terephiel
I saw Roman Polanski's adaptation of "Oliver Twist" when it came to theaters, albeit due to its limited US release, I was lucky to discover it was even playing at all. My mother had to drive herself, my younger sister, and I all the way to Chattanooga to do so. I went into the theater with eagerness and excitement, but came out perplexed and unimpressed. I've been a fan of "Oliver Twist" since I saw the famed 1968 film "Oliver!" as a boy. It prompted me to read the novel as an eight year old, but when I took an Accelerated Reading test, I was stupid and decided to base my answers off the 1997 Disney version instead. One can guess where that got me.When watching this, I was initially questioning why Polanski chose to leave out the classic scene of Oliver's mother Agnes Fleming making her way through the town of Mudfog while expecting her child, eventually being taken to the workhouse where she gives birth and dies. The director apparently chose to take out any of the novel's title subplots. That part, Edward "Monks" Leeford and his entire plot with Fagin to disinherit Oliver, and so on -- all removed. That's probably my main issue with this film in general. Those subplots are important and essential parts to the novel itself. As one user here noted, just as one doesn't remove parts of a Mozart symphony, neither does one pick and choose Dickens. The 1968 musical didn't show Agnes's part, but it was eluded on and we got to see a picture of her. It would've been better for Polanski to have taken the foolish route other directors have done and made Oliver Mr. Brownlow's grandson than not putting anything about the boy's origins at all.As also noted by the same user, if Oliver hadn't resembled the portrait of Agnes (again, not shown in any way in this film) and was the son of Brownlow's best friend Edwin Leeford, then why on earth would Brownlow have adopted him? His good looks? His nice clothes? His humble social status? Sorry, but it's just not believable. I'm sure there were plenty of other children, boy or girl, who were just as nice looking and tenderhearted as Oliver. If Brownlow adopted every pity case he ever came on, then I'm sure his house would've been overflowing with hoards of little street urchins. Aside from the nonsense and disbelief created by the deletion of "Oliver Twist"'s subplots, this particular film's storyline just seemed to copy that of other versions. Like the versions by David Lean, Carol Reed, and Disney, Sykes grabs Oliver and takes him hostage on the roof before accidentally hanging himself. That doesn't happen in the original story. Heck, the boy wasn't even *there* when the event happened. I've not really seen any Polanski films aside from this, but I know he could've done better.The sets were OK and the choice of actors were decent, but again, Polanski could've made some improvements. Jamie Foreman just didn't have the evilness and malevolence of Bill Sykes that I thought he should've had. His predecessors Robert Newton, Oliver Reed, and Andy Serkis certainly did. Harry Eden was OK for the Artful Dodger, I suppose. I'd rather he'd have been around Oliver's age as he was in the book, but I've never really been as picky about the portrayed age of Dodger and Charlie Bates as many others are. Barney Clark, well...he was just too old for the title role. He portrayed the character fine, but he neither looked nor sounded like a nine year old boy. Richard Charles was eleven in the 1982 version by Clive Donner, but he looked and sounded much younger than he really was, so it was alright. If Polanski had chosen to make his own adaptation in 2003 or 2004, then I'd be more accepting of Clark because he fit the part of a younger character at those ages. A 12, almost 13 year old, though? No. The other characters were perfect.The soundtrack was one of the few positive highlights about "Oliver Twist." They're well composed and very enjoyable to listen to. All in all, this wasn't too bad of a film, but it could've been so much better. As another user noted somewhere else, too, if "Oliver Twist" were to be remade into a faithful telling of the book with the quality picture, sets, etc. this film had, then it'd be the most perfect version ever made. I wouldn't necessarily not recommend Polanski's adaptation to someone, but there are others I'd certainly do so before this one any day. If you want a quality version, go for the 1948 version by David Lean or the 1999 TV series by Alan Bleasdale. They're certainly not perfect, but they're far more faithful in general to the original novel and are certainly never boring like this one gets. The 1985 TV series by Alexander Baron isn't bad either, but the picture quality is horrible and Ben Rodska is literally the most hideous and terribly accented Oliver you'll ever see.
gavin6942
An adaptation of the classic Dickens tale, where an orphan (Barney Clark) meets a pickpocket on the streets of London. From there, he joins a household of boys who are trained to steal for their master.Roman Polanski directs, making this (to my knowledge) his third adaptation of a classic work of literature, following "MacBeth" and "Tess".Ben Kingsley plays Fagin and does a great job. However, my dislike of Dickens and his world makes me generally not care."God is holy, God is truth" overlooking a room full of starving orphaned boys in a workhouse cafeteria is a glorious shot, and "Please sir, I want some more." Words that spark a revolution.The idea of making a new version of "Oliver Twist" was suggested by Emmanuelle Seigner, director Roman Polanski's wife, while he was looking for a plot that their children would find interesting. I like that -- it's a family film!
mziemer
The movie turned out to be a disappointment for us. We watched it on television on Christmas' eve.Our main issue is the poor character development. The cast is done well, but the characters our not well introduced. Some parts are to slow and a bit boring. The story does not go smooth. At some time it got a bit irritating, it was difficult to stick to watching. I wanted to go to the toilet, but I did not needed to, which is normally the case when I watch good movies. We think we too much relied on the well known story and that disappointed it us.The set design makes a bit up. Greating the feeling of early nineteenth-century England / London is greatly done.In short, I advise you to stick to the Dickens novel.
Christopher Evans
My summary may be a slightly harsh joke but this film was truly disappointing in a big way! I am a huge fan of dickens and Oliver Twist in particular, I am also a big fan of Polanski. To see this film, which for me is a failure in most departments, was quite a shock! Dickens' story is tremendous but is told badly in this film as it stresses the weaker aspects at the expense of more interesting parts. Maybe Polanski was trying to be different but that was a big mistake. Famous and much loved parts of the story are loved for a reason. The ending with Oliver visiting Fagin in prison, various small scenes along Oliver's journey to London or with subsidiary characters such as Bill Sikes' associate etc are shown in depth. They are dull and lack any impact. Stronger characters and parts of the plot are reduced to include this weaker material.The boys playing Oliver and Dodger are both charming and well acted but seem to not get fully utilised by the director who is on as poor form as I've seen. Kingsley as Fagin is a bit of a mess, miles away from Alec Guiness or Ron Moody's portrayals in classic film versions. Far worse is Bill Sikes who is not remotely charismatic and not scary either; totally unlike Oliver Reed and Robert Newton's earlier portrayals. The Bumbles were very disappointing as were other parts and I didn't get any emotional attachment to Nancy either. My overall feeling was of boredom in this overlong waste of great resources.
