The Wonderful World of Disney (TV Series) Oliver Twist (1997) User Reviews

Nice adaptation of the world-famous book well made by Tony Bill

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 20 October 2008]

Homeless little boy Oliver (Trench) abandoned at orphanage and during one meal he pleads : 'Please, Sir I want some more' . He's mistreated and the abused orphan escapes and befriends Artful Dodger (a scoundrel Elijah Wood) , a roguish pickpocket . Dodger introduces him into a band of youthful thieves commanded by Fagin (Richard Dreyfuss, also producer) in debt to the cruel Sikes (David O'Hara) . Then the young boy is forced into a life of thievery until his rescue by a good and kindly maid.

This is one of at least ten versions of the world-known novel , being an entertaining adaptation from Charles Dickens classic . Cool performance by Richard Dreyfuss as the great manipulator Fagin , though Elijah Wood at the height of his stardom , steals the show . It's made in a television style and shot in Ireland . The motion picture was professionally directed by Tony Bill , usual actor and occasionally director of cinema and TV films.

Other renditions about this popular story are the followings : The silent version with Jackie Coogan and Lon Chaney ; 1948 the classic film by David Lean with John Howard (Oliver) , Anthony Newley(Dodger) , Alec Guinness(Fagin), Sikes(Robert Newton) ; musical and Oscarized 1968 version by Carol Reed with Mark Lester (Oliver) , Jack Wild (Dodger), Ron Moody (Faguin), Oliver Reed (Sikes) and finally recent and lush version by Roman Polanski with Ben Kingsley (Fagin).

"Disney-fied" far too much; decent at best

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 4 September 2004]

Just when you thought Disney had ruined enough classics, they pounce like a predator on the brilliant work of Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, and turns a great story into a cheap family/children's tale. Now, I haven't read the entire book, but I read much of it when I was younger, and what I remember was definitely much better than this cheap, made-for-TV Disney production. They changed the story very much around, and removed some of the more "inappropriate for younger viewers" details, which pretty much ruins the story, and reduces it to an immature retelling of a great Dickens story. The plot is decent, but it's so damn predictable and dull(not to mention different from the original) that only a child or someone with way too much free time and/or patience could enjoy it. The acting is decent at best, with one or two actors obviously trying to transcend the embarrassing level of acting, but failing miserably due to the awfully written material. The script is poorly written. The characters are badly written and often come off as cliché-ish stereotype versions of the people they're portraying. The dialog is poorly written. The humor is juvenile. Overall the film is a very childish and immature production, which I guess is supposed to represent the target audience. I've said it before and I'll say it again; Hollywood, listen up: a children's movie doesn't necessarily have to be a childish movie. There is a difference, and that difference is most commonly known under the term "level of quality". Even for a TV film this is bad. All in all, a decent Disney production, but if you want a good retelling of the story, look elsewhere. Or, even better, read the book. I hear it's excellent, but I can't remember much of it. I recommend this only to children, and only to children who are ignorant of the works of Dickens. Anyone else should avoid; unless, you have absolutely nothing better to do, you have to kill 90 minutes, and there are no good spots left on the walls to stare at. 5/10

Good Acting but very difficult to understand

[rboike · 5/10 · 10 February 2007]

The sound tract and voice quality left a lot to be desired. The director lacked experience in demanding proper enunciation from the actors. Parts of the movie were in whispers and turning up the volume was to no avail. The story by Charles Dickens is truly a classic, but unless you are a skilled lip reader you are destined to miss much of the action of the novel. Had I not read the book and reviewed a better version of the same story much of the heart warming scenes would be totally missed. The inability to clearly understand script and the spoken words of the actors make this film a second rated version. In order to give the film every advantage I played it on two different occasions on different sound equipment. The result was about the same. Others watching the DVD with me had the same problem.

The Artful

[herebedragons3 · 19 April 2002]

Elijah Wood was too old for his role. Love the guy, really, but frankly, WHAT THE HECK WAS GOING ON WITH THAT ACCENT? It made me cringe! The Artful Dodger is probably my favorite character ever in fiction, and I've loved every incarnation of him I've seen, and really Elijah has a quality to him that should have made him perfect for the part. But will somebody get him a speech-coach! He is good, though, leading the bunch of kids like the Pied Piper (only it's more of a Pie-Eyed Piper). A question. Did they have to give him yellow teeth? Yuck.

Bad Bad Bad

[sirclancelot · 1/10 · 20 January 2006]

Why, Oh why did anyone agree to be in this movie? I can only assume they were either desperate for work or mad.

Aside from the usual argument that it wasn't even slightly faithful to the book, this film just wasn't thought out.

At the start as we see Oliver's mother wandering the moors a caption comes up stating that she is 'somewhere in the north of England.' Okay, if this is true, why is everybody at the workhouse a Londoner? I'm from the north of England and no one here talks like Michael Caine, believe me.

While we're still on the subject of accents, Elijah Wood performed his role well as he is a rather good actor but this was totally shadowed by bad voice work. At times it was like he was playing Scarlet O'Hara in a GONE WITH THE WIND remake! At others I thought I'd accidentally put the Crocodile Dundee video in by mistake. There was one part in towards the end where he didn't even try and delivered an entire line in his own American accent!

I suppose in its defence, this film is not the only one to have certain inaccuracies. Even the revered Oliver! musical has a line "you promised we could go and see the hangin'" when actually by this period, public hangings had been abolished.

I actually saw this film on DVD so it's not that I've been denied the opportunity to see this in all it's 'glory' by only seeing the edited TV version. This film is a Disney film and we all know that they can do miles better. This is the corporation that invented feature-length animated movies, they brought us Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, LAdy and the Tramp, Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. This movie is so amateur in comparison to most of Disney's other productions. It comes across as having been made by some errand boy while the studio bosses are on a tea break!

A brave attempt at the classic

[cimorene_fantasy · 9/10 · 26 June 2003]

There have been better film versions of Dickens' classic novel 'Oliver Twist,' and while this adaptation may not be topping the bill, it is a film to be enjoyed. Richard Dreyfuss gives a brilliant character lead portrayal of Fagin that entertains and delights, and Elijah Wood gives a most endearingly wicked performance of everyone's favorite character the Artful Dodger. I would recommend it to anyone

Plastic Disney Rubbish,it should be against the Law.

[terraplane · 1/10 · 22 December 2003]

As we are all too aware, nothing nasty ever happens in the wonderful world of Disney.Why,then,did Disney try their dead hand at Charles Dickens great novel of social injustice,child abuse,crime and poverty? Do not watch this appallingly bad film which shares little with the book other than the name.At least Lionel Bart's 'Oliver!' had a couple of decent songs in it.

Wonderful adaptation of a timeless classic

[Andreas_N · 8/10 · 27 December 2005]

This is the first adaptation of Charles Dickens' famous novel that I came to see.

The cast is simply great. Elijah Wood is a very cunning Artful Dodger. I was particularly fond of his wonderful British accent, which he delivers in the contemporary manner of old-fashioned grammar and marked shifts in intonation and stress. This must have been quite challenging for an American actor – I take my hat off to his performance. Alex Trench, who seems to have no movie record whatsoever apart from his appearance here, is a very convincing and well-cast Oliver Twist. He embodies the right combination of natural humor, a handsome appearance and genuine acting skills in front of the camera. I hope that Harry Eden and Barney Clark will be able to live up to the performances of Elijah and Alex in this year's new Polanski adaptation. Fagin, the sly and ambivalent chief of the pickpocket gang who takes Oliver under his wings and develops into a kind of mentor for the young boy who is stranded in the bleak streets of London is played by veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss. He manages to portray the slightly overdone eccentricity of Fagin in a way that is indeed a bit oversubscribed, but nonetheless fitting into the frame of the movie as a whole.

The plot and storyline development is very close to the original artwork by Dickens. The movie starts with Oliver's mother and his birth, his growing up years and the harsh life in the orphanage. It very deliberately focuses on his development and the milieu he is born into, thus setting the stage for his adventures and marking the motivation that makes him break free. It needs not to be said that Oliver's quest for a better life is very much a significant part of the story, as his grandfather and the old man's niece step into his life when he is on the verge of becoming a criminal. Alex is now in this classic scenario Dickens so craftily elaborates on, caught between these two strata, between the bleak and dirty streets of London and the prospect of a wealthy life. His adventures need not to be outlined here any further – they are fairly well-known, and those who are not familiar with them ought to get the movie.

The visuals in the movie are stunning and need to be applauded regarding the low budget of the production and its arrangement as a TV movie. They very much apply to Dickens' perception of the contemporary features of London which he so eloquently describes in his writing. The pace of the plot development, the camera work and the level of suspense that makes up the last third of the movie is sincerely implemented and perfectly transformed.

This version of Oliver Twist is exciting and interesting to watch. It features well-known actors and delivers the essential spirit of Dickens' masterpiece in a way that merits the famous title. Get it and enjoy the atmosphere, the visuals, the acting and the messages involved. I award it with a 8 because of its basic quality and the flawless plot. Wonderful accomplishment!

Forbidden Broadway

[bckesler · 1/10 · 3 April 2007]

This is Brian Kesler, phony film critic, with your daily movie buzz. As Disney sinks lower and lower every week, and the animation studio is being chopped up for winter firewood, their live action productions seem to be moving right along. 'Oliver Twist' has just managed to make its way onto television screens everywhere. And it's created quite a buzz regarding other versions of the film. After being advertised to magnificently horrid reviews, this sugar fest of insipid cockney accents and wonderfully witless dialogue has broken all sorts of records for cash lost in a single week. With it's eye shattering out of period fiberglass set and nauseating cinematography, 'Oliver Twist' has the look of a winner of minus three Emmy awards. And 'Oliver Twist' is perfect for the middle class suburban brain dead family. No nasty lyrics, gruesome perversions, or multiculturalism like there is in the musical and other versions. Oliver Twist has been sanitized, shrink wrapped, and drained of all blood for your protection. This is Brian Kesler with the movie buzz, and who the hell am I anyways?

Consider Yourself . . . lucky if you missed this one.

[thomandybish · 20 March 2001]

The reference to the song from the musical version of Charles Dickens' classic is not gratuitous, because this Disney version owes as much to the film version of OLIVER! as it does to the novel. Maybe more, because very little of the novel's depiction of crippling poverty and horrific child abuse remains. Too much sugar coats these reprehensible characters and situations. Fagin is softened to some sort of gruff but lovable foster father, and Nancy is enobled as a hooker-with-a-heart of gold, not a pathetic, physically and mentally battered wretch. One would expect such a treatment from Disney, but the trivialization of poverty, child abuse, and crime does not do the story Dickens intended justice.

Disappointing

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 24 June 2012]

I had heard much about this movie, not very favourably mind you, but loving the book and enjoying several other versions especially David Lean's film, I finally thought let's give it a go. After watching, I wouldn't say it is a terrible movie, but of the versions seen(1948 film, 1968 musical, 1982 film, 2005 film, 2007 series, 1999 series and 1933 film) it is my least favourite. I do give it credit for the production values, which do look lovely and evocative(mostly, some scenes are a little too clean though), the good soundtrack, the professional direction a suitably innocent Alex Trench as Oliver and Richard Dreyfuss as a delightful Fagin. Elijah Wood also had a real sense of cunning and charisma as Artful Dodger but his inconsistent accent, coming across sometimes as Australian to me, let him down. On the other hand, the script feels rather corny and misses on some of the more important underlying themes of the story like the poverty and child abuse. The story does maintain most of the details of the book, like the scene with Oliver's mother at the start and I did like that Widow Corney's role is expanded, but the basic tone like the sub-plot with the locket feels very sugar-coated, with some brutal scenes of the book like Fagin manipulating Bill into killing Nancy and Nancy's death lacking their power, in fact Nancy's death here is only implied. I'd say the same for the characters, Mr Bumble is only seen in one scene, Bill Sikes looks too clean and I imagined a more burly figure, Fagin though wonderfully played is not quite oily enough and Nancy is too much of the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliché with not enough vulnerability. The rest of the performances are decent enough, Antoine Byrne does look lovely and does do well with what the role gives her to work with, but again more vulnerability wouldn't have gone amiss. David O'Hara overall I found too restrained for Bill Sikes, never really convincing as a violent bully. All in all, not a disaster but rather disappointing all the same. 5/10 Bethany Cox

A great family film

[Robin-83 · 10/10 · 27 July 1999]

I saw this movie on TV, so I am told that I did not see the better copy of it, but still, I greatly enjoyed it. It did stray somewhat from Dickens' original story, and it rather contradicted British law at the time the story was written (if you would like me to explain, you'll have to e-mail me, for it would be considered a spoiler if I wrote it here), but on the whole, it was very well done. The acting was good, and I was pleased to see that it had very little (if any) offensive material in it. It is a wonderful family movie.

Game cast sunk by very eccentric script

[BadWebDiver · 4/10 · 7 June 2003]

This is almost a good version of the story. Alex Trench plays a sweet, innocent hero very nicely, while Richard Dreyfus throws himself into the role of Fagin with relish. And Elijah Wood really tries to make the Artful Dodger work. It seemed a perfect choice for him after his portrayal of Huckleberry Finn in THE ADVENTURES OF HUCK FINN, and I like the way he tries to get an authentic Cockney accent by doing a Cary Grant impression. The trouble is though he's way too old for this role here (at least compared to the book). If he'd played this immediately after Huck Finn, he would have been perfect. {Someone should really write an essay comparing and contrasting those two characters, it would be a really interesting assignment.)

SPOILER WARNING

The script really doesn't understand the story that well. I cannot imagine for one moment Oliver would even contemplate going back into the dreaded Workhouse after he's been thrown out - especially to retrieve a locket (which in the novel by the way, he's not even aware of). And the treatment of Mr Bumble as a bit part cameo is disgraceful. This hardly seems like the sort of person who would utter a memorable line like; "If the Law thinks that, then the Law is an Ass and a Bachelor - and God help the Law!"

And the way that the Dodger and Oliver meet up, when the Dodge STOPS Oliver from stealing doesn't ring true at all. His explanation that it would attract too much attention from the Law sounds ridiculous. It would be much more beneficial for the pro thieves to let the the rank amateurs get caught and keep the Law happy, while the experts get away with it.

And adults seem to forget that teens and pre-teens don't really see each other as equals. Most pre-teens find teenagers somewhat of a threat. And when you think about it, Oliver up to the point he goes to London thinks that kids are generally okay and trustworthy, while the older folks are an obvious menace. Which is why if say Nancy or Sykes or Fagin tried to grab Oliver off the street he'd be a lot more wary and terrified. He trusts the Dodger more because he sees the Dodger as an ally and a nice kid like himself - if shrewder to city living. (The fact that the Dodger is one of the most corrupt kids around is something Oliver couldn't possibly know).

The script seems to ignore the basic theme of the story that Oliver has to get though this ordeal without a blemish to his character. If he is corrupted in any way whatsoever, he loses; because he is no better than the ones around him. (Of course this is more apparent in the novel where Monks wants him to be corrupted to gain the inheritance of their father).

Good Movie-Contains Spoilers for both the book and the movie

[harrytrue · 8/10 · 4 September 2005]

As far as I can tell, no version of "Oliver Twist" follows Dickens' novel faithfully. I think you should read the novel, and use your imagination to create your own story.

There are a lot of differences in the movie. One is that Oliver Twist is aware shortly after he moves in with Fagin and his gang, that they are involved in stealing to survive (Fagin cites Robin Hood-a good example-Robin Hood can be considered a terrorist). Oliver has no problems with stealing to survive, unlike the novel.

In the novel, as one email writer noted, Fagin is called "the Jew". Dickens noted that all the other villains in "Oliver Twist" (and his other novels) are gentiles. Also, Fagin is a secular Jew. Religion has no part in his life. Jews have not benefited from Fagin, who is a lot darker in the novel.

Fagin is not the "nice" character that he is in "Oliver!", but a lot nicer than the character in the novel. In "Oliver Twist", Fagin sets up Sikes to kill Nancy (who dies for different reasons in the novel). Fagin hangs for this. In the movie, Sikes has all the blame. In this movie, Oliver (who is a calculating as Fagin) admits that had Fagin not taken him in, he would be dead now. A modern version is that the looters in New Orleans were often the first to bring food to the people. Oliver and Fagin hug and depart to their separate lives.

Not too bad for a TV movie

[Coolguy-7 · 1/10 · 13 December 1999]

I first saw this movie on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC when it first aired. Months later, I saw it at my former pastor's cabin on a video that he and his wife had taped it on. This is quite differnt than the 1968 musical in many ways. For one thing, the Artful Dodger is much older in this version than in the musical. Instead of being a preteen or young teenager, he's a high school aged teen. Fagin has a much more clean appearance with his cleanly-shaved face. Bill Sykes doesn't look so scruffy either as he does in the musical. At the workhouse, there is a female version of Mr. Bumble and they show Oliver's mother giving birth to him at the beginning. In the musical, the scene begins with the orphans lining up to eat supper. Although this is a great movie, I still like the musical much better.

Dickens Would Be Proud

[kathernthegreat22 · 10 August 2003]

Seriously, he would. There have been SEVERAL remakes of Oliver Twist, including the popular musical "Oliver," but I'd have to say this is the best one of all of them. The young kids do memorable performances, as do the adults. This is perhaps one of my all-time favorite movies.

A true Classic Tale

[goldenponywlk · 10/10 · 20 February 2010]

Just last week I was walking through the electronic area in Wal-mart when I saw 'Oliver Twist' on DVD for only $9.66. I bought it right there and the very next day, I watched it and loved it! Elijah Wood is a fabulous Dodger and the six year old Oliver is so cute. This is not my most favourite version of 'Oliver Twist' (my favourite is Oliver and Company), but it is great. But there are two things I found rather annoying.1. The characters talk either to quietly or to quickly and 2. every so often the screen just stops, the characters freeze and it looks like a drawing from an old book. Any way, I think its SO much better than the musical. All in all this is a great film and I just watched it two hours ago.

A Wonderful movie with Superb Actors

[rinoa_hartily · 16 March 2002]

This is a movie for the young-not showing too much of a classic that might scare them, helping them see that good will reign in this earth, and a really hot guy name Elijah Wood!!! Okay, I know, this movie might not even be all that good but I can't make a sound judgement because Elijah did so beautifully in this movie. It was-in my opinion-his best role. It shows the extent of his acting, and his heart that he pours into it.

Worst version EVER of the Dickens Classic

[mcquicker · 9 March 2003]

It was sickening; the story was mutilated, the characters and situations changed and the dialogue invented.

Charles Dickens must have made 1000 revolutions in his grave.

Those who participated in this disaster, should have their SAG membership revoked.

To see Richard Dreyfuss as Fagin was enough to send me running to the vomitory.

Don't watch it. If it comes on TV, switch channels!

McQ

Richard, what are you doing?!

[ourumov · 6 May 1999]

I think that this is probably the worst version of Dicken's superb novel ever. I think people should definately give up on making new and "better" films of Oliver, as there are already enough terrible ones. In the first few scenes of being introduced to Fagin in this movie, all the characters pronounced his name wrong.. as if it were Fajin. I nearly burst into laughter at this, and even more so when gradually throughout the feature his name was changed to its correct sound.

Overall, I think the entire movie was a schamozzle. It did not revolve much around the book AT ALL.

Naff.

[Brave Sir Robin · 20 April 2003]

Haven't read the book, but this movie was Naff. Elijah Wood was bloody horrible (has he ever even been in a decent movie apart from Lord of the Rings?). Richard Dreyfuss tried his best to have some fun, but this has gotta be the weakest of all his roles. My dad read the book and he said they changed everything around. There was way too much family mushiness.

Worse on TV

[Abby-4 · 19 December 1998]

I was lucky enough to see an advance copy of this movie through a teacher who was friends with the director and was told that the TV version was worse than the original copy of the movie. Although I missed the TV showing, I was told by the teacher that many of the best parts were cut out, making the film much worse. Mind you, it wasn't a classic to begin with, but it was better than what most people saw.

fairly boring

[middle_earth_istari · 30 April 2002]

This movie wasn't really all that good and most of the acting wasn't too good either. Richard Dreyfuss certainly didn't shine in this movie although he is in excellent actor. I thought that Elijah wood did a good job and so did a few of the other minor actors, but for the most part it was flat and boring

Insipid version.

[Vale · 18 September 1998]

One of my favorite film characters is Fagin, because if represents some of the human most illustrative sins: ambition, avarice, manipulation; but Richard Dreyfuss doesn't convince me with his characterization. More, the film is low, bored, and too long for the plot.