Customer Reviews

Oliver Twist

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

I saw this DVD on sale in a Target store, so I took a chance on it. Luckily, I hadn't read the reviews here or I would have given it a pass. This production of Dickens' famous novel is the least faithful of all the versions I have seen, but I expected that going in. It's basically a stylistic rewrite of the story with a modern audience in mind. Had I been a Dickens purist looking for a mirror image of the book, I would have been appalled, as some reviewers here obviously were.

Instead, it's a fresh take on an old story. It doesn't pretend to be faithful. The result for me is that I was highly entertained, and as someone else has pointed out, instead of looking for how many deviations I could find, I was enthralled by the fact that I did NOT know what was coming next. This in effect freed me from the book, which I have read several times (yes, I like Dickens), and allowed me to judge this fresh approach on its own merits.

I was quite satisfied with the story as it stood on its own two feet, although the original story is much better. But that was a book (a newspaper serial, actually), not a 173 minute television mini-series. Were I to produce a faithful mini-series of Oliver Twist I would require at least ten hour-long segments. It's a very complicated yarn. (I'd love to film the chapter where Oliver is recuperating in the country.)

The cast is excellent for the most part. William Miller (Pieter in "Krakatoa") was an inspired choice for what he was intended to do: portray an appealing yet fearless version of Oliver--a boy who has been subjected to the dreary trials of a workhouse upbringing, yet because of his character has come through it all as a soft spoken, kindly little soul. Adam Arnold as Dodger presents a new "twist" on the character, who is shown as being quite sensitive and vulnerable, and in love with Nancy (who throws him over for Oliver). Bill Sykes is played by Tom Hardy, and while he looks fine in the part, his accent is so extreme I could only understand ever tenth word. He also suffers in my eyes because he's no Robert Newton. That holds true with every other actor who has played Sykes. Similarly, Timothy Spall is no Alec Guiness. I had a hard time swallowing his Fagin, but again this is a rewrite of the story and he does an adequate job with the writer's reconstruction of the character. Mr. Brownlow is played by the ubiquitous Edward? Fox (is he William, James or Edward? I wish he'd make up his mind).

If it sounds like I'm having fun with this review, it's probably because I had fun watching this DVD. The extra on the disk is a "making-of" documentary. I enjoyed meeting Will Miller, Sophie Okonedo (Nancy), and others. However, when you listen to the writer, Sarah Phelps, you begin to get an insight into why this Oliver Twist is so different from all the others. She strikes me as an angry, over-the-top liberal who has strong opinions on Dickens and other societal matters. She rubbed me the wrong way, but at the same time I did like very much what she produced. So there you have it in a nutshell.

The music didn't bother me one little bit. In fact, its spirited tone fit the revised character of Oliver very well, and I felt it was perfect for this particular production. William Miller is a handsome, lovable boy, and I was very pleased to see Oliver Twist as an engaging, sturdy and athletic youngster for once instead of the meek, frail waif we have always seen, a character who we are to pity. It's a fresh outlook. The rest of the cast, the authentic costuming and backgrounds, yes and even the heavily rewritten story, support this new twist on Oliver Twist very well.

It's a good movie. Don't miss it. Take the sour apple reviews with a grain of salt.

This version of Oliver twist was not a bad film, in fact it was quite good. It should not be compared to Polanski's film or the 1968 film. It should be compared to David Lean's excellent film with Sir Alec Guinness. Many previous films including the 1968 film and polanski's omit an important character in Oliver's half brother "Monks" or Edward as he is called here. Yes in the book Monks was a major villain who employed Fagin to corrupt Oliver, And in this film Monks is a well portrayed villain who threatens everyone he meets and tried to seduce his cousin. True, in the book he does not seduce his cousin but he does everything else. Timothy Spall's Fagin is quite good and shows that poverty has corrupted his soul. To show him as a proper jew honors the true nature of a very complex character of which Dickens only shows one side to Fagan. No this production is not a word for word literal telling of Oliver Twist but it opens up old characters and shows that evil has many faces. It is not a perfect film and sometimes the soundtrack was annoying but it was overall a good production and worth watching.

The cast showed up for work in this darker adaptation of Dickens's novel. They are all terrific and make for a memorable movie. In particular, William Miller plays Oliver with remarkably gritty determination--you're pulling for him throughout the movie. Hardy and Rhind-Tutt are scarily evil as Bill Sikes and Monks respectively. Tim Spall plays an interestingly ambiguous Fagin; Sophie Okonedo wonderfully captures Nancy's sympathy for Oliver despite her trapped circumstances.

This is much more of a thriller/ suspense story than a light-hearted adventure through London's slums. A few annoyances are present such as barely audible dialog in some scenes, occasional jarring music and irritating anachronisms, but they do not seriously damage an emotionally affecting and compelling film. Bravo!
Oliver Twist

A brilliant rendition of the classic tale. Timothy Spall makes a creepy, multi-faceted Fagan. His performance is an exploration of the character as you've never seen him before.
Tom Hardy makes a sexy and throughly frightening thug.
I know it's not entirely true to the book. But I do believe that fans of Charles Dicken's Oliver Twist will enjoy this film. It's a visual treat and variations from the original do not subtract from the film's depth.

I am a big fan of classic literature, and I love well-done adaptations. I really enjoyed this version of Oliver Twist. The mannerisms of the characters and the music are all very modern, and though I enjoy the more closely representational adaptations, I enjoy the ones that take more liberties as well.
I personally thought the acting was well-done. I enjoyed the different takes on Dickens' characters. The camera work added another modern and fun note. It's a very up-beat, fast-paced, and exciting adaptation.

In short, there are an abundance of bad reviews for this movie, so I thought I'd try and give it a lift. Check it out. If you like classic literature adaptations, and you're not of the overly-purist sect, I think you'll enjoy it.

While this movie is not in perfect compliance with the novel, I found it to be extremely well done. This version is in my opinion the most entertaining of all the "Olver Twist" movies I have ever seen. The acting and directing are superb. Also, I feel that it is a good family film.

FIRST COMMENTS:
Please do not say my review is not helpful because I gave this film one star. If you believe the film is really good, please create your own review and explain precisely why since below I do my best to explain why I have problems with this adaptation.

BACKGROUND:
As a person who truly loves literature and Charles Dickens, I find this film disgusting. Dickens wrote social problem novels to address legitimate faults in Britain during the 1800s. Dickens wrote this book, originally called "The Parish Boy's Progress" as an autobiographical novel. Dickens had to work in a factory as a child after his father was sent to debtor's prison. While the young Dickens pasted labels on shoe polish bottles, he felt horrible that no one in his family cared enough to send him to even a common school. While working in the factory, Dickens met a boy named Bob Fagin, who tried to befriend Charles. Charles, however, realized that making friends in a low career was the worst thing possible, since the last thing Charles wanted was to begin "fitting in" at the blacking warehouse.

OVERVIEW:
If you have never seen an Oliver Twist film, this film may be enjoyable for you if you hate capitalism, Christianity, and the true culture of London during the early 1800s. After viewing the film, you will feel very sorry for Fagin and his boys and great hatred to the evil British justice system that hates all the lower class.

DEVIATIONS IN THIS FILM:
1. Clearly, Charles Dickens wanted Fagin to be the major villain. Fagin is not a villain in this film. In fact, he is next thing to a grandfather to the boys. Further, Fagin is a devoted Jew in this adaptation who prays to Jehovah and does not eat pork. Additionally, Fagin (at his sentencing near the end of the film) is given the opportunity to receive mercy from Mr. Fang, the magistrate, if he will only become "a good Christian."

This is entirely against what Charles Dickens MEANT in his novel. "Fagin, the Jew" as he is called in Dickens' work is a Jew in ancestry only, who would gladly have renounced his faith if it would keep him from being hanged.

2. Mrs. Sowerberry owns 40 hats in this film and wishes to purchase more. In Dickens' novel, Mrs. Sowerberry may not be a nice woman, but she does not own 40 hats. NO coffin maker's wife in the early 1800s would dream of purchasing 40 hats. It is unfathomable. It is one of many scenes where the actual British culture is redefined.

3. Mr. Sowerberry buys Oliver from Mr. Bumble just like in the 1968 musical (and not like in the novel).

4. Bill Sikes is the complete villain - very evil. Fagin is not villainous. Fagin is the VICTIM of Sikes' bullying and a prejudiced justice system that hates Jews.

5. Other versions, even shorter versions, include scenes that were omitted from this film. For example, in the 2005 version, there are scenes of compassion such as the judge to Oliver when he is about to be apprenticed as a chimney-sweep. Also, the 2005 version (unlike almost ANY other version) includes the scene with the compassionate elderly woman as Oliver is traveling to London.

6. (There are at least 100 further deviations I could point out that not only make the film very different from the book but redefine the cultural time period and Dickens' themes.)

OTHER PROBLEMS:
1. The music score is inappropriate (much like the 1986 BBC Northanger Abbey.) Oliver Twist is meant to be a sad story. The music in this film is far too upbeat - boisterous and bumptious.

2. To me, it appears as though the directors INTENTIONALLY wished to redefine each character to fit a specific POLITICAL purpose. For example, Fagin is a respectable Jew. Mr. Fang, Mr. Bumble, the workhouse board of directors, the Sowerberrys, etc. are horrible Christians.

PS: And yes they are horrible Christians. The dialogue, such as the scene when Mrs. Sowerberry says she does not want Oliver because people in church will talk, is only one of many digs against people who follow the Christian faith. Even though Dickens was certainly not a Billy Graham or John Edwards, Dickens did NOT hate Christianity.

5. Just look at the cover. The appearances of each character (with possibly the expectation of Oliver) greatly defy their appearance in any other film version and the descriptions in Dickens' novel.

6. Oliver is given a nickname, which is interesting, but it doesn't really fit well for numerous reasons includes that boys in Britain during that time would not have wanted to be called "Nolly." Furthermore, no matter how sheltered Oliver might have been in Bumble's workhouse, he could not have been nearly so naive as this film portrays.

FINAL COMMENTS:
Now, certainly, make your own choice. I am not saying this film could not be viewable or interesting. In fact, this film will not be boring because it really isn't Dickens' Oliver Twist, and therefore, you WILL HAVE no idea what will happen next, even if you watched every film version and have the novel memorized.

MY RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend one of the following Oliver Twists
(note: I only included color versions):

Oliver Twist (1985) BBC with Eric Porter for people who want a loyal version - slightly boring - but with acceptable (not excellent) picture quality. This version does stay pretty accurate with Dickens' work.

Oliver Twist (2005) with Ben Kingsley for people want a good story with good acting and good music than it fairly loyal to the novel. I especially liked Barney Clark's portrayal of Oliver. I think Barney understood Oliver's character very well.

(NOTE: 2005 version is more loyal than the 2007 version. Therefore, if you thought the 2005 version took too many liberties, the Timothy Spall & William Miller version takes many more.)

Oliver Twist (1968) for those who love Ron Moody and the broadway musical.

Oliver Twist (1999) for people who want a longer version that is less accurate and takes more liberties but it still viewable and does not completely change Dickens' intent. This version is also less boring than the 1985 version.

The producers, director and script-writer of this "Masterpiece Classic" version of "Oliver Twist" obviously detest Charles Dickens and this is their revenge upon him. Mine is not a "purist's" critique. When employing the term "purist" it suggests a stickler fixated on mere details that have gone awry. But what we have here is falsification of Mr. Dickens' book and the ideas he was attempting to convey.

People think they know Dickens because familiarity breeds contempt and "Oliver Twist" has been a musical and has been filmed numerous times and even falsified before (most notoriously in the TV film with Richard Dreyfuss in the lead). In the public mind, "Oliver Twist" is just a tale of the slums and of a handsome little boy who asks plaintively for "More, please." There is so much more to it.

Dickens was exposing the anti-Christian political philosophy of predatory capitalism in "Oliver Twist," just as he was in "A Christmas Carol." But this "Masterpiece" version has the workhouse board of directors hurling Christian imprecations at Oliver, as if they themselves were Christian fundamentalists. This is tantamount to rewriting "A Chistmas Carol" so as to make Scrooge into a grouchy Bible believer. Nonsense!

Fagin, a kidnapper and fence who was a character of almost supernatural evil in Dickens' original, is, in keeping with the suffocating political correctness of our times, shown as benevolent. He's also shown as an observant Judaic (which he is not in the book) and yet beardless! A frum Judaic in 1839 who shaves? Ridiculous.

There is much more that could be said about the buffoonish fabrications in this disgusting parody of a great achievement in English literature. Fortunately, the rock-music soundtrack for the film is so grating and out of synch with early Victorian England that even my teenage children were repelled by it. The intrusive soundtrack should guarantee that "Masterpiece Classic Oliver Twist" is consigned to the obscurity it so richly deserves. To Sarah Phelps, the screenwriter: shame on you!

For those who want to see a film version of "Oliver Twist" that actually is based on the book Dickens wrote, they should watch the 1985 BBC version, 352 minutes in length. It's well done, educational and entertaining and while it has omitted some parts, it has preserved the central characters, plot and themes, including the fact that Oliver is rescued from Fagin, Bill Sykes, one of his own evil relations as well as the heartless capitalist system that oppressed children in workhouses and sold them as slaves to chimney sweeps, by the charity and kindness of true Christians.

This BBC production of Oliver Twist is simply marvelous! Fresh and energetic, it makes a familiar story new and engaging. With vivid characters one loves to hate ever plotting against the defenseless in a society notorious for exploiting and oppressing women, the poor and the different, this movie streamlines the monumental opus that is Oliver Twist into a classic tale of good vs evil for the 21st century.

It's ridiculous to cavil at a filmmaker for failing to stick to every detail of an 800 page novel when making a three hour movie. This version of Oliver Twist is no exception. Yes, some of the story was changed to fit time, budget and casting constraints, but the result is faithful to the overall tone and plot of Dickens' novel, making it accessible to a new generation. It is well worth watching.

This film is particularly effective in portraying 19th century anti-Semitism. If the details of Fagin's character and treatment were changed to convey this, it is an integral part of the story and in this PC age, I was delighted. Mrs. Sowerberry's hat collection served to illustrate the hypocrisy of the characters and skewering hypocrisy was one of Dickens' favorite themes. If the fimmakers took liberties with the details, the overall message was very Dickensian.

The dissonant soundtrack created a sense of urgency, unease and danger, and the production values were impeccable--the dirt and darkness of the workhouse and thieves' den in contrast to the light interiors and costumes of the Brownlow household--and did much to add to the atmosphere. All told, this was a very thoughtful, well-designed and well-acted production. Purists should reread the book and congratulate themselves on catching the changes.

The other reviewers have already listed some of the MANY liberties that this production has taken with Dickens' great work. Rather than elaborate, let me just say that it's what you might call the "Oliver Stone version" of Oliver Twist. Compared to many of Dickens' other works, Oliver Twist is not a particularly long or complex tale, and there's no excuse for the distortions and omissions in this latest Masterpiece Theater version. And as for casting the cheerful and enigmatic Spuds McKenzie as the evil Bullseye, gimme a break!