Ali_Catterall

24 May 2012

More?

Charles Dickens' imagination, wrote George Orwell, "overwhelmseverything like a kind of weed", and it's true that his works translateto the screen extremely well for that reason. Whether or not you alsoagree with Orwell that Dickens' characters "start off as magic lanternslides and they end up by getting mixed up in a third-rate movie" is amatter for personal taste - though only the grouchiest critic wouldbrand Polanski's take on this family favourite anything like a massivelet-down. What Dickens is best at, of course, is story - and here, Polanskidelivers; there's also a sense he's aiming for the definitive version -more knockabout than David Lean's, darker than Carol Reed's. However,like those cinematic predecessors it's necessarily rendered inshorthand and distilled to the prime components: orphans, beadles,pickpockets, prostitutes and kindly benefactors. It looks great, or at least 'Dickensian', as screenwriter RonaldHarwood says: "not the historical sociological truth - that's boring",and Polanski's London is a hyperreal dystopian theme park whereeveryone seems to be spilling out of taverns in mid-fistfight.Kingsley's practically unrecognisable as Fagin, while Oliver (Clark)isn't half as soppy as forebear Mark Lester, even sporting a bit of anEstuary twang. Bur Foreman as Bill Sikes is no Oliver Reed - whose ownportrayal still has the capacity to turn children's matinees intopanicked paddling pools. Also, the mind hiccups at crucial plot points: it's Lionel Bart'sglorious songs we most associate with Oliver, and tellingly, thisversion feels strangely hollower for their exclusion.

Christopher Evans

24 May 2012

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.

David H. Schleicher

24 May 2012

Wheres the Polanski Twist on Twist?

The set designs, costuming, cinematography, and all British casting ofRoman Polanski's ultra-faithful adaptation of Dicken's oft told taleare so finely detailed and etched onto film that its almost surreal.Perhaps it is in this modern master's attention to detail where we findhis twist on "Oliver Twist." I was one of the people hoping Polanskiwas going to take this tale to dark and dangerous places it had neverbeen before. One way or another we all knew this story, either from thebook, the David Lean film version, or the iconic musical from the1960's. It needed a new twist, and Polanski did something no one everexpected. His twisting of the tale was so subtle, that he forces theviewer to pay attention to both the physical and thematic details tosave themselves from boredom. It's a bold and dangerous game for adirector to play in this day and age.Polanski does a fine job capturing the sense of humor and socialcommentary on Victorian London Dickens always bestowed upon hisaudience in the first half while showing the tiny bits of humanity ineach character as Oliver passively survives one tragedy after another.In an almost maddening attempt to keep the film clean enough forchildren, Polanski is forced to keep the menace and heartbreak in thelater half of the tale dressed in beautiful dark lighting andhyper-intelligent camera angles. All of the violence is kept offscreen, and Nancy's murder is especially well done with an exquisitetastefulness and only one artistically simple shot of blood in adoorway upon her friend discovering her body. The moonlit rooftopfinale with young Oliver and the villainous Bill Sykes is photographedso well that it detracts you from the fact that there is a completelack 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'san interesting and fascinating to watch twist none the less.

23 May 2012

Childhood Favorite

Whenever I'd go to my grandparents' house, my aunt or my grandmother would watch musicals and I'd sing and dance along. I loved every single musical number within "Oliver Twist" the most, specifically "I'd Do Anything." I think the boy who plays Oliver Twist in this movie is adorable, and it breaks my heart to see him go through all of the issues that happened to him as an orphan. In the movie (I have not read the book and judging from other reviewers who have, I think I'll pass), an orphan whose mother has died is put into an orphanage but the owners are cruel. After Oliver makes the mistake of asking for a little bit more food (I can do the "Please, suh, I want some more" impression to a tea), he's kicked out of the orphanage in the winter to find shelter. After a potential owner sees that Oliver won't put up with any comments about his mother, he is shoved into a basement full of coffins. A loose window is discovered and he escapes to London. This is when the fun starts! He's found friendship in a pickpocket crew full of thieves and crooks, but he's content there. He sees past their "career paths" and embraces the humanity beneath them. They are people who are just trying to get by the same way he is. (As for the reviewers who say children will have nightmares, I saw this movie when I was in elementary school and never had one nightmare about it. I did think I was pretty tight on the dance floor after watching it though, no matter how bad I sucked at their moves. There is murder, domestic violence, theft, and runaways within the film, but every single time something like this happened, there was a lesson to be learned. To be furious with this movie telling some real life situations that happen when a child runs away or in locations full of runaway children should make you want to donate to organizations that try to help these kids; this isn't just a movie. This stuff is really happening.) Twist ends up going through quite the journey to find a home to call his own, and the film sings his travels through. I loved this movie as a child, and this weekend, I drove to two stores and online shopping before I found it again in the middle of a thunderstorm. I didn't care. I wanted this movie! After rewatching it, although I'm not crazy about the Confederate flags but it's realistic to the times, I still love it just as much. Excellent film.

George Mpoukatsas

23 May 2012

Excellent adaptation

Roman Polanski's film is an authoritative take on Dickens' classic. Itis expertly paced, slowly immersing the viewer into the plight of theyoung orphan and its predicament in Victorian England. Through ameticulous period reconstruction, superb acting, and effectivecharacterization (all the secondary characters are memorable), thetypically Dickensian theme of the survival of Innocence against allodds is dramatized with utter conviction. The omission of theexcessively melodramatic elements from the original story (Oliver'sfamily back-story for instance) contributes greatly to the story'sstrength by minimizing any trace of implausibility or mawkishness, thusproviding a wide-ranging portrait of the Victorian society with itsintrinsic inequalities and its rather warped sense of justice. Thevisuals are splendid and the prevalent detached and non-judgmentalapproach to an easily emotive story is simply the signature of masterdirector Roman Polanski, who is functioning here on top form.

Roby Kurian

22 May 2012

Here is Polaski, Here is Dickens, Here is Oliver...

When I first heard Polanski is adapting Oliver Twist as a movie, I wentto the store and grabbed a copy of the Dickens original novel, as I hadnot read it. I was preparing myself for this treat from Polanski as heis one of my favorite among the working directors across the globe.When I started with the movie, I was having a feeling that Polanski isskipping a lot as compared to the novel but once I finished, I reallyliked this version of the classic tale of the wretched orphan boycalled Oliver. Polanski is loyal to Dickens story and the movie is wellgroomed and moving.All three, Polanski, Dickens and Oliver himself share many experiencesin common. As Dickens was left almost alone at the age of 12, and hadto find a job in a boot making factory to make a living, Polanski wasseparated from his parents at the age of 12 during the holocaust, andboth might have faced situations grief, loneliness and starvationsimilar to those faced by Oliver. Both might have experiencedill-treatment and benevolence from fellow beings, and both rose toprosperity surpassing the ill fate to which they were subjected, and Ithink that may the reason for Polanski to attempt on this novel.Ronald Harwood's screenplay, though it excludes some of the details, isproficient enough, as it created much of the situations and charactersof the novel adequately. It's my feeling that books, when made into amovie, fail most of the time to reach the audiences, but it does nothappen here. Ben Kingsley's Fagin, necessary to say, is fantastic. Inthe 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 andmakes it more complex. I think this is the point of this newadaptation. Much of the details of the old London are painfullyrecreated, and the cinematography, even though not picturesque, ismagnificent. This movie as a whole was a fantastic treat and I give arating of 8/10.

Envinyatar2

21 May 2012

Absolutely Perfect

Perfect, there is no better way to describe this wonderful productionby Roman Polanski. This time honoured story by one of the world'sgreatest writers has been given excellent treatment by a fantasticdirector.First, the acting is quite good, not just as one would expect from BenKingsley (who out does himself as the scheming cantankerous Fagin), butfrom the child actors as well, most notably Barney Clark and Harry Eden(who play Twist and Dodger, respectively). Another notable aspect ofthe 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 charactersare of course cut from the book, and some plot points and elements aremissing, but that is to be expected when a book is translated into afilm. Despite the cuts, the movie is very faithful to the book, and onecould hardly ask for a better translation of written medium to thevisual.Despite wonderful acting and excellent story, my favourite part of thismovie is definitely the visuals. The set and costume crew has done anamazing job of recreating the London in which Oliver lived. Everynuance of London, from the slums to the well to do areas has been veryfaithfully realized on screen. The squalor of the back alleys is almostpalpable as the characters trod through the mud, and one is almosttempted to doff their hat when the scenery moves to the middle classhomes.Overall, I can find very little to not praise about this movie, theonly thing I can find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems abit sparse in some areas, and perhaps a bit too repetitive. I woulddefinitely recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of any genre.

Justin Miller

21 May 2012

A great film!

Parents, do not believe what they say about this being a family film. If you do, I promise you'll regret it. Great fun for everyone else. SEE IT!

montague-2

21 May 2012

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

dalemarshall

20 May 2012

boring, lackluster, and dull

I'm amazed at the the number of positive comments, as well as theirenthusiasm and length, since I found this production to have little torecommend it. Some good (and some great) actors, yes -- but no stellarperformances here. The main character was a stoic lad with about aswooden a face as I've encountered in film. The story was told,embellishments were eschewed -- but there was, in my opinion, no lifeto the film. It was no better than one of the worst Masterpiece Theatreproductions (and they've gotten very pedestrian), and much lessentertaining, less well written, less well acted than the best of thoseshows. All in all, I thought it a superficial retelling with lacklusterperformances.

noralee

19 May 2012

A Long Visual Feast of Detail of a Hard Knock Life

For the first half of this "Oliver Twist" I thought that Roman Polanskihad chosen to do yet another version of the Dickens tale because kidstoday tend not to watch black and white films so won't see David Lean'sclassic and a movie provides a Cliffnotes take on a plot for kids withshort attention spans so get restless with the mini-series adaptationsthat have captured the story more fully.This first half has wonderful character actors with distinctive facesthat match Dickens's names and colorful descriptions as bureaucrats andhypocrites are humorously pilloried. The settings are well established from the dark, dank work housesetting for that classic line - "More sir" -- to the endless pastoralroad to London. The vignette at the undertakers' and the mournful boyparade are also charming. This opening section is very effectively froma child's view point. Throughout the film, the background mattes arethe most beautiful that I've seen in films in years and the sets arefilled with details.But things got confusing once the lad arrives in London, though themarket scene and the trek through the slum look great. The child actors(including Polanski's children) are pleasant, and have excellent middleclass diction which, while that makes them understandable to anAmerican audience, is not too believable. As a family, they all seemtoo much like the cheerful group out of the musical version than thenovel. Amusing that the credits included pickpocket consultants. HarryEden seems to be too young to be the Artful Dodger but he's nicelyinsouciant, if a bit bland.Ben Kingsley's Fagin is problematical, but not in the usual way. He'svirtually completely de-Judaicized until, jarringly, near the end, buthe just doesn't seem threatening enough. Perhaps making him moresympathetic is to make him more complex. But his switch to toadying toBill Sykes isn't a sharp enough pecking-order turn. As the punishmentshe gives aren't as bad as those in the work house, he certainly seemsmore benevolent than the philanthropists. On top of that, as the filmgoes along and the plot complicates, it gets harder and harder tounderstand what he's saying, particularly for a neophyte to the storyif a kid has stuck it out this long. Maybe Fagin was softened to hype Bill Sykes's villainy, as if RachelPortman's Snidely Whiplash theme music wasn't cue enough (the weakestpart of her otherwise entertainingly programmatic score). Jamie Foremanseems older than the usual Sykes, which does add to the queasyunambiguity of his brutal relationship with an unusually zaftig Nancy,as we see her go from confident tart to trembling abused partner tryingto do the right thing. The film drags when Bill and Fagin plot revengeon Oliver's benefactor and I doubt a kid would follow the ins and outsof their unintelligible conversations but will look for the emotionalclues from the actors and the music. At this point, Polanski's eye takes over, particularly from the mostviolent act on. The gorgeous cinematography in the last quarter of thefilm carries the story. The scenes of fog and chases through London arelovely. The climactic run down of the villain recalls classic scenesfrom "Frankenstein" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" with lanterns andmoonlight highlighting dark doings. The unflinching violence isdramatic, but I've seen so many kids at puerile violent movies latelythis emotionally contextual, silhouetted reality should be handleableby kids. We appropriately blink when Oliver comes out in the sunshine.Polanski persists through the coda of a confrontation between Fagin andOliver 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 tocover, as he draws out those shadings and interpretations that areimportant to him

19 May 2012

Oliver Twist Lite

Polanski's version of Dickens' classic is visually stirring (its use of computerized backgrounds sets a new standard) and has real heart and soul, particularly in the form of Ben Kingsley's sympathetic Fagin, and Leanne Rowe's endearingly charming Nancy, but this tale strayed too far from the novel to be either the definitive or even one of the top adaptations of this 150-year-old best seller. Well worth seeing, for sure, but not a replacement for the experience of reading the source material. And, hey, didn't the canine actor who played Bill Sykes' dog, Bullseye, look like he could be the many-times-great-grandfather of Petey from The Little Rascals?(BTW, this is my second, and censored, attempt at submitting this review. Apparently Amazon doesn't like comments on this filmmaker's past...)

terephiel

18 May 2012

An OK version, but definitely couldve been better.

I saw Roman Polanski's adaptation of "Oliver Twist" when it came totheaters, albeit due to its limited US release, I was lucky to discoverit was even playing at all. My mother had to drive herself, my youngersister, and I all the way to Chattanooga to do so. I went into thetheater with eagerness and excitement, but came out perplexed andunimpressed. I've been a fan of "Oliver Twist" since I saw the famed1968 film "Oliver!" as a boy. It prompted me to read the novel as aneight year old, but when I took an Accelerated Reading test, I wasstupid and decided to base my answers off the 1997 Disney versioninstead. One can guess where that got me.When watching this, I was initially questioning why Polanski chose toleave out the classic scene of Oliver's mother Agnes Fleming making herway through the town of Mudfog while expecting her child, eventuallybeing taken to the workhouse where she gives birth and dies. Thedirector apparently chose to take out any of the novel's titlesubplots. That part, Edward "Monks" Leeford and his entire plot withFagin to disinherit Oliver, and so on -- all removed. That's probablymy main issue with this film in general. Those subplots are importantand essential parts to the novel itself. As one user here noted, justas one doesn't remove parts of a Mozart symphony, neither does one pickand choose Dickens. The 1968 musical didn't show Agnes's part, but itwas eluded on and we got to see a picture of her. It would've beenbetter for Polanski to have taken the foolish route other directorshave done and made Oliver Mr. Brownlow's grandson than not puttinganything about the boy's origins at all.As also noted by the same user, if Oliver hadn't resembled the portraitof Agnes (again, not shown in any way in this film) and was the son ofBrownlow's best friend Edwin Leeford, then why on earth would Brownlowhave adopted him? His good looks? His nice clothes? His humble socialstatus? Sorry, but it's just not believable. I'm sure there were plentyof other children, boy or girl, who were just as nice looking andtenderhearted as Oliver. If Brownlow adopted every pity case he evercame on, then I'm sure his house would've been overflowing with hoardsof little street urchins. Aside from the nonsense and disbelief createdby the deletion of "Oliver Twist"'s subplots, this particular film'sstoryline just seemed to copy that of other versions. Like the versionsby David Lean, Carol Reed, and Disney, Sykes grabs Oliver and takes himhostage on the roof before accidentally hanging himself. That doesn'thappen in the original story. Heck, the boy wasn't even *there* whenthe event happened. I've not really seen any Polanski films aside fromthis, but I know he could've done better.The sets were OK and the choice of actors were decent, but again,Polanski could've made some improvements. Jamie Foreman just didn'thave the evilness and malevolence of Bill Sykes that I thought heshould've had. His predecessors Robert Newton, Oliver Reed, and AndySerkis certainly did. Harry Eden was OK for the Artful Dodger, Isuppose. I'd rather he'd have been around Oliver's age as he was in thebook, but I've never really been as picky about the portrayed age ofDodger and Charlie Bates as many others are. Barney Clark, well...hewas just too old for the title role. He portrayed the character fine,but he neither looked nor sounded like a nine year old boy. RichardCharles was eleven in the 1982 version by Clive Donner, but he lookedand sounded much younger than he really was, so it was alright. IfPolanski had chosen to make his own adaptation in 2003 or 2004, thenI'd be more accepting of Clark because he fit the part of a youngercharacter at those ages. A 12, almost 13 year old, though? No. Theother characters were perfect.The soundtrack was one of the few positive highlights about "OliverTwist." They're well composed and very enjoyable to listen to. All inall, this wasn't too bad of a film, but it could've been so muchbetter. As another user noted somewhere else, too, if "Oliver Twist"were to be remade into a faithful telling of the book with the qualitypicture, sets, etc. this film had, then it'd be the most perfectversion ever made. I wouldn't necessarily not recommend Polanski'sadaptation to someone, but there are others I'd certainly do so beforethis one any day. If you want a quality version, go for the 1948version by David Lean or the 1999 TV series by Alan Bleasdale. They'recertainly not perfect, but they're far more faithful in general to theoriginal novel and are certainly never boring like this one gets. The1985 TV series by Alexander Baron isn't bad either, but the picturequality is horrible and Ben Rodska is literally the most hideous andterribly accented Oliver you'll ever see.

panicoma-1

18 May 2012

Why am I so angry? Meat Madam! I should be kept on gruel!

Now I'm not a literary expert, and I know Roman Polanski is wellcapable of hitting the mark with classy, searing studies of unorthodoxbehaviour and plot, but to tackle Dickens in the light of at leastthree adequate and successful previous versions is a not a task for onewho may already have peaked professionally. I love many of Polanski'searlier films, for me the height of his art came in the little known LeLocataire (AKA The Tenant: 1976), a study of character and bizarremomentum guaranteed to put you off renting a budget apartment in Paris.It's so apparent he hasn't chosen projects well for a long period now,and flying in the face of popular opinion, this was much as I expected.On this evidence, discerning producers will not be beating a way to hisdoor.Every movie lover knows that Oliver Twist kicks off with Mother dyingand giving the boy a necklace, the McGuffin, the plot-point that mustbe written so very skilfully, thus misdirecting the audience,(difficult enough with a well-known story). As usual in Dickens-moviesthis would be placed with a very large sledgehammer right at the startso that we can commence suspending our belief whilst Amos Killfarthingsuspects he's the father of Beatrice Blackhamp and that her house iswhere the missing will was found even though Noah Goodberry and SilasCrackenfast buried it in the garden where the butcher concealed thebones that contained the ruby brooch that Amos was given by the Duke ofBuckingham. We find Dickens' coincidences comfortable don't we? So itcomes as no surprise that Roman apparently decreed: 'this is a cornballcoincidence, so lose the bit about the mother, the necklace, thedaughter, and Oliver being Brownlow's grandson etc. I don't blame him,I always hated that amateur Twist in the story too. But if you losethat daft dodge, it's like taking out the crucifixion and still hopingfor sympathy at the end of The Gospel According to St Matthew.Castwise, there's Bill Sykes (Jamie Foreman); well how'd you like tohave to follow in the steps of Robert Newton who probably actually wasa Victorian Bully-boy off the set, or Ollie Reed? Now there's an Oliveryou wouldn't trust with your cat or your canapés, every inch thepulsating psychopath with or without a script. I was relieved when hegot topped on screen, a scintillating and disruptive influence on theplot, just what the script-doctor ordered!! Jamie Foreman played it upas a sort of soap opera baddie. ('I really don't like your tone MrsCrutchworth! kindly leave the Crescent)! As if all that wasn't direenough, take away any pretence at pace, London greyness, depth orinterest, arm the best mature actress in the UK (Liz Smith) with acouple of measly lines, then give her the elbow, and voilà! all isprepared for the visionary New Ending. Wassat you say, that's howDickens wrote it? Yeah right, that may be the ending Dickens actuallywrote, and if it is ... he was a worse writer that I'd taken him for,and more credit to David Lean (1948) and Carol Reed (1968) for leavingthat bit out and giving us a proper movie finale.So Bill Sykes clumsily hangs himself, but without any drama at all.Probably a lot of accidental suicides happen like that, but not whenbeing witnessed by a regular 1864(?) Hue & Cry with all the Peelers,Strowbuckers and Cordwanglers (Victorian terms), and a Very Worried andtheatrical Mr Brownlow (wide eyed and hand-to-mouth).I'm not dissing this 'Oliver' for the sake of it or because I don'tlike the author, 'au contraire lesser mortals', I rated the televisionversion (1999), with its vastly superior cast, (apart from theregularly appalling and predictable Robert Lindsay) and theawe-inspiring performance of Marc Warren as Monks, doubtless the rolewhich eventually got him a bit in Band of Brothers.'Oliver' according to Polanski is Dickens-by- rote: Cut Mum's death,into the coffin-shop, out you go, off to London, artful Dodger grabshim, off to Fagin (all without Lionel Bart's tunes to give us abreathing space), gang gets boy, gang loses boy, gang gets boy backetc.I didn't catch the Dreyfuss TV version 1997, but with a minimum ofthree previous outings all based on the same very familiar tale,Polanski would have been better off spending a month on the Isle ofWight making sandcastles.Plusses? At last a movie director has rid Oliver of that posh accentand made him a more believable starving workhouse-educated Victorianorphan! Nancy (Leanne Rowe) engenders some small amount of sympathyalso, save that she didn't look like an East End hooker-du-jour whichI'm sure the author hinted at quite strongly - (I daresay Mr Snodwalletcould put me right on that?) Best point? I did love Ben Kingsley whoundoubtedly trained for the part by boning-up on The Best of Steptoeand Son, (he did a wicked Albert, I kept on expecting him to declare:'Now that Nancy, she's a big girl!) Bless him, he was the only realthing in it.How often will we be diverted by 'famous names' from seeing that theplaudits heaped upon so many of our movie icons are undeserved? Why arethe right questions not asked prior to production? Nobody used commonsense when Vince Vaughan did Psycho or Steve Martin lowered himselfbeneath the decency barrier for his Peter Sellers mockery. Polanskicould once do much better than this, (even The Pianist looked likesomeone else's movie). The world did not need this film, no-one gainsgreatly from the experience of rubbing shoulders with gross mediocrity.Wake up Roman, look around, the world is on fire and there are storiesto tell. Your pro-lifeline is hanging by a very fine thread, anotherone like this and we will not ask for more.

18 May 2012

A students guide of Human Nature

When a story transcends the time and place of it's telling , touching the heart of the reader or audience from generation to generation , it is rightfully called a classic. Charles Dickin's Oliver Twist is a classical study of the full spectrum of Human Nature from selfless love to murderous debauchery. Roman Polanski's version of this classic is a worthy addition to some very fine films of this story. For me , without a doubt , the best character actor of the film is Ben Kinglsey's portrayal of Fagin , truely an oscar winning performance.

Eric Ho

17 May 2012

An tragic event--Oliver Twist

Oliver Twist, the main character of this movie, is an orphan in early19th century England who escapes from his rude undertaker employer andgoes to London where he's taken in by a group of pickpockets lead byFagin. Oliver gets drunk in his new surroundings for a time, until someof the more shifty characters of the group take thievery tolife-or-death stakes and Oliver becomes a bargaining chip. Some characters are cut from the book, and some elements are missing,but that is expected when a book is translated into a film. Despite ofthose cuts, the movie is very truthful to the book, and it could hardlyask for a better translation.Every nuance of London, the slum areas has been very faithfullyrealized on screen. The filthy of the back alleys is almost obvious asthe characters tread through the mud, and one is almost tempted to dofftheir hat when the scenery moves to the middle class homes. Polanski,no stranger to extreme tragedy himself, knows how to tell a sad story.The mistreatment of child orphans, the poor and the women in thisperiod is viscerally staged, making the audience squirm agonizingly intheir seats. However, it's a bit odd that Polanski plays on our tragedyfor battered women living under a patriarchy when you consider thereason Polanski hasn't been able to set foot in the United States forthe past 30 years. Overall, I can find very little bugs about this movie: the only thing Ican find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems a bit sparse insome areas, and perhaps a bit too boring. I would certainly recommendthis movie to anyone.

Sharp Eyes

16 May 2012

Forget watching unless you like stage props and costumes

Maybe Roman Polanski should have had someone to check he had actors forthis movie and who knew the language in which it was to be spoken.Choppy acting and timing.High school play.A story. No matter where it comes from it is a story you are tellingwhich is on film. A few hours to be carried away.The story of this movie is what went dreadfully wrong with a name RomanPolanski stamped on this movie.Actors make you believe you are not looking at someone dressed incostumes with people in front looking through cameras filming. Whenthere are no actors present you have no movie.

Kristine

16 May 2012

Roman takes a nice twist of Charles classic

Charles Dickens wrote a wonderful and one of my favorite still to thisday novels, Oliver Twist. In 1968, a brilliant musical version on filmwas made that I still watch. Many Broadways have performed or just atheater in general, and most I have enjoyed. This is a beautiful storyof an orphan, Oliver Twist, who is given away from the orphanage to acoffin maker's business where he is also abused as well. He comes toLondon to seek his fortune and ends up with a bad crowd of Fagin'slittle pick pocketers and the treacherous villain, Bill Sykes. But whena mistaken theft is taken by Oliver, the accuser, the kind and wealthyMr. Brownlow. soon finds out that it was not Oliver and decides to takehim in. But when Fagin finds out and fears his business to be out inthe open, he makes Oliver's only friend, Bill's wife, Nancy, kidnaphim. Can Oliver come back into a decent life? Watch the film.Roman took a wonderful story and he turned it into a beautiful andlovely film to watch. I think though, I have a little hard time because"Oliver!"(the 68 version) is just so bright and wonderful. This was adarker tale I felt; but still I would highly recommend it because ofit's beautiful cinematography and great acting. Roman has done itagain, and enjoy the movie! 7/10

buznuz

15 May 2012

Though Polanskis Oliver Twist is a superficially conventional retelling of the story, this is Polanski, and the truth about pain is here if you are paying attention.

There was little that Charles Dickens didn't know about human nature.Who better to interpret his work for the screen than the similarlygifted Roman Polanski.Polanski's film allows everyone their humanity. Even the extras whopeople the immaculately designed sets, seem to have a life outside ofthis film. Ben Kingsley's performance as Fagin is not held in aspic inold age, but is full of hints about his earlier life. Oliver'ssufferings seem to mirror that of children in many places and in alltimes. When it is alleviated it is not by those worldly motivations ofcharity or civil duty. While a carriage full of prosperous peoplestudiously ignore his plight, a poor old woman who has little herselfcares for him. While the wealthy city is content for him to die on thestreet, a criminal feeds him. When Oliver finally takes his place inthe middle class, a priggish religiosity reminds us of Victoriansociety's cure for criminality. In the end Polanski knows and Dickensasserts that individual decency and humanity alone provide hope.

medievalrants

15 May 2012

too bad kid cant act (kids will be bored by movie) - slight spoiler

Film looked gorgeous. Went with a 10-year-old who had no difficultyhandling it, but had more trouble with the accents. I think most kidswould be BORED not traumatized.For the story to work, we had to fall in love with Oliver. But thisOliver was gormless and badly acted ("I'm going to act faint now" -looked like any kid's fake swoon). And we had to fall in love withNancy Sykes. (Interestingly, my son didn't think that Bill Sykes washer husband - thought it was her cousin or something - spawned aconversation about wife abuse that was probably a good thing to have).We couldn't fall in love with Nancy because we weren't given arelationship with her.Mainly disappointed in the Oliver character - he just looked like amodern kid dressed up and without any imaginative grasp on thecharacter that he was supposed to portray.