Oliver Twist

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.

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!

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

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.

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.