Polanski is the kid of guy who likes to dance on the edge. A mixture of clown, genius and artist who has suffered personal tragedy and humiliation but one who keeps cranking amazing films. This Oliver Twist is no exception. Polanski has reworked the story and taken out the 19th century coincidences, e.g., the highly improbable fact that Oliver is Brownlow's grandson and the business with the portrait of Oliver's mother, given the old tale a fresh coat of paint with new amazing character actors such as Leanne Rowe, a young and thoroughly charming Nancy, Henry Eden, a scamp of a Dodger, Jamie Forman, a repulsive Bill Sykes with no redeeming features whatsoever and the veteran Edward Hardwicke as Brownlow. But, it's young Barney Clark who steals the show. In past versions, Oliver is merely a device upon which the other array of characters are hung. We'll all remember Sir Alec Guinness, Richard Dreyfus and Ron Moody's Fagin, Oliver Reed and Robert Newton's Bill Syke, Elijah Wood, Anthony Newley and Jack Wild's Dodger but who were the Olivers? We will remember young Master Barney Clark in this marvelous, intriguing and eye-pleasing Oliver.
148 Reviews
New version of the classic Dickens with riveting stage design and impressive settings
ma-cortes22 December 2005
The film concerns Oliver Twist (Barney Clark), an innocent and ill-treated waif who is living at a workhouse in early 19th-century . The orphan escapes and he goes to London plunging in the underbelly . There he's dragged into a life of crime when is befriended by a band of youthful pickpockets . The little robbers are trained to steal for their master Fagin (Ben Kingsley) . The boy is struggling to flee himself the underworld . He's subjected to many awful incidents before finding somebody to worry for him until his rescue from a miserable life by a noble (Edward Harwicke who replaced Frank Finlay) to whom a sadist thief called Bill (Jamie Foreman) tries to burgle his house .
The picture is a well done co-production , -being specially a British movie- of Charles Dickens immortal story . As Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist includes many more characters and subplots than can be fit into a just-over-2-hours film . This version narrows down and streamlines the story to focus on misfortunes of Oliver , the Artful Dodger , scheming Fagin , evilness by fearful Bill Sykes , Nancy , Mr. Brownlow and other criminal elements of London . The novel's other characters Mr. Bumble, Mrs. Mann, Mrs. Corny, Noah Claypole, Charlotte, Mr. Monks, the Maylie family, the Fleming family, and the Leeford family, are all either relegated to brief cameo roles or omitted entirely from the story .
Ben Kingsley's Fagin is a treat , he's magnificent as the mean and greedy old man creating an under-age army of plunderers ; besides , an awesome portrayal by the support casting . The movie has a clever utilization of effects , colour as well as lighting and with highly smartness use of edition to increase suspense in provoking drama , emotion or horrible events as when happens the killing . The idea of making a new version of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" was suggested by Emmanuelle Seigne r, director Roman Polanski's wife , while he was looking for a plot that their children would find interesting. Director Roman Polanski's children have parts in the film, in fact , Morgane Polanski plays the farmer's daughter and Elvis Polanski plays the boy with the hoop . It's colorfully and sharply photographed by Pawel Edelman . Glowing cinematography of the rustic outdoors in Pre-Raphaelist style and gorgeous Victorian landscapes , just like urban London ; though , all of them were filmed in Czech Republic , at Prague Studies . In addition , excellent scenarios of dingy and dirty settings of the slums where the narration is developed . This is the best (along with David Lean version and the musical by Carol Reed) of many renditions about the unforgettable novel . Other retelling results to be the followings : by Frank LLoyd 1922 , by David Lean 1948 , and by Carol Reed 1968 . The motion picture was shot with nice detail and imaginatively realised by Roman Polanski .
The picture is a well done co-production , -being specially a British movie- of Charles Dickens immortal story . As Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist includes many more characters and subplots than can be fit into a just-over-2-hours film . This version narrows down and streamlines the story to focus on misfortunes of Oliver , the Artful Dodger , scheming Fagin , evilness by fearful Bill Sykes , Nancy , Mr. Brownlow and other criminal elements of London . The novel's other characters Mr. Bumble, Mrs. Mann, Mrs. Corny, Noah Claypole, Charlotte, Mr. Monks, the Maylie family, the Fleming family, and the Leeford family, are all either relegated to brief cameo roles or omitted entirely from the story .
Ben Kingsley's Fagin is a treat , he's magnificent as the mean and greedy old man creating an under-age army of plunderers ; besides , an awesome portrayal by the support casting . The movie has a clever utilization of effects , colour as well as lighting and with highly smartness use of edition to increase suspense in provoking drama , emotion or horrible events as when happens the killing . The idea of making a new version of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" was suggested by Emmanuelle Seigne r, director Roman Polanski's wife , while he was looking for a plot that their children would find interesting. Director Roman Polanski's children have parts in the film, in fact , Morgane Polanski plays the farmer's daughter and Elvis Polanski plays the boy with the hoop . It's colorfully and sharply photographed by Pawel Edelman . Glowing cinematography of the rustic outdoors in Pre-Raphaelist style and gorgeous Victorian landscapes , just like urban London ; though , all of them were filmed in Czech Republic , at Prague Studies . In addition , excellent scenarios of dingy and dirty settings of the slums where the narration is developed . This is the best (along with David Lean version and the musical by Carol Reed) of many renditions about the unforgettable novel . Other retelling results to be the followings : by Frank LLoyd 1922 , by David Lean 1948 , and by Carol Reed 1968 . The motion picture was shot with nice detail and imaginatively realised by Roman Polanski .
Not Much of a Twist
TashC1 February 2006
Adapted from the classic Dickens tale, Oliver Twist is the story of an idealistic orphan struggling to survive in a savage adult world. A world where hypocrisy, greed and cunning are celebrated and there are only rare glimpses of compassion.
The film focuses on the key events of the Dickens novel, excluding many of the subplots and associated characters. It opens with Oliver's (Barney Clark) arrival at the workhouse of "Please Sir, can I have some more" fame and follows his escape to London and its dingy underworld. Here he falls in with a band of pickpockets led by Fagin (Ben Kingsley) - a central character typifying hypocrisy, greed and cunning - but finds salvation in the form of Mr Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke) who recognizes the goodness in Oliver and endeavors to extract him from his, albeit unsuccessful, life of thievery.
As he did with his award-winning, "The Pianist", Polanksi drew on his own life experiences as an orphan in the ghettos in World War II to recreate certain moods. Grim, grimy and often claustrophobic, "Oliver Twist" startlingly depicts a callous world where children live at the whim of ruthless, self-serving adults. But the horror of this dark, unforgiving world is relieved by the inclusion of humour and banter throughout, making the film both captivating and entertaining.
As Oliver, Barney Clark exemplifies the helplessness of an innocent at the mercy of strangers and being manipulated for their benefit. As noted by Mr Sowerberry, the undertaker, "There's an expression of melancholy in his face, my dear, which is very interesting. He'd make a delightful mute". And mute and incapacitated - be it through hunger, illness, injury and/or fear - he is for much of the film. Other than a surprising brief show of defiance that takes him from the coal shed and sets him on the road to London, there is little evidence of any determination, strength or willfulness at all in this Oliver. But unfortunately there is little to endear him either and the film suffers for it.
Harry Eden has more depth and is much more compelling as the Artful Dodger. Plucky and likable, his struggle with the consequences of his betrayal of Nancy (Leanne Rowe) is agonising. Ben Kingsley is masterful and almost unrecognizable as Fagin. Depicted as pure evil in the novel, Polanksi strives to give this character humanity and meaning. The result is a foul, exploitative, groveling survivor a desperate and pitiful villain, but not a completely heartless one.
The elimination of many of the twists of the novel means that this film may disappoint viewers familiar with the intriguing undercurrents of Dickens' plot and richness of his characters' and their relationships. The only incredible discovery that Oliver makes in this version is that there is a better life to either the workhouse or the den of thieves.
While adaptation to film necessitates simplification of the story and as Polanksi points out "For today's taste, you need to abandon a certain amount of melodrama that was very typical for the period", it is easy to feel that in this paring down we have been left with an entertaining adventure set in 19th century Britain. When it comes to this Oliver, less is not more.
The film focuses on the key events of the Dickens novel, excluding many of the subplots and associated characters. It opens with Oliver's (Barney Clark) arrival at the workhouse of "Please Sir, can I have some more" fame and follows his escape to London and its dingy underworld. Here he falls in with a band of pickpockets led by Fagin (Ben Kingsley) - a central character typifying hypocrisy, greed and cunning - but finds salvation in the form of Mr Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke) who recognizes the goodness in Oliver and endeavors to extract him from his, albeit unsuccessful, life of thievery.
As he did with his award-winning, "The Pianist", Polanksi drew on his own life experiences as an orphan in the ghettos in World War II to recreate certain moods. Grim, grimy and often claustrophobic, "Oliver Twist" startlingly depicts a callous world where children live at the whim of ruthless, self-serving adults. But the horror of this dark, unforgiving world is relieved by the inclusion of humour and banter throughout, making the film both captivating and entertaining.
As Oliver, Barney Clark exemplifies the helplessness of an innocent at the mercy of strangers and being manipulated for their benefit. As noted by Mr Sowerberry, the undertaker, "There's an expression of melancholy in his face, my dear, which is very interesting. He'd make a delightful mute". And mute and incapacitated - be it through hunger, illness, injury and/or fear - he is for much of the film. Other than a surprising brief show of defiance that takes him from the coal shed and sets him on the road to London, there is little evidence of any determination, strength or willfulness at all in this Oliver. But unfortunately there is little to endear him either and the film suffers for it.
Harry Eden has more depth and is much more compelling as the Artful Dodger. Plucky and likable, his struggle with the consequences of his betrayal of Nancy (Leanne Rowe) is agonising. Ben Kingsley is masterful and almost unrecognizable as Fagin. Depicted as pure evil in the novel, Polanksi strives to give this character humanity and meaning. The result is a foul, exploitative, groveling survivor a desperate and pitiful villain, but not a completely heartless one.
The elimination of many of the twists of the novel means that this film may disappoint viewers familiar with the intriguing undercurrents of Dickens' plot and richness of his characters' and their relationships. The only incredible discovery that Oliver makes in this version is that there is a better life to either the workhouse or the den of thieves.
While adaptation to film necessitates simplification of the story and as Polanksi points out "For today's taste, you need to abandon a certain amount of melodrama that was very typical for the period", it is easy to feel that in this paring down we have been left with an entertaining adventure set in 19th century Britain. When it comes to this Oliver, less is not more.
Excellent adaptation
gtzam11 November 2005
Roman Polanski's film is an authoritative take on Dickens' classic. It is expertly paced, slowly immersing the viewer into the plight of the young orphan and its predicament in Victorian England. Through a meticulous period reconstruction, superb acting, and effective characterization (all the secondary characters are memorable), the typically Dickensian theme of the survival of Innocence against all odds is dramatized with utter conviction. The omission of the excessively melodramatic elements from the original story (Oliver's family back-story for instance) contributes greatly to the story's strength by minimizing any trace of implausibility or mawkishness, thus providing a wide-ranging portrait of the Victorian society with its intrinsic inequalities and its rather warped sense of justice. The visuals are splendid and the prevalent detached and non-judgmental approach to an easily emotive story is simply the signature of master director Roman Polanski, who is functioning here on top form.
Good film, but inferior to the David Lean classic.
TheLittleSongbird3 August 2009
The 1948 David Lean film is a classic, that is well worth watching for the outstanding performance of Alec Guiness. This adaptation was very good indeed, but I do think it is inferior to the 1948 film.
The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and the cinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portman was beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction is excellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it is fairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming and vulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and the other boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character's death was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were very well staged and perfectly captured on camera.
However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess I was disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he just wasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily and manipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in his performance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness, it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, and evidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something was holding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn't quite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the 1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dog should've got it. I did like the fact that the film tried to be faithful to the spirit of the book, but it felt a little bloated at times.
Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that I preferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10 Bethany Cox
The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and the cinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portman was beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction is excellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it is fairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming and vulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and the other boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character's death was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were very well staged and perfectly captured on camera.
However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess I was disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he just wasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily and manipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in his performance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness, it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, and evidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something was holding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn't quite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the 1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dog should've got it. I did like the fact that the film tried to be faithful to the spirit of the book, but it felt a little bloated at times.
Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that I preferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10 Bethany Cox
A Wasted Opportunity
se7en4513 September 2005
After the excellent, and deeply moving, THE PIANIST, I thought that Polanski was back on top of his art. His latest work should have been a lusty, disturbing, gripping and emotional film. Just look at the credentials - Roman Polanski directing Ben Kingsley in an adaptation of Charles Dickens' OLIVER TWIST - sadly it fails to deliver on this fabulous premise.
This must rank as the lamest Polanski film after the horrible PIRATES (1986). He simply aims the camera and shoots in a rather obvious manner that hankers after the lazy Sunday afternoon BBC dramas. The pacing of the film is often too brisk and crams in too much plot detail. The viewer never has the time to understand the motivations of the characters and any emotional resonance is lost in the vast sets.
The art design of this film is absolutely beautiful and stunningly realized. No cost has been spared in recreating Victorian London. It is as if the George Cruikshank illustrations, which graced the interiors of the Penguin editions of the book, have literally come to life. The costumes and architecture resemble the monochromatic sepia-toned photographs from the era. The tight, narrow alleys infested with rats and dripping with slime and mud, all the poverty and filth is on display but the story gets swamped in those very same alleys. The opening and closing credits sequences used the famed woodcuts and etchings by Gustave Dore and they pack a visceral punch. All the crude vitality of Victorian life is captured in these haunting pictures and many will leave the theatre with goose-pimples.
The soundtrack employed vast symphonic forces but failed to arouse sympathy or create an ambiance to underline the visual action. It would occasionally arrive in a sudden melodramatic phrase and then, just as suddenly, disappear without trace. Very strange use of the sound-stage this. However, the hustle and bustle of London street life is well recorded. The change from the quiet solitude of the countryside to the arrival in London with the accompaniment of a cacophony of horses, shouting, jostling, screaming and cursing in the open marketplace was spot on.
Unlike the celebrated and poetic David Lean version of this book from 1948, which had the courage to detail some of the racist and anti-Semitic sentiments of the controversial novel, this new version has Polanski jettison any reference to Fagin's cultural background. We only see him as a Cockney pantomime villain drained of all passionate colour by being overtly politically-correct. Kingsley's performance is of the very best ham variety. He produces high melodrama all the way through until the closing scenes when he ushers in a raw poignancy that is truly heart-rending. If only he had used such magnificent power earlier in the film.
Still, in a time of the Summer Blockbuster, there is much to recommend in this handsomely mounted production. I just expected much more from a talent like Polanski. Even now I get chills thinking about his emotionally haunting version of Thomas Hardy's TESS...
This must rank as the lamest Polanski film after the horrible PIRATES (1986). He simply aims the camera and shoots in a rather obvious manner that hankers after the lazy Sunday afternoon BBC dramas. The pacing of the film is often too brisk and crams in too much plot detail. The viewer never has the time to understand the motivations of the characters and any emotional resonance is lost in the vast sets.
The art design of this film is absolutely beautiful and stunningly realized. No cost has been spared in recreating Victorian London. It is as if the George Cruikshank illustrations, which graced the interiors of the Penguin editions of the book, have literally come to life. The costumes and architecture resemble the monochromatic sepia-toned photographs from the era. The tight, narrow alleys infested with rats and dripping with slime and mud, all the poverty and filth is on display but the story gets swamped in those very same alleys. The opening and closing credits sequences used the famed woodcuts and etchings by Gustave Dore and they pack a visceral punch. All the crude vitality of Victorian life is captured in these haunting pictures and many will leave the theatre with goose-pimples.
The soundtrack employed vast symphonic forces but failed to arouse sympathy or create an ambiance to underline the visual action. It would occasionally arrive in a sudden melodramatic phrase and then, just as suddenly, disappear without trace. Very strange use of the sound-stage this. However, the hustle and bustle of London street life is well recorded. The change from the quiet solitude of the countryside to the arrival in London with the accompaniment of a cacophony of horses, shouting, jostling, screaming and cursing in the open marketplace was spot on.
Unlike the celebrated and poetic David Lean version of this book from 1948, which had the courage to detail some of the racist and anti-Semitic sentiments of the controversial novel, this new version has Polanski jettison any reference to Fagin's cultural background. We only see him as a Cockney pantomime villain drained of all passionate colour by being overtly politically-correct. Kingsley's performance is of the very best ham variety. He produces high melodrama all the way through until the closing scenes when he ushers in a raw poignancy that is truly heart-rending. If only he had used such magnificent power earlier in the film.
Still, in a time of the Summer Blockbuster, there is much to recommend in this handsomely mounted production. I just expected much more from a talent like Polanski. Even now I get chills thinking about his emotionally haunting version of Thomas Hardy's TESS...
Sanitized Dickens capsized by weak lead performance
fertilecelluloid24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This big budget adaptation of Dickens' famous novel is a technically well made but curiously flat affair. Roman Polanski, who made this movie for his children, has delivered a version of the story that may best be appreciated only by children because it lacks the grit and gristle of the Dickens source novel and the David Lean version, and is totally ho-hum stylistically. The story has no surprises because we already know it so well, but there's a serious lack of energy and star Barney Clarke, who plays Oliver, is extremely weak and meek. Ben Kingsley does a knock-up job with his Fagin and manages to make him sympathetic and fascinating. Polanski and his team built the London on display and certainly spared no expense, but it all looks too clean and art directed, and there is a distinct lack of threat present in the city's supposedly impoverished laneways. Although there are some beautiful emotional passages and strong performances overall, the film is, ultimately, capsized by the feeble lead performance and Polanski's sanitized portrait of London's "mean streets".
I thought it was great!
pupiluv725 October 2005
I completely disagree with the comment I just read. I thought Roman Polanski did great respects to the story and to Dickens. I thought all of the performances were well done and Ben Kingsley was just amazing. I have been in the production of Oliver! the musical three times and have read the book about a million times. It is one of my all time favorite stories and plays and I have been disappointed with the past Oliver Twist films. I remember a few years ago I saw a very poorly done Oliver Twist with Elijah Wood as the Artful Dodger. This one did not disappoint me as a huge fan in the least. I feel Roman Polanski really understood what Dickens was trying to express in his books. And by the way, the character Oliver is supposed to faint, it is a sign of his weakness. I know I am repeating myself but I really did love the performances. The Artful Dodger was great and Mr.Salsbury was done so justly. Even the smallest characters were performed amazingly. I think the only way someone would foolishly call this off as a poorly written, poorly acted, or poorly done film was if they were blind and deaf! No offense to anyone who is of course, but I was very taken aback, as I said, by the comment I just read about this film. The only thing it has against it is that it's a bit long. I knew where the story was going at every moment but for someone just being introduced to Oliver Twist, it might seem to go on for a while. But if you look back at the history of movies, many of the best films are long. If you are a fan of Charles Dickens, please see this film - you will love it. If you are a fan of Roman Polanski it is one of his best! If you wish to be entertained in a very classic and non-offensive way, please see this film. I just loved it and could go on and on. This is a story and film for all ages!
good version
marija_cachia22 October 2005
First of all I'd like to say that the scenery, clothes, sets etc where amazing and put you immediately in the right atmosphere. The acting was really good and it all adds up to a good movie. What put me off was the music. Being a huge fan of the musical version I was all the time expecting a song to come up... this was very close to the original version in many ways but I always felt a slight unconscious disappointment when the songs didn't show up. The songs where such a huge part of the original one that they completed it.
Roman Polanski did manage to fill the void in most of the parts. And he did this with the help of the actors. I did find Fagin very good even if I found it difficult to understand him at times. The artful dodger was great!!! But my favorite one for sure was Bill Sykes, I was honestly terrified of him (and his dog...)!!! I was a bit disappointed in Nancy... I found her a bit too young amongst other things. All in all good movie, I strongly suggest it to those who unlike me don't have the musical version imprinted in their minds.
Roman Polanski did manage to fill the void in most of the parts. And he did this with the help of the actors. I did find Fagin very good even if I found it difficult to understand him at times. The artful dodger was great!!! But my favorite one for sure was Bill Sykes, I was honestly terrified of him (and his dog...)!!! I was a bit disappointed in Nancy... I found her a bit too young amongst other things. All in all good movie, I strongly suggest it to those who unlike me don't have the musical version imprinted in their minds.
Well made, a great version of a much loved tale
tresdodge11 October 2005
I was somewhat ambivalent about the thought of one of my favourite directors making a version of the much loved classic tale Oliver Twist. On the one had Roman Polanski crafts wonderful and moving films extremely well so I was intrigued to see how he would weave this one together. From his early 'Knife in the water' through to 'The Pianist' each has his trademark directorial stamp on it whilst still being truly incredible and individual films. On the other hand, the Oliver Twist tale has been screened to death both in two highly regarded films as well as multifarious TV versions over the years. In my opinion David Lean's version is fantastic, Alec Guiness superb as Fagin and the whole film experience has kept me going back from childhood through to adulthood.
So it was with great trepidation that I went to see this spanking brand new version and thankfully I was not disappointed. The character of Fagin, so crucial to the story, is performed with outstanding ability by Ben Kingsley. He really portrays this grotesque but somehow lovable character well from his slight mannerisms and movements to his vocal abilities. Also, finely performed were the parts of the artful dodger (Harry Eden), Mr Brownlowe (Edward Hardwicke) and of course Oliver Twist (Barney Clarke). There was such sadness and despair in his eyes throughout that he really captured the part well. Less convincing was Bill Sykes (Jamie Foreman) who was not right for the part nor performed well enough to stand up against the masterful Oliver Reed in a previous version. Foreman is a regular in gangster type films and for me did not really fit into the cast or film well here.
The recreation of mid 19th century London is done well with Polanski drawing on the visual inspiration of Dore prints of the period for authenticity. The cinematography is as accomplished as always in a Polanski film and the lighting helped to create dramatic moods well.
All in all a very competent and entertaining version with great acting, a fine pace and an outstanding final scene of Fagin finished and soon to face death gripping hold of Oliver tightly. I would highly recommend to adults, children and die hard fans of other versions. All great directors have different visions and Polanski has used his vision and experienced craftmanship in successfully remaking this much loved tale.
So it was with great trepidation that I went to see this spanking brand new version and thankfully I was not disappointed. The character of Fagin, so crucial to the story, is performed with outstanding ability by Ben Kingsley. He really portrays this grotesque but somehow lovable character well from his slight mannerisms and movements to his vocal abilities. Also, finely performed were the parts of the artful dodger (Harry Eden), Mr Brownlowe (Edward Hardwicke) and of course Oliver Twist (Barney Clarke). There was such sadness and despair in his eyes throughout that he really captured the part well. Less convincing was Bill Sykes (Jamie Foreman) who was not right for the part nor performed well enough to stand up against the masterful Oliver Reed in a previous version. Foreman is a regular in gangster type films and for me did not really fit into the cast or film well here.
The recreation of mid 19th century London is done well with Polanski drawing on the visual inspiration of Dore prints of the period for authenticity. The cinematography is as accomplished as always in a Polanski film and the lighting helped to create dramatic moods well.
All in all a very competent and entertaining version with great acting, a fine pace and an outstanding final scene of Fagin finished and soon to face death gripping hold of Oliver tightly. I would highly recommend to adults, children and die hard fans of other versions. All great directors have different visions and Polanski has used his vision and experienced craftmanship in successfully remaking this much loved tale.
Polanski's autobiography embedded in Dickens' story
marcin_kukuczka23 October 2005
Roman Polanski, a talented actor and director, after his mega popular THE PIANIST with Adrien Brody made a movie based on Charles Dickens' tale, OLIVER TWIST. Although Polanski is not my favorite director, I went to see the movie since I read the book as a child, liked it much and wanted to see to what extend the adaptation fits to the original work by Dickens. I was not disappointed thanks to a lot of advantages of the movie. However, I saw something else throughout the film - the answer which Polanski gave in an interview when asked why it was OLIVER TWIST and not another movie he wanted to make after THE PIANIST ... the reflection of the director's life in the story of a poor orphan.
Roman Polanski said it himself in an interview that the thing which touched him most in this very tale was the fact that his early life has been strikingly similar to the main hero's. He was "beaten" by the destiny being in the ghetto during WWII as a child, he had to retain goodness in his heart though the world occurred to do the opposite (to what extend he did it is a controversial question, of course). Nevertheless, the idea seems quite logical and there are truly some similarities between young Oliver and young Polanski. As a result, the director set his heart on making the film because it referred to him personally.
Some viewers may see shortcomings in the movie, some scenes exaggerate with violence, which may seem inaccurate for children (we have to keep in mind that the film is addressed MOSTLY to children). However, the film has two major advantages: the performances and a wonderful cinematography.
I was deeply touched by the memorable performance of 12 year-old Barney Clark. He very well fits to this role and beautifully expresses emotions, melancholy, and a good heart. Perhaps, he is most memorable in the final shot but I think that his performance is worth a look throughout. Another star of the movie is Ben Kingsley. The role of Fagin is not very easy to play. Nevertheless, Mr Kingsley does a wonderful job playing an old corrupted man whose sole aim in life is how to steal more and more. Even in the face of death, he does not repent. The last performance which is worth consideration is Jamie Foreman's disgusting Bill Sykes. He stresses such awful features in his character as cruelty, hatred, obscurity and lack of any feelings (total inability to love). He does it so memorably that looking at his face made me feel discouraged. He looks a villain throughout from the very first to the very last moment he appears on screen. The rest of the cast are quite average. SPOILER: The exception in the negative sense is Leanne Rowe as Nancy. I remember this young actress from Zeffirelli's adaptation of JANE EYRE (1996). There, she played Helen Burns and did quite well. Here, however, she exaggerates, says a lot of sentences badly and is in no way outstanding in her role.
The cinematography together with the gloomy atmosphere and reconstruction of the London of that time makes the film a stunning production. There are a lot of moments that add a thrill to the story thanks to unforgettable images. Consider, for instance, the moment Nancy meets with Mr Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke) ... this fog, this mysterious mood. Another memorable moment is the first entrance to London. The reconstruction is wonderful!
The most important thing, however, is the content. This is, probably, the most appealing factor for children as far as Dickens is concerned. What moral would be significant to infer from a strange lot of Oliver? ... always remain yourself even if the world badly desires to change you and kill your dreams, BE YOURSELF, ONE DAY LIFE WILL SMILE AT YOU.
OLIVER TWIST is worth a look for both Dickens and Polanski fans. It is also a movie that contains a very touching story, not exactly the one that could happen to someone in a distant past but to today's close people like the director of the movie. One fact is sure - it is good that Polanski directed the film drawing our attention to his life in order to prove what harm some of the 20th century ideologies did to many precious people. Worth seeing!
Roman Polanski said it himself in an interview that the thing which touched him most in this very tale was the fact that his early life has been strikingly similar to the main hero's. He was "beaten" by the destiny being in the ghetto during WWII as a child, he had to retain goodness in his heart though the world occurred to do the opposite (to what extend he did it is a controversial question, of course). Nevertheless, the idea seems quite logical and there are truly some similarities between young Oliver and young Polanski. As a result, the director set his heart on making the film because it referred to him personally.
Some viewers may see shortcomings in the movie, some scenes exaggerate with violence, which may seem inaccurate for children (we have to keep in mind that the film is addressed MOSTLY to children). However, the film has two major advantages: the performances and a wonderful cinematography.
I was deeply touched by the memorable performance of 12 year-old Barney Clark. He very well fits to this role and beautifully expresses emotions, melancholy, and a good heart. Perhaps, he is most memorable in the final shot but I think that his performance is worth a look throughout. Another star of the movie is Ben Kingsley. The role of Fagin is not very easy to play. Nevertheless, Mr Kingsley does a wonderful job playing an old corrupted man whose sole aim in life is how to steal more and more. Even in the face of death, he does not repent. The last performance which is worth consideration is Jamie Foreman's disgusting Bill Sykes. He stresses such awful features in his character as cruelty, hatred, obscurity and lack of any feelings (total inability to love). He does it so memorably that looking at his face made me feel discouraged. He looks a villain throughout from the very first to the very last moment he appears on screen. The rest of the cast are quite average. SPOILER: The exception in the negative sense is Leanne Rowe as Nancy. I remember this young actress from Zeffirelli's adaptation of JANE EYRE (1996). There, she played Helen Burns and did quite well. Here, however, she exaggerates, says a lot of sentences badly and is in no way outstanding in her role.
The cinematography together with the gloomy atmosphere and reconstruction of the London of that time makes the film a stunning production. There are a lot of moments that add a thrill to the story thanks to unforgettable images. Consider, for instance, the moment Nancy meets with Mr Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke) ... this fog, this mysterious mood. Another memorable moment is the first entrance to London. The reconstruction is wonderful!
The most important thing, however, is the content. This is, probably, the most appealing factor for children as far as Dickens is concerned. What moral would be significant to infer from a strange lot of Oliver? ... always remain yourself even if the world badly desires to change you and kill your dreams, BE YOURSELF, ONE DAY LIFE WILL SMILE AT YOU.
OLIVER TWIST is worth a look for both Dickens and Polanski fans. It is also a movie that contains a very touching story, not exactly the one that could happen to someone in a distant past but to today's close people like the director of the movie. One fact is sure - it is good that Polanski directed the film drawing our attention to his life in order to prove what harm some of the 20th century ideologies did to many precious people. Worth seeing!
A BEAUTIFUL Piece of Construction
cliffcarson-123 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Without a doubt the Roman Polanski version of OLIVER TWIST is the greatest "straight" telling version of this story ever filmed. Yes, you will see glimpses of the David Lean version and the Carol Reed musical, but this film stands on it's own as a deeply moving interpretation of the Charles Dickens novel. While I was watching this film I couldn't help thinking how proud Dickens would have been if he were alive. Somewhere beyond he is smiling because Polanski captures the grand scope of the film and maintains its intimacy throughout. OLIVER TWIST moved me to tears.
What a master filmmaker Polanski is and how clever he was to choose OLIVER TWIST as a follow up film to THE PIANIST. You can feel his compassion for this story and its characters. It's hard to match the performance of Fagin given by Alec Guiness in the Lean version and especially Ron Moody in the Reed musical but Ben Kingsley is incredibly dimensional and moving in the role. He puts his own signature onto the part.
Jamie Foreman is the scariest Bill Sykes ever. Barney Clark as Oliver carries the picture on his instinctual little shoulders and is as moving in the role as Ben Kingsley is in his.
The art direction and cinematography are oil paintings in motion. Highly atmospheric and gorgeous to look at.
My only quibble with this version is that the Nancy isn't as compassionate as the the Nancy played by Shani Wallis in the film musical. Although never mentioned in the story there is no doubt about the profession of Nancy and Bet in this picture. Leanne Rowe is a very sexy Nancy and was a fine choice for the part. However, there isn't a scene in this film where Nancy comes into her own and wins the audience over in the way there is for the characters of Fagin, Oliver and the Artful Dodger. This is where Polanski needed to reach deep and establish but didn't . It's unfortunate too because Rowe is really good in the part. There just needed to be a definitive moment in the film where we as an audience fall in love with the character so as to make her death all the more disturbing.
The death of Nancy in the Carol Reed '68 version was a shocking and disturbing scene. The death scene in the Polanski version is handled similarly off camera so as to leave the image in the imagination of the viewer. But the murder doesn't have the shock value it should. I couldn't help thinking that the the image of the blood at the bottom of the door strangely symbolized the blood at the front door of the house where the murder of his wife Sharon Tate occurred. I also got the feeling that Polanski for this reason didn't want to have a graphic death for Nancy. It's as if he's had enough of murders (fictional or otherwise) for one lifetime. One can hardly blame him.
What a master filmmaker Polanski is and how clever he was to choose OLIVER TWIST as a follow up film to THE PIANIST. You can feel his compassion for this story and its characters. It's hard to match the performance of Fagin given by Alec Guiness in the Lean version and especially Ron Moody in the Reed musical but Ben Kingsley is incredibly dimensional and moving in the role. He puts his own signature onto the part.
Jamie Foreman is the scariest Bill Sykes ever. Barney Clark as Oliver carries the picture on his instinctual little shoulders and is as moving in the role as Ben Kingsley is in his.
The art direction and cinematography are oil paintings in motion. Highly atmospheric and gorgeous to look at.
My only quibble with this version is that the Nancy isn't as compassionate as the the Nancy played by Shani Wallis in the film musical. Although never mentioned in the story there is no doubt about the profession of Nancy and Bet in this picture. Leanne Rowe is a very sexy Nancy and was a fine choice for the part. However, there isn't a scene in this film where Nancy comes into her own and wins the audience over in the way there is for the characters of Fagin, Oliver and the Artful Dodger. This is where Polanski needed to reach deep and establish but didn't . It's unfortunate too because Rowe is really good in the part. There just needed to be a definitive moment in the film where we as an audience fall in love with the character so as to make her death all the more disturbing.
The death of Nancy in the Carol Reed '68 version was a shocking and disturbing scene. The death scene in the Polanski version is handled similarly off camera so as to leave the image in the imagination of the viewer. But the murder doesn't have the shock value it should. I couldn't help thinking that the the image of the blood at the bottom of the door strangely symbolized the blood at the front door of the house where the murder of his wife Sharon Tate occurred. I also got the feeling that Polanski for this reason didn't want to have a graphic death for Nancy. It's as if he's had enough of murders (fictional or otherwise) for one lifetime. One can hardly blame him.
Roman takes a nice "twist" of Charle's classic
Smells_Like_Cheese24 February 2006
Charles Dickens wrote a wonderful and one of my favorite still to this day novels, Oliver Twist. In 1968, a brilliant musical version on film was made that I still watch. Many Broadways have performed or just a theater in general, and most I have enjoyed. This is a beautiful story of an orphan, Oliver Twist, who is given away from the orphanage to a coffin maker's business where he is also abused as well. He comes to London to seek his fortune and ends up with a bad crowd of Fagin's little pick pocketers and the treacherous villain, Bill Sykes. But when a mistaken theft is taken by Oliver, the accuser, the kind and wealthy Mr. Brownlow. soon finds out that it was not Oliver and decides to take him in. But when Fagin finds out and fears his business to be out in the open, he makes Oliver's only friend, Bill's wife, Nancy, kidnap him. Can Oliver come back into a decent life? Watch the film.
Roman took a wonderful story and he turned it into a beautiful and lovely 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 a darker tale I felt; but still I would highly recommend it because of it's beautiful cinematography and great acting. Roman has done it again, and enjoy the movie! 7/10
Roman took a wonderful story and he turned it into a beautiful and lovely 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 a darker tale I felt; but still I would highly recommend it because of it's beautiful cinematography and great acting. Roman has done it again, and enjoy the movie! 7/10
Please sir, NO MORE!!!
damianj17 October 2005
'MORE' will be the last thing on your mind, if you can sit through this unnecessary, and under-whelming remake of the Dicken's classic. It beggars belief that Polanski, the same man responsible for the award-winning The Pianist, could go wrong with such a quality story to work with, but he has and spectacularly so. The first mistake was made in his young leading man. Forget pickpocketing, Islington lad Barney Clarke is guilty of one of the most ordinary performances in a title role ever seen on the big screen. With a few exceptions, his take on the supposedly lovable urchin Oliver involved little more than gratuitous overacting, an annoying sulking pout, sad puppy dog eyes and the personality and presence of a wooden puppet. When you're half way through the film and your hero has barely uttered a sentence, and you couldn't give a damn what happens to him, you know you're in trouble. This frustrating lack of character development is not confined to just Oliver. Polanski has managed to stifle the potential of every character in the cast Nancy, Sykes, the artful Dodger. None are given any priority in Polanksi's streamlined summary of Dicken's tale hence leaving them all as shallow, substance-less souls merely filling up a few minutes screen time here and there. So fleetingly are they presented, it's near impossible to become interested in their plights and actions, or to understand their motivations and what they (should) contribute to the story. Even Fagin, superbly played by Ben Kingsley, is sidelined as an ensemble character, despite providing the film's most animated personality, and is incredibly wasted in the role of the thieving mentor. David Lean's 1948 version and even Carol Reed's 1968 musical Oliver! are superior to this one, both delivering the emotional roller-coaster that Oliver's journey should be. Polanski's film moves from high to low at astonishing speed, but the climaxes are painfully dull and appear to be just going through the motions. Polanski is consistent though. The empty plot is wanton right up to the dreary, drawn out conclusion. On a positive note, the grim vision of 19th century London that he has created is glorious. Looks though aren't everything are they especially in this case. Please sir, no more.
Polanski & Dickens (A Surprising Combination)
Chrysanthepop14 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Just the other day I saw the 2005 filming of 'Pride and Prejudice' and yesterday I saw Roman Polanski's 'Oliver Twist'. I didn't like the previous movie adaptations of Dickens's classic and was intending to avoid this one. Only recently I found out that Polanski had sat on the director's chair so I just had to watch it. Like Wright's version of 'Pride and Prejudice', Polanski stays true to Dickens's novel we are presented with some dazzling visuals and the director's attention to the time period and the way he brings it to screen is amazing. His use of slightly washed out colours and a non-intrusive subtle background score and weather effect is fantastic. Of course most of his films have been visually stunning ... and have quite graphic scenes of violence as does this one but he cleverly avoids gore and uses a more suggestive approach.
However, I found the execution of the ending a little too flawed. Bill's accidental suicide looked a little silly and Oliver had quite a few chances to escape but all he does is stand there for Bill to grab him. Also, I Polanski could have done better with the sequence where Oliver visits Fagan in prison and forgives him. It looks as though Oliver has easily forgiven and quickly forgotten all the sins he had committed, that he wanted to kill him AND was partially responsible for Nancy's death.
The performances are a mixture. Barney Clark performs decently at times but there are certain moments where he fails to convince or appear natural. He seems to lack spontaneity. In the end it is the director's task and I thought Polanski could have worked a little harder on extracting a better performance of the child. Ben Kingsley is very good and he skillfully prevents Fagan from being a caricature villain, allowing the viewer to feel some sympathy for him. The other villains are too caricatured for my liking and the actors don't make a difference either. Leanna Rowe is very impressive as Nancy and Edward Hardwicke is very likable as the rich good Samaritan.
Thus, my opinions are almost exactly the same as that of Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice'. I like that Polanski has chosen a classic novel that revolves around the plight of a child, like 'Oliver Twist' (I never would have expected him to) and made a good but flawed film. I think he could have easily improved the execution of the ending though.
However, I found the execution of the ending a little too flawed. Bill's accidental suicide looked a little silly and Oliver had quite a few chances to escape but all he does is stand there for Bill to grab him. Also, I Polanski could have done better with the sequence where Oliver visits Fagan in prison and forgives him. It looks as though Oliver has easily forgiven and quickly forgotten all the sins he had committed, that he wanted to kill him AND was partially responsible for Nancy's death.
The performances are a mixture. Barney Clark performs decently at times but there are certain moments where he fails to convince or appear natural. He seems to lack spontaneity. In the end it is the director's task and I thought Polanski could have worked a little harder on extracting a better performance of the child. Ben Kingsley is very good and he skillfully prevents Fagan from being a caricature villain, allowing the viewer to feel some sympathy for him. The other villains are too caricatured for my liking and the actors don't make a difference either. Leanna Rowe is very impressive as Nancy and Edward Hardwicke is very likable as the rich good Samaritan.
Thus, my opinions are almost exactly the same as that of Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice'. I like that Polanski has chosen a classic novel that revolves around the plight of a child, like 'Oliver Twist' (I never would have expected him to) and made a good but flawed film. I think he could have easily improved the execution of the ending though.
Nice, but I was expecting for more
unauthorized16 November 2005
For more? Yes, indeed, because a Charles Dickens work directed by Roman Polanski was very promising an idea to me. When I first watched the trailer, I said "I MUST watch this one".
The trailer does gives a very good picture of the movie, capturing its atmosphere at its best (as any movie trailer is supposed to do). What when cannot possibly deduce from the trailer is that Oliver Twist doesn't really reach a climax in any certain point and I think this is its main drawback.
The story is beautifully depicted and one sees a nice picture of past centuries' London, the story is very interesting, but not a great amount of intensity is added to it by Polanski.
Certainly worth watching, but unfortunately not the masterpiece one could have expected from the Dickens-Polanski combination of its creation.
The trailer does gives a very good picture of the movie, capturing its atmosphere at its best (as any movie trailer is supposed to do). What when cannot possibly deduce from the trailer is that Oliver Twist doesn't really reach a climax in any certain point and I think this is its main drawback.
The story is beautifully depicted and one sees a nice picture of past centuries' London, the story is very interesting, but not a great amount of intensity is added to it by Polanski.
Certainly worth watching, but unfortunately not the masterpiece one could have expected from the Dickens-Polanski combination of its creation.
Oliver!
jotix10028 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film boasts the reunion of a team that seemed to have been the natural choice for bringing Charles Dickens' novel again to the screen. Roman Polanski and Ronald Harewood, who cooperated on the much better film, "The Pianist", show they must have lost the interest along the way, as this picture clearly demonstrates. If there ever was a man who could identify with "Oliver Twist", it was Roman Polanski, whose life sort of parallels that of the orphan boy in London of the Victorian years.
Comparisons are always unavoidable, specially when there are two other versions on record of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist": the magnificent film version of David Lean in 1948, and even the musical "Oliver", directed by Carol Reed, have done much more going for them to involve the viewer in the story. Somehow, this adaptation has a flat feeling that doesn't grab us at any moment.
The casting of Fagin lets a lot to be desired. Sir Ben Kingsley, an otherwise excellent actor, doesn't seem to find his footing in the way the director conceived his Fagin. Alec Guinness masterful interpretation of this evil man is hard to surpass. Barney Clark is a sweet Oliver Twist. Harry Eden appears as the Artful Dodger. Jamie Foreman is Bill Sykes and Leanne Rowe is Nancy.
Watch the film as curiosity, but we would suggest to take a look at the David Lean version which is closer to the spirit of the book.
Comparisons are always unavoidable, specially when there are two other versions on record of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist": the magnificent film version of David Lean in 1948, and even the musical "Oliver", directed by Carol Reed, have done much more going for them to involve the viewer in the story. Somehow, this adaptation has a flat feeling that doesn't grab us at any moment.
The casting of Fagin lets a lot to be desired. Sir Ben Kingsley, an otherwise excellent actor, doesn't seem to find his footing in the way the director conceived his Fagin. Alec Guinness masterful interpretation of this evil man is hard to surpass. Barney Clark is a sweet Oliver Twist. Harry Eden appears as the Artful Dodger. Jamie Foreman is Bill Sykes and Leanne Rowe is Nancy.
Watch the film as curiosity, but we would suggest to take a look at the David Lean version which is closer to the spirit of the book.
"Treat him kindly"
Steffi_P8 July 2012
Stories, no matter how respected and illustrious, can exist beyond their origins. Charles Dickens's novel of Oliver Twist has been adapted for the screen a number of times, but rather than simply returning time and again to the source novel successive versions have taken cues from each other, gradually refining the tale over the centuries. David Lean's 1948 version invented the idea of Olvier being abducted by Bill Sykes for the rooftop finale (in the novel Oliver is safe and sound by this point). The subsequent Lionel Bart musical copied this ending, effectively making it official. It's a stark example of the power of cinema as a shaper of stories and cultural knowledge. This latest big screen offering takes that trajectory even further with a modern-style, naturalistic take on the Dickens tale.
Just as Dickens's books are most often remembered for their vivid characters so do many Dickens adaptations succeed or fail on the strength of their cast. With this version, I'm quite impressed by Barney Clarke in the title role. Clarke is not a stupefyingly good actor, but in him we at last have an Oliver who is not completely meek and frail, and has a believable amount of fight in him. Ben Kingsley's is certainly the best dramatic Fagin ever, and really the only high quality acting job in the movie. But some of the best moments come from the obvious rapport between the supporting players. There are some moments that seem so perfectly to capture something very familiar and immediate yet also appropriately Dickensian, as when Fagin's boys remove Oliver's fine clothes - they sound just like a normal bunch of teenagers, in spite of the archaic language.
But many other times, it just doesn't work, and there are some absolutely woeful bits of acting on display. Worst offender here is Jamie Forman as Bill Sykes; a wooden performance of sub-Eastenders calibre. Also, while it's nice to have a Nancy who is less a mother-substitute and more like a big sister, Leanne Rowe is just not that good. And though the realism of the performances can sometimes conjure up something wonderfully natural and fluid, it can just as easily produce the irritating drone of Jeremy Swift's Mr Bumble.
It seems that many of the cast members, good or bad, were chosen for their appropriate physical appearance than anything else. This is not surprising, since Polanski his crafted a rich and thriving world for them to inhabit, as if he was creating a photographic illustration more than a movie. Pawel Edelman's cinematography captures the detail and texture of a Gustav Doré print. The setting does not dampen Polanski's trademark visual style, with lots of tight, grim-looking compositions. A neat example is when Oliver is hauled before the workhouse governors, and the handful of seated men are arranged to create a surreal kind of tunnel. The 19th century squalor seems stiflingly close to the viewer.
But perhaps the most significant thing about this edition of Dickens's story is its manipulation of the story. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood has excised the subplot of Oliver being related to Mr Brownlow, a daft construction that stretched the bounds of probability and confirmed the class prejudice Dickens held at that time. This adaptation also emphasises Oliver's final confrontation with Fagin, a powerful and moving coda and a very mature thing to include. A lot of other minor diversions have been stripped away to give a very direct and efficient retelling. But this tinkering with the text is also the movie's downfall. In simplifying the story, just a few too many corners have been cut. Key characters like Bill Sykes are introduced without ceremony. There's also not enough time to build up a convincing relationship between Oliver and Brownlow. This version of Oliver Twist may look sumptuous and have many flashes of brilliance, but as a whole it is a rather cold, drab experience.
Just as Dickens's books are most often remembered for their vivid characters so do many Dickens adaptations succeed or fail on the strength of their cast. With this version, I'm quite impressed by Barney Clarke in the title role. Clarke is not a stupefyingly good actor, but in him we at last have an Oliver who is not completely meek and frail, and has a believable amount of fight in him. Ben Kingsley's is certainly the best dramatic Fagin ever, and really the only high quality acting job in the movie. But some of the best moments come from the obvious rapport between the supporting players. There are some moments that seem so perfectly to capture something very familiar and immediate yet also appropriately Dickensian, as when Fagin's boys remove Oliver's fine clothes - they sound just like a normal bunch of teenagers, in spite of the archaic language.
But many other times, it just doesn't work, and there are some absolutely woeful bits of acting on display. Worst offender here is Jamie Forman as Bill Sykes; a wooden performance of sub-Eastenders calibre. Also, while it's nice to have a Nancy who is less a mother-substitute and more like a big sister, Leanne Rowe is just not that good. And though the realism of the performances can sometimes conjure up something wonderfully natural and fluid, it can just as easily produce the irritating drone of Jeremy Swift's Mr Bumble.
It seems that many of the cast members, good or bad, were chosen for their appropriate physical appearance than anything else. This is not surprising, since Polanski his crafted a rich and thriving world for them to inhabit, as if he was creating a photographic illustration more than a movie. Pawel Edelman's cinematography captures the detail and texture of a Gustav Doré print. The setting does not dampen Polanski's trademark visual style, with lots of tight, grim-looking compositions. A neat example is when Oliver is hauled before the workhouse governors, and the handful of seated men are arranged to create a surreal kind of tunnel. The 19th century squalor seems stiflingly close to the viewer.
But perhaps the most significant thing about this edition of Dickens's story is its manipulation of the story. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood has excised the subplot of Oliver being related to Mr Brownlow, a daft construction that stretched the bounds of probability and confirmed the class prejudice Dickens held at that time. This adaptation also emphasises Oliver's final confrontation with Fagin, a powerful and moving coda and a very mature thing to include. A lot of other minor diversions have been stripped away to give a very direct and efficient retelling. But this tinkering with the text is also the movie's downfall. In simplifying the story, just a few too many corners have been cut. Key characters like Bill Sykes are introduced without ceremony. There's also not enough time to build up a convincing relationship between Oliver and Brownlow. This version of Oliver Twist may look sumptuous and have many flashes of brilliance, but as a whole it is a rather cold, drab experience.
Polanski the great
ashyendel14 September 2005
Roman Polanski never ceases to amaze me at all the things he can do. He can make so many different kinds of films well. His range is truly extraordinary. The man who gave us Chinatown, Pianist, Rosemary's Baby has now directed Oliver Twist. I've seen most of the versions of Twist but this is by far the best. David Leans version is often talked about but it is overpraised. It tends to be overly sentimental an very slow in certain places. I'm not for fast moving movies but his version can be quite dull at times. Polanski's film has updated a great story with lush photography of pastoral settings and the narrative moves briskly. He manages to develop the characters quite well despite the pace. The acting from all is superb especially Ben Kingsley who is barely recognizable. I've never been a fan of great books that have been adapted to film but Polanski seems to have a real knack for this sort of thing. He filmed Tess (also an adaptation) 25 years back with an Academy award nominated direction. That film is one of my all time favorites but Oliver Twist is even better. Polanski seems to get better with age. I can't wait to see what he does next.
Diary of a wimpy kid
GeoffreyR28 December 2013
I love Charles Dickens and I really wanted to like this movie. After all, there are plenty of things to like. Ben Kingsley is awesome as Fagin, Bill Sykes is threatening without overplaying it, Harry Eden is a great Artful Dodger and the story has its touching moments.
But in order for Oliver Twist to be great, you need a great Oliver Twist. I'm sure Barney Clark is a very nice young man. He's definitely trying to make the best out of it, and he definitely has potential as an actor. But his portrayal of Oliver doesn't cut it for me. He is just way too depressing. He spends about the first hour of the movie crying, begging and/or fainting. We don't get to know his motivations, his desires or his goals. He's just there to take a boatload of misery, but I just don't care what happens to him. Character development comes from within, and this just wasn't the case for Oliver.
I like the 1968 musical a lot better, because Mark Lester plays a much more endearing and pro- active Oliver. To me, this version seemed more like "Diary of a wimpy kid" (literally). I know this 2005-version is a lot of people's favorite, but I found it too melodramatic and over-the-top depressing. Too bad, because the potential was there.
But in order for Oliver Twist to be great, you need a great Oliver Twist. I'm sure Barney Clark is a very nice young man. He's definitely trying to make the best out of it, and he definitely has potential as an actor. But his portrayal of Oliver doesn't cut it for me. He is just way too depressing. He spends about the first hour of the movie crying, begging and/or fainting. We don't get to know his motivations, his desires or his goals. He's just there to take a boatload of misery, but I just don't care what happens to him. Character development comes from within, and this just wasn't the case for Oliver.
I like the 1968 musical a lot better, because Mark Lester plays a much more endearing and pro- active Oliver. To me, this version seemed more like "Diary of a wimpy kid" (literally). I know this 2005-version is a lot of people's favorite, but I found it too melodramatic and over-the-top depressing. Too bad, because the potential was there.
Absolutely Perfect
Envinyatar22 October 2005
Perfect, there is no better way to describe this wonderful production by Roman Polanski. This time honoured story by one of the world's greatest writers has been given excellent treatment by a fantastic director.
First, the acting is quite good, not just as one would expect from Ben Kingsley (who out does himself as the scheming cantankerous Fagin), but from the child actors as well, most notably Barney Clark and Harry Eden (who play Twist and Dodger, respectively). Another notable aspect of the 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 characters are of course cut from the book, and some plot points and elements are missing, but that is to be expected when a book is translated into a film. Despite the cuts, the movie is very faithful to the book, and one could hardly ask for a better translation of written medium to the visual.
Despite wonderful acting and excellent story, my favourite part of this movie is definitely the visuals. The set and costume crew has done an amazing job of recreating the London in which Oliver lived. Every nuance of London, from the slums to the well to do areas has been very faithfully realized on screen. The squalor of the back alleys is almost palpable as the characters trod through the mud, and one is almost tempted to doff their hat when the scenery moves to the middle class homes.
Overall, I can find very little to not praise about this movie, the only thing I can find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems a bit sparse in some areas, and perhaps a bit too repetitive. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of any genre.
First, the acting is quite good, not just as one would expect from Ben Kingsley (who out does himself as the scheming cantankerous Fagin), but from the child actors as well, most notably Barney Clark and Harry Eden (who play Twist and Dodger, respectively). Another notable aspect of the 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 characters are of course cut from the book, and some plot points and elements are missing, but that is to be expected when a book is translated into a film. Despite the cuts, the movie is very faithful to the book, and one could hardly ask for a better translation of written medium to the visual.
Despite wonderful acting and excellent story, my favourite part of this movie is definitely the visuals. The set and costume crew has done an amazing job of recreating the London in which Oliver lived. Every nuance of London, from the slums to the well to do areas has been very faithfully realized on screen. The squalor of the back alleys is almost palpable as the characters trod through the mud, and one is almost tempted to doff their hat when the scenery moves to the middle class homes.
Overall, I can find very little to not praise about this movie, the only thing I can find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems a bit sparse in some areas, and perhaps a bit too repetitive. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of any genre.
Accomplished Dickens adaptation invigoratingly brought to life by Polanski, in what is a consummate piece that is tough to dislike.
johnnyboyz23 June 2011
If Roman Polanski proves one thing with this, his 2005 adaptation of Dickens' Oliver Twist, it's that the lasting allure of such a text plus abiding charm of said tale is very much still apparent and that such a story can still be told, years later, in an engaging and exciting manner. It is done so here by one of our more exciting European auteurs from recent years; in addition, the man highlighting that the tale can still be told, and is still rather serviceable as a thriller in these contemporary times of thrills and spills greatly differing to what was perceived as serviceable drama in the days of Dickens. Where easy to sneer, Polanski's retelling of the story is done so with such verve and such energy; a text brought to life with such confidence and desire to do it justice, that it is difficult not to genuinely get excited by it. Additionally, within the film lies a Victorian English world brought to life with such authenticity and burning desire, peppered by a real air of disenchantment and tragedy throughout, that it is difficult not to become so totally involved with the film's protagonist every step of the way.
Life begins as being rather tough for young Oliver Twist, here in this incarnation played by English born child-actor Barney Clark. He is marched across fields and through urbanised areas to an orphanage, that sense of travel and being dragged from one place and over large stretches of land to another prominent. His escort takes him through the entrance gates upon arrival, very little said or indeed communicated between guard and gentleman; the general sense being that this sort of thing is somewhat prominent in its regularity and foreshadows the strong probability that comes with someone of Twist's drifting ilk being able to link up with other kids of this sort. Young Oliver is farmed about at this stage in life; he is on the verge of being shipped out like some kind of animal to a gentleman chimney sweep it is briefly established treats those whom effectively serve him rather badly in the physical beating of his mule, before being reigned back in again by those in charge of selling on the boy via Twist's tearful pleas, encapsulating the bedraggled and uncertain times rife therein his life.
Where Twist will eventually end up is that of London, but he will get there by way of a home doubling up as that of a coffin sales enterprise, the young son of Oliver's age a bit of a brute and going some way to unleashing one of Twist's more unforgiving characteristics when a stray insult aimed at one of the titular character's parents leads to a violent confrontation. In this locale of business and more moral walks of earning a keep, Twist struggles and is backed into a proverbial corner; something in a starker contrast to that of later meetings with a certain Fagin, played deliciously by Sir Ben Kingsley, and his troupe of young ruffians; strays and pick-pockets contributing to his small empire of crime and striving. Twist must escape from this home rather than be turned loose, his ambling to London coming about out of a fleeting, chance encounter with that of the era's equivalent to a signpost. His journey is fraught with the further establishment he is totally out of his depth - the Capital locale itself is granted an aura before even having appeared on screen, when, a middle aged woman whom has briefly taken Oliver in out of pity, exclaims, in a highly distinct manner, after it is revealed to her that Twist is to troop on toward London.
Arriving in London, and being somewhat overwhelmed at the sorts of activity suddenly on show after such vast and open countryside-set sequences, Twist's descent into the city gets leerier and dirtier the more he systematically wades on in following a further chance encounter with another boy nicknamed The Artful Dodger (Eden). This child is one of Fagin's aforementioned cocky cockney hoodlums, and he leads Twist into their realm whilst acting as the bridge into a whole new underworld carefully constructed to a hierarchical beat which eventually leads to confrontation with the rather ferocious Bill Sikes (Foreman). Sikes is a character more inclined towards gangsterism and crimes that with them carry greater risk – the careful and precise outlining of a pistol's dangers and threat so effective, that when a character is later shot and injured the desired transcending onto the audience of perceived pain and anguish is thoroughly completed. Throughout, Twist shares an easier trust with that of Fagin; an early instance in which he spies a secret trove of Fagin's rarefied belongings and more expensive trinkets arriving with it an overbearing sense of understanding.
Polanski's bringing to life of this text, in doing so combining the nastiest and greyest of locales in which to set the story arriving in tow with what is a crisp and really rather sharp execution seeing the content bounce off of the screen in spite of the imagery. Oliver Twist is an exciting and beautifully constructed film, the director spinning the tale out in a consistently involving manner; manoeuvring Twist around the city and involving him in the continuously involving, continuously unpredictable misadventures that he ends up on in a really efficient manner and forcing the film to more often than not closely resemble some of his best work.
Life begins as being rather tough for young Oliver Twist, here in this incarnation played by English born child-actor Barney Clark. He is marched across fields and through urbanised areas to an orphanage, that sense of travel and being dragged from one place and over large stretches of land to another prominent. His escort takes him through the entrance gates upon arrival, very little said or indeed communicated between guard and gentleman; the general sense being that this sort of thing is somewhat prominent in its regularity and foreshadows the strong probability that comes with someone of Twist's drifting ilk being able to link up with other kids of this sort. Young Oliver is farmed about at this stage in life; he is on the verge of being shipped out like some kind of animal to a gentleman chimney sweep it is briefly established treats those whom effectively serve him rather badly in the physical beating of his mule, before being reigned back in again by those in charge of selling on the boy via Twist's tearful pleas, encapsulating the bedraggled and uncertain times rife therein his life.
Where Twist will eventually end up is that of London, but he will get there by way of a home doubling up as that of a coffin sales enterprise, the young son of Oliver's age a bit of a brute and going some way to unleashing one of Twist's more unforgiving characteristics when a stray insult aimed at one of the titular character's parents leads to a violent confrontation. In this locale of business and more moral walks of earning a keep, Twist struggles and is backed into a proverbial corner; something in a starker contrast to that of later meetings with a certain Fagin, played deliciously by Sir Ben Kingsley, and his troupe of young ruffians; strays and pick-pockets contributing to his small empire of crime and striving. Twist must escape from this home rather than be turned loose, his ambling to London coming about out of a fleeting, chance encounter with that of the era's equivalent to a signpost. His journey is fraught with the further establishment he is totally out of his depth - the Capital locale itself is granted an aura before even having appeared on screen, when, a middle aged woman whom has briefly taken Oliver in out of pity, exclaims, in a highly distinct manner, after it is revealed to her that Twist is to troop on toward London.
Arriving in London, and being somewhat overwhelmed at the sorts of activity suddenly on show after such vast and open countryside-set sequences, Twist's descent into the city gets leerier and dirtier the more he systematically wades on in following a further chance encounter with another boy nicknamed The Artful Dodger (Eden). This child is one of Fagin's aforementioned cocky cockney hoodlums, and he leads Twist into their realm whilst acting as the bridge into a whole new underworld carefully constructed to a hierarchical beat which eventually leads to confrontation with the rather ferocious Bill Sikes (Foreman). Sikes is a character more inclined towards gangsterism and crimes that with them carry greater risk – the careful and precise outlining of a pistol's dangers and threat so effective, that when a character is later shot and injured the desired transcending onto the audience of perceived pain and anguish is thoroughly completed. Throughout, Twist shares an easier trust with that of Fagin; an early instance in which he spies a secret trove of Fagin's rarefied belongings and more expensive trinkets arriving with it an overbearing sense of understanding.
Polanski's bringing to life of this text, in doing so combining the nastiest and greyest of locales in which to set the story arriving in tow with what is a crisp and really rather sharp execution seeing the content bounce off of the screen in spite of the imagery. Oliver Twist is an exciting and beautifully constructed film, the director spinning the tale out in a consistently involving manner; manoeuvring Twist around the city and involving him in the continuously involving, continuously unpredictable misadventures that he ends up on in a really efficient manner and forcing the film to more often than not closely resemble some of his best work.
Though Polanski's 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.
buznuz5 November 2005
There was little that Charles Dickens didn't know about human nature. Who better to interpret his work for the screen than the similarly gifted Roman Polanski.
Polanski's film allows everyone their humanity. Even the extras who people the immaculately designed sets, seem to have a life outside of this film. Ben Kingsley's performance as Fagin is not held in aspic in old age, but is full of hints about his earlier life. Oliver's sufferings seem to mirror that of children in many places and in all times. When it is alleviated it is not by those worldly motivations of charity or civil duty. While a carriage full of prosperous people studiously ignore his plight, a poor old woman who has little herself cares for him. While the wealthy city is content for him to die on the street, a criminal feeds him. When Oliver finally takes his place in the middle class, a priggish religiosity reminds us of Victorian society's cure for criminality. In the end Polanski knows and Dickens asserts that individual decency and humanity alone provide hope.
Polanski's film allows everyone their humanity. Even the extras who people the immaculately designed sets, seem to have a life outside of this film. Ben Kingsley's performance as Fagin is not held in aspic in old age, but is full of hints about his earlier life. Oliver's sufferings seem to mirror that of children in many places and in all times. When it is alleviated it is not by those worldly motivations of charity or civil duty. While a carriage full of prosperous people studiously ignore his plight, a poor old woman who has little herself cares for him. While the wealthy city is content for him to die on the street, a criminal feeds him. When Oliver finally takes his place in the middle class, a priggish religiosity reminds us of Victorian society's cure for criminality. In the end Polanski knows and Dickens asserts that individual decency and humanity alone provide hope.
Character Development?
maxstarstrike3 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First, let me state that the movie was affective overall at making the audience believe in little Oliver. Barney Clark's performance is brilliant, especially for a twelve-year-old boy. Too often, much older children are placed in such roles... sharply degrading the audience's belief in the story. Clark does a superb job convincing the audience that he is poor and lonely, his introverted character (and perhaps his own personality) moves the audience to believe in him and as a result the remainder of the film.
Overall, however, the film failed to develop its characters that Dickens so brilliantly and masterfully composed in his story. Granted, some would argue that the film would be too lengthy if real character development were inflicted upon the script, but few would argue that the film could have used a few more climaxes and payoffs. The only redeeming point in the movie was the relationship with Fagin and Oliver's gut-wrenching prayer for him at the end.
The one thing that poignantly stands out every time I read Oliver Twist is Oliver's insatiable need for water. For most of the beginning of the book and into the middle and end parts, I feel as though my tongue is dry, wanting to give the orphan a cup of water. The movie pushed too quickly, not letting the audience feel the hunger and thirst Twist would have had.
Overall, however, the film failed to develop its characters that Dickens so brilliantly and masterfully composed in his story. Granted, some would argue that the film would be too lengthy if real character development were inflicted upon the script, but few would argue that the film could have used a few more climaxes and payoffs. The only redeeming point in the movie was the relationship with Fagin and Oliver's gut-wrenching prayer for him at the end.
The one thing that poignantly stands out every time I read Oliver Twist is Oliver's insatiable need for water. For most of the beginning of the book and into the middle and end parts, I feel as though my tongue is dry, wanting to give the orphan a cup of water. The movie pushed too quickly, not letting the audience feel the hunger and thirst Twist would have had.
no soul and no sense
Hellmao23 October 2005
Dear Roman,
After having seen your latest movie I was thinking about it for quite some time and I would like to ask you some questions on it. First of all, production design. Sorry to say, but the streets of London always looked like a film set. Some horse leftovers on the ground doesn't make any difference. Life in those streets was rather artificial, as well. How to describe that in a lively way, you can read in Dickens' book. Some scenery shots were really bad. Was somebody painting glass for you? Who was your gaffer? And then the actors: Most of them come from the London area, I suppose, but does that mean they are authentic ?
What about the children? Nice faces put in old clothes don't make poor homeless pickpockets. They speak like well educated middle class kids and their life didn't appear miserable at all. Head of the gang Dodger looked like he enjoyed playing in a movie. The dog was not scary, Sykes wasn't scary, and what was Toby Crackit for in your version ? Finally Oliver. Well, he had to endure some bad treatment, but I did not see the desperate yet strong boy that Dickens described so well. Did you?
Frankly, Roman, I was bored. I love books, I like movies but this one was all so predictable and uninspired, and it is much too long. You had one excellent idea, however. Ben Kingsley. What a presence! Fagin is the one character that really lives. In the end it seems you wanted to give Ben an extra dramatic scene to let him prove how good he is, but he doesn't need to proof anything anymore, you know that.
So please forgive me when I ask: Why did you make this completely unnecessary movie ? Contract obligations ?
Respectfully,
Hellmao
After having seen your latest movie I was thinking about it for quite some time and I would like to ask you some questions on it. First of all, production design. Sorry to say, but the streets of London always looked like a film set. Some horse leftovers on the ground doesn't make any difference. Life in those streets was rather artificial, as well. How to describe that in a lively way, you can read in Dickens' book. Some scenery shots were really bad. Was somebody painting glass for you? Who was your gaffer? And then the actors: Most of them come from the London area, I suppose, but does that mean they are authentic ?
What about the children? Nice faces put in old clothes don't make poor homeless pickpockets. They speak like well educated middle class kids and their life didn't appear miserable at all. Head of the gang Dodger looked like he enjoyed playing in a movie. The dog was not scary, Sykes wasn't scary, and what was Toby Crackit for in your version ? Finally Oliver. Well, he had to endure some bad treatment, but I did not see the desperate yet strong boy that Dickens described so well. Did you?
Frankly, Roman, I was bored. I love books, I like movies but this one was all so predictable and uninspired, and it is much too long. You had one excellent idea, however. Ben Kingsley. What a presence! Fagin is the one character that really lives. In the end it seems you wanted to give Ben an extra dramatic scene to let him prove how good he is, but he doesn't need to proof anything anymore, you know that.
So please forgive me when I ask: Why did you make this completely unnecessary movie ? Contract obligations ?
Respectfully,
Hellmao
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
