Oliver Twist

This is without doubt the absolute worst version of Twist I've ever seen, and I've pretty much seen them all. Oh, no question, the cast was great. George C Scott was wonderful as Fagin, Curry was quite nice as Sikes. Cherie Lunghi and Michael Hordern have always been big favorites of mine, going back to their days as Shakespearean actors in the BBC filming of the entire Shakespeare canon. And I was so glad to see the character of Charlie get his due - his part in the plot is so often elided.

But the plot! Oh my God, the plot! Was there ever such a condensation? Dozens of characters left out, dozens of crucial plot points obliterated in the interests of squeezing this story into 100 minutes or so. Some of the most important story elements were kept, but were stuck in at the wrong places, leaching them of their poignancy. I even found myself laughing at a couple of places, the stuff was handled so badly. Nancy's death scene, by the way, was given the goofiest interpretation I've ever seen.

I liked Sikes' dog. It's usually shown as an English bull, but in this version it was a Benji-style mutt. Yeah. I liked the dog. That was about it.

I will tell you, the 1948 David Lean film is magnificent, and the definitive version of Charles Dickens' classic novel. Now I liked this; it did have a decent script, director Clive Donner does more than acceptably portray the harshness of the Victorian era, and fluid camera-work considering it is noticeably lower budget an adaptation of the novel out of all the adaptations I have seen. The performances were very good; George C.Scott was oily, vile, manipulative and shrewd like Fagin should be. I will admit, although I am a massive Tim Curry fan, I was initially perplexed why he was cast as Sikes. Curry isn't exactly big and burly and I don't associate him as a violent murderer, but in terms of acting, he was extremely chilling and very effective in his role. Especially when he sees images of Nancy after he kills her, and speaking of the death scene, that was very brutal. In fact, this film is one of the more violent adaptations of the novel I've seen. I liked the dog too. Cherie Lunghi is as lovely as ever, and indeed vulnerable as Nancy, and Michael Horden is a splendid Mr Brownlow. In fact the only two weak performances came from Richard Charles as Oliver-he just couldn't carry the film on its own- and Timothy West sadly is miscast as Mr Bumble not being grotesque enough. The plot was hugely condensed of the content from the book, and consequently lacked the masterly storytelling that made the David Lean film such a classic. All in all, a flawed but respectable adaptation of a complicated book. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Because I like George C. Scott, I am fond of this film. He is a very worthy Fagin, one with a hard edge, and a sense of evil. Too often, we forget he is an opportunist and a user of young boys. He is not the sweet old man that we see in the musical. I also thought that Tim Curry had that look of evil that he is quite good at. There are scenes, such as the death of Nancy, that are almost too cruel for the audience. Fagin betrays her because of self interest and sets the psychopathic Sykes after her. The boys are pretty good because they get at the baser sides of life. The back streets of London are well presented. The workhouse scenes are acceptable. The one really weak characterization is that of Oliver. The child who plays him is really weak and seems to be coached. When he cries he's not convincing. The rest of the people are so much more interesting. Then again, I don't know if I like Oliver all that much anyway. What Clive Donner does capture is the spirit of the times, much as he does in the later Scott version of A Christmas Carol. This is entertaining enough, though it suffers a bit from the made-for-television syndrome of parceling out commercials.

This is a good version of Oliver Twist I remember from my childhood. I saw it on TV in the US. However, I want to the poster who says that the scene where Oliver asks for more is missing entirely. It most definitely WAS filmed!It was very moving when shown on TV, as it has Oliver ask for another starving urchin--not exactly the way it was in the book, but let me sound a bit blasphemous for suggesting the scene one-uped Dickens. The scenes leading up to the coffin-maker are there as well. This poster seems to be referring to the VHS that was released briefly in the ninties in the US. For some unknown reason, this version omits these very scenes just like the poster says. It cuts out the very heart out of the movie! Also, the blurb on the back sounds more like Great Expectations than OT, as if whoever wrote didn't even know the story! However, this poster claims to be from London, and this page is referring to a British release of the film, which is not even available in the US. Were these scenes somehow lost?

This seldom-seen television movie from the early eighties does the best of any adaptation(up to that time)of capturing the dispair and wretchedness of life for the poor in 19th century London. George C. Scott's Fagin is oily and vile, and Tim Curry's Sikes is chillingly psychotic. The sets and photography convey a sense of grim poverty and desolation all but absent from most versions. Dickens wrote a Victorian horror story of abuse, starvation, and isolation, and this film does his grim novel justice.