bad as those in the work house, he certainly seems more benevolent than the philanthropists. On top of that, as the film goes along and the plot complicates, it gets harder and harder to understand what he's saying, particularly for a neophyte to the story if a kid has stuck it out this long. Maybe Fagin was softened to hype Bill Sykes's villainy, as if Rachel Portman's Snidely Whiplash theme music wasn't cue enough (the weakest part of her otherwise entertainingly programmatic score). Jamie Foreman seems older than the usual Sykes, which does add to the queasy unambiguity of his brutal relationship with an unusually zaftig Nancy, as we see her go from confident tart to trembling abused partner trying to do the right thing. The film drags when Bill and Fagin plot revenge on Oliver's benefactor and I doubt a kid would follow the ins and outs of their unintelligible conversations but will look for the emotional clues from the actors and the music. At this point, Polanski's eye takes over, particularly from the most violent act on. The gorgeous cinematography in the last quarter of the film carries the story. The scenes of fog and chases through London are lovely. The climactic run down of the villain recalls classic scenes from "Frankenstein" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" with lanterns and moonlight highlighting dark doings. The unflinching violence is dramatic, but I've seen so many kids at puerile violent movies lately this emotionally contextual, silhouetted reality should be handleable by kids. We appropriately blink when Oliver comes out in the sunshine.Polanski persists through the coda of a confrontation between Fagin and Oliver that raises complicated moral issues about guilt, punishment, forgiveness and hypocrisy that no kid will follow.Polanski doing this Dickens is like a singer choosing a standard to cover, as he draws out those shadings and interpretations that are important to him
boring, lackluster, and dull
posted on 02 Jan 2009I'm amazed at the the number of positive comments, as well as their enthusiasm and length, since I found this production to have little to recommend it. Some good (and some great) actors, yes -- but no stellar performances here. The main character was a stoic lad with about as wooden a face as I've encountered in film. The story was told, embellishments were eschewed -- but there was, in my opinion, no life to the film. It was no better than one of the worst Masterpiece Theatre productions (and they've gotten very pedestrian), and much less entertaining, less well written, less well acted than the best of those shows. All in all, I thought it a superficial retelling with lackluster performances.
Absolutely amazing
posted on 17 Dec 2008I went to watch this film with absolutely no hope, however,i came out incredibly surprised.The sets were wonderful and managed to portray the period in history very well. Then, the acting was superb, especially from the children. The boy who plays Artful Dodger is amazing and gives a performance which basically surpasses in quality all of the others.Lastly, it keeps to the actual story of the book which is always better than just using the basic outlines. The only thing that ruined it was the end which came too quickly and left me in doubt of what exactly had happened to everyone and whether or not the boys had died or been hung.
Well made but not Dickens' "Oliver Twist"
posted on 30 Aug 2009The movie, as is usual for Polanski, is an epitome of good cinematography and performance. The Victorian age was recreated to near-perfection. However, the fact that the most intriguing part of the story was removed (either to fit duration or epoch) was rather disappointing. This removal made the movie very atypical of Dickens' work, where one always tends to find different characters tying up into one knot in the end. Here nothing such really happens.Also some of the characters were developed as comical rather than serious - Monk and Bill Sikes being two of them. These were obviously up to the director's interpretation but are things worth noting. If you have not read the book, you should go watch the movie - you'll enjoy it. If you have read the book, I'll leave it to your discretion!