Mike S

(2012-04-29 01:54:53)

Mr. Oliver

I have no idea what motivated me to go see this movie (by myself none the less) but there was something in it that made me go. But to my surprise this is no happy movie. It must be the darkest movie I have ever seen. Some surprises, like watching a guy point a gun to a boys face. Watch a girl get beaten to death, and see a guy hang himself....but other than that its all good. The music is EXCELLENT, its dark and very nice to listen to. The acting is also very good. One small thing I caught was when Oliver came out of the jail cell and was crying but then as he walked away he was like laughing as if something was funny then he went back to "crying" but thats it. Other than that the movie is excellent.

bartekfm

(2012-04-28 12:50:50)

Decent adaptation of a wonderful book

At first i have to admit that i watched that movie on DVD with polishdubbing so my feelings may be a little bit different if i would watchEnglish non-dub version. I think that Oliver Twist is a decent piece ofwork, Roman Polanski did another very decent movie. It's quite far awayfrom his best but very decent. I loved photographs by Pawel Edelman,they're very dark, great atmosphere.I'm not sure if i should consider that as a trump or a fault but movieis more concerned on the plot than book. Book is more about the dramaof orphan, Oliver. He's the perfect example of young, poor child, veryinnocent. Good roles from Barley Clark and other young actors. BenKingsley is on the high level too. It's enjoyable but i'm not sure ifyou should watch that with your kid if (s)he's younger than 12-13 notbecause it's too brutal but it's sad and they simply wouldn't enjoy it.

Andrew Start

(2012-04-24 20:17:49)

Distinctly average considering the source.

It would be quite hard for a film version of the best known of CharlesDickens' novels to play out badly, especially with Roman Polanski atthe helm. And this edition is exactly that – not bad.I'm a big fan of Polanski. His recreation of Dickensian London issuperb and as you'd expect, technically everything looks and soundsgreat. However, renowned for films that are dark, morbid and true tolife, Polanski, on paper, goes perfectly with Dickens. But histreatment is not dark, it's just nice, and nice is a boring word andboring is what this film is verging on considering its potential.The first 90 minutes of the film are very theatrical and as such thecharacters are overplayed by the cast. I was quite happy to follow ourlead through his tale of woe but ultimately found myself feelingdisappointed. The final third does improve and as the story climaxesthe tone becomes significantly more believable. On the whole it's notunlike the musical (which is actually more sinister in parts) and thatmakes you question – without anything new, what actually was the point?I was expecting Polanski to spend some time on characterisation asprevious efforts have left the audience not really feeling for Oliver'sfate due to over concentration on trying to get a rather long book ontothe screen. Kingsley as Fagin is fine. Sykes, The Artful Dodger andOliver himself are all played fine. Nancy's character is a littleinadequate, but generally the whole thing is OK.It just wasn't anything special. This film is the definition ofmediocrity.

WYNNER01

(2012-04-24 05:12:00)

True to the Spirit of Dickens

Excellent acting, and an honest portrayal of the Charles Dickens masterpiece. It depicts a time in history when justice and the rule of law were not common. It is useful to know where we came from and to appreciate the society we live in.It is not a commercial movie in the sense that many will like or support it, never the less it is a very worthwhile experience.Worthy of an Oscar.

(2012-04-11 16:13:23)

A darker, but dull Dickens

Dickens and Polanski seemed like a promising, if unlikely, pairing. And as if to realise that promise, the film has a darker atmosphere than previous adaptions of Oliver Twist, and some truly wonderful perfomances, Kingsley's chief among them. Why, then, does it feel so unsatisfying? Perhaps too many of Dickens' trademark digressions are missing; also, Barney Clark - while clearly talented - didn't seem right for Oliver. For my money, Dickens is always better read than in any cinema or TV adaptation.

TheLittleSongbird

(2012-04-11 03:08:44)

Good film, but inferior to the David Lean classic.

The 1948 David Lean film is a classic, that is well worth watching forthe outstanding performance of Alec Guiness. This adaptation was verygood indeed, but I do think it is inferior to the 1948 film.The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and thecinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portmanwas beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction isexcellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it isfairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming andvulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and theother boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character'sdeath was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were verywell staged and perfectly captured on camera.However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess Iwas disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he justwasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily andmanipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in hisperformance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness,it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, andevidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something washolding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn'tquite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dogshould've got it. I did like the fact that the film tried to befaithful to the spirit of the book, but it felt a little bloated attimes.Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that Ipreferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10Bethany Cox

(2012-04-10 11:12:12)

A Good Movie

I read Oliver Twist at school and thoroughly enjoyed the book. I saw this movie and I also enjoyed it. Although it is not a perfect representation of the book, the director, Roman Polanski, did a commendable job of bringing to life a well known story.The film, just like the book, is a dark and depressing story of a young orphan, Oliver Twist (well played by Barney Clark) who grows up in a cruel and uncaring world of Victorian England. The movie was well made, with authentic costumes of the Victorian era and beautiful photography. The gloomy setting in the wet, stinky and dingy London captures the cruel and depressing environment that Oliver lived.Barney Clark played the role of Oliver Twist very well as an innocent child who grows up in a workhouse where food was scarce, then at an undertaker before finally fleeing to London to fall into the company of a gang of pickpockets. The movie unfolds to reveal and remind us of the themes of child abuse, orphans, women abuse, and problems of poverty as well as reminding us that despite the gloomy and depressing environment that people may find themselves, there are always some good and compassionate people around.A depressing and action packed movie with good acting all round that is well worth watching.

BaronSamedi

(2012-04-10 05:03:06)

A wasted opportunity

I had been eagerly anticipating Polanski's version of Oliver Twist. Infact I had great expectations (sorry!) for it as I thought that finallythe "definitive" version of the novel would be made.David Lean's 1948 version is very close to the Dickens' story but evenso certain sub-plots were omitted. In some ways this is understandableas anyone who has read the book would probably agree that it is acomplex story and very difficult to cover in a 2 hour film.Many people will also be familiar with the 1968 musical Oliver! whichwas mainly concerned with Oliver's dealings with Fagin's gang. Butthere is so much more to the story than that.Polanski has chosen to present a version that is even more watered downthan this. For example he omits the collusion of Oliver's half brotherwith Bumble and Oliver's connection with Brownlow.The lead actors did their job adequately although Ben Kinsley's Fagincomes across as too agreeable by far - Fagin in the book was not a niceperson. Also several of the actors played their parts so woodenly itlooked like they were reading form cue cards.Having said that it was a fairly pleasant way to spend a couple ofhours as long as we understand that what we have here is essentially ascene-by-scene re-enactment of the musical - but without the music.So, all-in-all, I am disappointed with the film but especiallydisappointed in that there probably won't ever be another Oliver Twistfilm made and so we'll never get to see the "definitive" version on thebig screen. David Lean's movie still remains the best.

jalcoc1073

(2012-04-04 12:08:19)

Extremely well done, but disappointed by bits of book missing

Roman Polanski's new 'Oliver Twist' movie was extremely well done. Theacting, sets, scenery, costuming, action - the whole thing wasfantastic. However, I was disappointed that large parts of the bookwere left out. Important characters such as Monks were deleted. Thewhole story of Oliver's birth and origins and the fact that Mr.Brownlow was related to him were left out and these are major parts ofthe story. Polanski should have extended the movie for at least anotherhalf hour and included these things to make it complete. It would havebeen perfect. Because of these omissions, I think this film versioncomes second to the 1948 version. All other aspects of this film weregreat.Oliver Twist has been done so many times recently, that I think it'stime to give it a rest for a few years. Check out an Oliver sequelabout Oliver's great-great grandson set in the 1950's atwww.rockinoliver.com.

(2012-04-03 17:22:11)

Bravo!

Roman Polanski melds his talents and personal history with that of Dickens, and the resulting film is stunning in its artistry. If you want the synopsis and review, read the Editorial Review - I loathe "Reader Reviews" that regurgitate information ad nauseum. Suffice it to say that the selection of actors, sets, costumes, cinematographer, etc. is satisfying in the extreme. For those who love Dickens, this is a film that will be pleasing and perhaps surpassing in its understanding of the author, his depth of identification with his protagonist, and his intent - Polanski is a man who understands all too well. For those who aren't familiar with the book, this film is a revelation. Social conscience, outrage at the system, and sensitivity to the consequences of turning the lives of other human beings over to some self-congratulatory and deeply flawed social services agency weren't invented by Hollywood actors, Liberals, or Anarchists. This film is a resurrection of the ghosts of Oliver Twist, Fagan, and all of the beautiful, evil attributes of the human soul beautifully, starkly, and thankfully not pretentiously brought to our attention by Polanski on one of his good days.

registerme-3

(2012-03-30 04:29:16)

Utterly crap

I am not sure what is happening to the cinema world today. It seems tolack direction since hardly any movie worth seeing has been in thetheaters over the last year and a half. The focus on remakes makes the situation even worse. Especially if theyare as bad as 'Bewitched' (remake from TV series) or now the 'OliverTwist'. Its short showing time in most parts of the US shows (maybepolitically motivated?) that moviegoers do not like crap. I just do nothope that this film gets a showing here in Europe, waste of time forme. Earlier versions were much better that this effort. Actors were notthat good (oliver), kinsley as fagin stood out of the cast.Maybe I need to stick to indie films or foreign release since it seemsthat most quality comes from there nowadays.Studio bosses should be fired because of approving this crap.

montague-2

(2012-03-29 16:27:26)

Disappointing version which lacks drive and conviction

The best thing one can say about this version is that it may offendno-one. The novel is hard hitting and the characters are often largerthan life. Only Bill Sykes comes anywhere near the character portrayedin the novel and the much praised condensing of the plot in thescreenplay gives us an emasculated story. For example, the whole pointof Oliver being taken to meet Fagin in Newgate before the hanging wasto elicit from him the last link in the quest to establish who Oliveractually was. This vital theme was not touched on in the movie and thegaol scene therefore was weak, pointless. The scenes in the countrysidewere not England in the 19th century. Where were the hedgerows? Thesets and architecture were not authentic for those locations and thatperiod. The best version remains the BBC one of some years ago withEric Porter as Fagin. The scene in the goal for example had real pointand real emotion

(2012-03-25 18:28:01)

I love you Oliver!!

This such a good movie!! It made me cry and it really touched my heart!! i fell so so so sorry for Oliver he never did anything to anybody it was Fagin who drove him too it!! So i rate it 5 stars!!

cpattison

(2012-03-25 10:07:16)

Dickens is perfect

Charles Dickens is the finest writer in the history of the writtenword. Small wonder that it's almost impossible to screw up a Dickensstory. This production was terrific, but as a purist, I have a fewsmall complaints. The location was good, but I felt it was too clean tobe London c. 1845, probably because it was filmed in Europe. I foundFagins boys a little too jocular. I loved the music...but I am a hugefan of composer Rachel Portman (she did the lovely soundtrack toNicholas Nickelby). My main disappointment was that the parentage ofOliver was not revealed. I think that Polanski could have omitted thecharacters of Toby Crackit and Mr. Grimwig, and spent the time inwrapping up the story properly (in true Dickensian fashion). The linethat Mr. Bumble delivers when he is told that the law assumes he hascontrol over the actions of his wife (in concealing Olivers parentage)is a classic..."if the law supposes that...the law is an ass".Anyhow, no time spent watching Dickens is wasted. a definite two thumbsup.

(2012-03-19 09:47:49)

Touches the child in us

I have not seen any of the many film or TV versions of Charles Dickens' 1837 classic, and have no basis of comparison for Polanski's take on Oliver Twist. That may be a good thing, as I have no preconceived notions of what this film ought to be. Barney Clark's portrayal of the foundling born in a countryside workhouse, enslaved at age 10 by a feeble funeral director and his imposing wife, and escaped to the bowels of London, is nothing short of magnificent.Polanksi's account of Oliver's tragic childhood, survival and ultimate adoption by the kindly rich gentleman, Mr. Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke), fits precisely into the image painted in Dickens' lengthy page turner. As one would expect, he embellishes the film with extraordinarily realistic scenes of the 19th century British countryside, hardscrabble streets and alleyways of London's "Spittlefield" slum and Brownlow's suburban mansion. But Polanski also engaged impressive performances from Ben Kingsley as Fagin, the bent (and evil) old fence and the leader of London thieves and pickpockets, Jamie Foreman as the house-breaker and murderer Bill Sykes, and Leanne Rowe as the motherly Nancy who in the end saves Oliver's life at the cost of her own. Kingsley's Fagin is every bit as conniving and devious as readers recall. But he also occasionally shines with glints of kindness towards Oliver, the Artful Dodger (Harry Eden) and the rest of his youthful gang, not to mention remorse over Nancy's fate, thus inspiring viewers' sympathies for the poor and downtrodden in 19th Century England and consideration of the very real moral dilemmas of that age. Of course, no two-hour movie could possibly include all the intricacies or characters of a Dickens novel, and this one is no exception. Thus, some readers may miss Oliver's half-brother Monks, Widow Corney and the story line concerning Oliver's history. But this in no way detracts from the movie's success. Nor does it prevent Polanski from hitting home runs with bit parts--for example, Alun Armstrong as the foul-tempered magistrate, Mr. Fang, and Mark Strong as the dandy Toby Crackit, an accomplice to the evil Bill Sykes. In the main, however, Polanski zeros in on the tragedy of Oliver's life. There's something heroic in him, to be sure. And the happy ending is indeed welcome. But this doesn't erase the horrors that he suffers before his final rescue--his mother's death in the workhouse, starvation, enslavement, abuse, kidnapping, and the destruction of his innocence by men who exploit children.In short, Polanski strikes the chords that have made Oliver's story a hit for nearly 170 years: He brings the hero's suffering to life and touches the lost child in all of us, young and old alike. --Alyssa A. Lappen

BenoГѓВ®t A. Racine

(2012-03-18 20:11:08)

Great director, great film, but...

As competent a film as Polanski's "Oliver Twist" is, it has a fewliabilities: like the fact that a lot of viewers are mentally comparingit to David Lean's version (1948) and the stupendous Lionel Bartmusical (or rather operatic) version by Carol Reed (1968). Polanski'sversion has great set-ups, great scenery (reminiscent of "Tess"), greatsets, good acting and great atmosphere but one still has the impressionit has all been done before and a little more flamboyantly. BenKingsley's efforts as Fagin can only pale when compared to AlecGuinness' and Ron Moody's and the same goes for every other character(especially the Oliver character who acts like a wooden Pinocchiopuppet who doesn't come to life until the very last scene). The openingtitles are a rather depressing moment to sit through, which is never agood idea for a theatrical presentation, but the element that does themost harm to the film, in my opinion, is the minimalist symphonic score(there's an oxymoron for you) by Rachel Portman, where every simplistictheme is used and reused until it is literally threadbare andirritating. I'm not sure either whether tinkering with Dickens'original conceit that Oliver was related to Mr. Brownlow is such a goodidea, in view of its melodramatic possibilities and of thequasi-mystical explanation it provides for the Brownlow's household'ssympathy for Oliver. The only new scene in this version is the finaljail cell confrontation of Oliver and Fagin which is heartbreaking - ifa tad too morose for children viewers - and which probably exorcisesPolanski's demons rather than Dickens' own.

Christopher Evans

(2012-03-18 11:05:29)

Please sir...No more!

My summary may be a slightly harsh joke but this film was trulydisappointing in a big way! I am a huge fan of dickens and Oliver Twistin particular, I am also a big fan of Polanski. To see this film, whichfor me is a failure in most departments, was quite a shock! Dickens'story is tremendous but is told badly in this film as it stresses theweaker aspects at the expense of more interesting parts. Maybe Polanskiwas trying to be different but that was a big mistake. Famous and muchloved parts of the story are loved for a reason. The ending with Olivervisiting Fagin in prison, various small scenes along Oliver's journeyto London or with subsidiary characters such as Bill Sikes' associateetc are shown in depth. They are dull and lack any impact. Strongercharacters and parts of the plot are reduced to include this weakermaterial.The boys playing Oliver and Dodger are both charming and well acted butseem to not get fully utilised by the director who is on as poor formas I've seen. Kingsley as Fagin is a bit of a mess, miles away fromAlec Guiness or Ron Moody's portrayals in classic film versions. Farworse is Bill Sikes who is not remotely charismatic and not scaryeither; totally unlike Oliver Reed and Robert Newton's earlierportrayals. The Bumbles were very disappointing as were other parts andI didn't get any emotional attachment to Nancy either. My overallfeeling was of boredom in this overlong waste of great resources.

(2012-03-17 22:53:38)

What It Was, What It Could Have Been

It would be wrong of me as a devoted fan of Charles Dickens and this book in particular to not respect Roman Polanski for giving a very accurate portrayal of this story, kudos to him for a job well done in many respects. The good things were:1)Ben Kingsley as Fagin. This was a better-than-I-could-have-imagined-it incarnation of one of Dickens' most intriguing charactars, there can be no arguing that Ben Kingsley is THE Fagin from now on. He looked it, he acted it, he simply was the charactar. 2)Nancy, who looks exactly as I thought Nancy would. I don't hold much with Phiz's illustrations of her, I think he makes her too ugly. 3)the undertaker, firstly that they even put him in, secondly that he was well-cast, and thirdly that they put that part about the coffin-shaped snuff-box! It delighted me no end. 4) Mr. Bumble, who was everything that insufferable beadle ought to be. All that said, on the whole, this was not a very interesting movie, which is unfortunate because the story really is very good. I think the main problem with this movie was the soundtrack by Rachel Portman. When I first heard the soundtrack to 'Emma', done by the same, I loved it. When I heard the soundtrack to 'Nicholas Nickleby', also by Portman, I noted that it sounded exactly the same, but it was still okay. The Oliver Twist soundtrack sounds like more of the same except absolutely no interesting musical ideas whatever. It seems like it's all filler. It will probably be a long time before anyone takes their hand to 'Oliver Twist' again, but until then I can be satisfied with the good points of this movie, and sigh for what might have been...

antoniotierno

(2012-03-11 10:44:35)

captivating and involving

Surely a tough-minded film but direction, as well as acting, isexemplary and the result is 130 minutes of agreeable entertainment.Roman Polanski has succeeded in giving this movie some thrillingemotions, that, combined with the cruel world where this orphan lives,gets to render faithfully the misery and poverty of the situation.Unlike other classic novels adaptations this story is told in a verytough way, so tough that somebody told it wants to remind thedirector's sad childhood in Warsaw's ghetto. In conclusion the pictureworks, since the dark and thriller elements make it more charming andnever boring or slow-paced (though very thoughtful).

Jackson Booth-Millard

(2012-03-10 19:59:15)

Oliver Twist

I had seen the musical adaptation of the famous Charles Dickens story,so I was looking forward to seeing a regular version, from directorRoman Polanski (Chinatown, The Pianist). Basically orphan Oliver Twist(introducing Barney Clark) one day in the orphanage asks for moregruel, and this forces Mr. Bumble (Jeremy Swift) Mr. Limbkins (IanMcNeice) to sell him off, forcing to work a couple of jobs for otherpeople, before he leaves for London. There he meets pick pocket TheArtful Dodger (Harry Eden), who takes him to the mysterious Fagin (SirBen Kingsley). The rest of the film is mainly Oliver and other pickpockets getting into scrapes, and the innocent young lead character isthe cause of Fagin's downfall, but at the same time, he did look afterhim. Also starring Jamie Foreman as Bill Sykes, Leanne Rowe as Nancy,Lewis Chase as Charley Bates, Edward Hardwicke as Mr. Brownlow, MarkStrong as Toby Crackit, Frances Cuka as Mrs. Bedwin, Chris Overton asNoah Claypole, Michael Heath as Mr. Sowerberry, Gillian Hanna as Mrs.Sowerberry, Liz Smith as Old Woman and Alun Armstrong as MagistrateFang. Worth watching!