Dickens' OLIVER TWIST gets yet another face lift in this modern re-telling set on the gritty streets of Manhattan. This update strays even further afield from the source than the Toronto-based TWIST starring Nick Stahl. Here even the names have been changed to protect the guilty, but there's still a trace of their Dickensian monikers left. Oliver is now Lee, a foster kid left to fend for himself on the streets (a young man who seems to be the genuine article, not an actor). The Artful Dodger is Fine Art - a bleached blonde, hard-edge hustler who'll do anyone for a buck. Fagin is morphed into aging mama's boy Andre (a creepy Bill Hickey). Bill Sykes and Nancy are here a gay S&M pair with Angel (Nancy) being Lee's...well...angel. The film has a gritty indie feel, but the most passionate character is a drag queen and it is hard to muster up any feelings for the others. Tony winner Elizabeth Franz does her best as a chain smoking foster care official; most of her scenes played in an odd flashback style that would better suit the stage than the screen. The tone is all over the map, with an unintentionally hilarious 'Dorian Gray' sequence involving Andre's Mother, an opera singing diva. Despite the buff guys (including stage thesp Anthony Crivello as the evil Bill Sykes character) the film wears out it's welcome, and the mind starts to mull over the merits of other film adaptations, this one near the bottom of the pack.
3 Reviews
A Horrible Mess
philip-17 April 2001
The video box said a twist on Oliver Twist amongst the gay underground in NYC. And yes, that's what it is. And it's actually not a bad idea for a film. Unfortunately everything in this terrible film mitigates against success.
The director clearly doesn't know how to tell a story. There's tons of artsy images, flashbacks, bizarre character juxtapositions and the like that impede rather than delineate the story. Next, the screenplay is a preposterous, lumbering rehash of Dickens where underage African American boys show up in gay bars without being carded!!!!!!! Then there's the editing and cinemaphotography. OK, it was a low budget film, but then I've seen low budget films where the images were clear and there was decent lighting.
The only thing the movie has going for it are several pretty good performances. How rich this movie could have been with a better screenplay and a better director.
A reel loser!
The director clearly doesn't know how to tell a story. There's tons of artsy images, flashbacks, bizarre character juxtapositions and the like that impede rather than delineate the story. Next, the screenplay is a preposterous, lumbering rehash of Dickens where underage African American boys show up in gay bars without being carded!!!!!!! Then there's the editing and cinemaphotography. OK, it was a low budget film, but then I've seen low budget films where the images were clear and there was decent lighting.
The only thing the movie has going for it are several pretty good performances. How rich this movie could have been with a better screenplay and a better director.
A reel loser!
Warning -- sparkling but experimental
regal-9499826 March 2015
So experimental that it is almost unwatchable. Don't watch it for entertainment, and it is pretty repulsive. But with those qualifications I give it full stars because it is so very brave in an effort to be creative and there are some brilliant ideas crammed into it and it can even be quite touching.
If you are interested in independent experimental films, take note of this one. I would love to see what some of this talent might do in the future if given the chance and with a few years to reflect on this work. I see a lot of artistic potential here in terms of cinematography, script, direction, acting, etc. At times I thought, Ken Russell meets John Waters.
It is worth mentioning that I think some reviewers are wrong in calling this a gay themed film. True there are mostly gay characters in it. But so what? It is more about down-and- outers and the seamy side of life where money and hard breaks rule and yet where compassion sometimes has a chance. This is not to say that the story is all that important, it is mostly the way the film is "done." I think the "low-life" gay stuff just contributes to the overall exotic and gritty atmosphere.
The short "Loopy" was a cute experimental short of the sort that would fit in well with other shorts at a film festival.
All in all, this film will only be appreciated by certain types of viewers -- perhaps those who like to check out film festivals for new talent.
If you are interested in independent experimental films, take note of this one. I would love to see what some of this talent might do in the future if given the chance and with a few years to reflect on this work. I see a lot of artistic potential here in terms of cinematography, script, direction, acting, etc. At times I thought, Ken Russell meets John Waters.
It is worth mentioning that I think some reviewers are wrong in calling this a gay themed film. True there are mostly gay characters in it. But so what? It is more about down-and- outers and the seamy side of life where money and hard breaks rule and yet where compassion sometimes has a chance. This is not to say that the story is all that important, it is mostly the way the film is "done." I think the "low-life" gay stuff just contributes to the overall exotic and gritty atmosphere.
The short "Loopy" was a cute experimental short of the sort that would fit in well with other shorts at a film festival.
All in all, this film will only be appreciated by certain types of viewers -- perhaps those who like to check out film festivals for new talent.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
