Oliver Twist

When it was obvious talking pictures were not going to be a fad, it was time to make sound versions of Charles Dickens' classics. In this case, the adaptation of "Oliver Twist" (1922) starring Jackie Coogan and Lon Chaney appears have been the inspiration. This revision comes from the low-budget "Monogram" studios and, while this is clearly what they would have considered a prestige production, today it comes across as cheap.

There was obviously no time for the director and performers to do more than block scenes. Some of it looks like a dress rehearsal. Most unapprised of all is "Little Rascal" Dickie Moore in the title role. However, "Oliver Twist" is actually a very difficult role to play. You have to be a young boy who can play it without gin, sex, or a beard to twirl.

***** Oliver Twist (2/28/33) William J. Cowen ~ Dickie Moore, Irving Pichel, William 'Stage' Boyd, Doris Lloyd

A hamfisted low-budget version of Oliver Twist (the first to be filmed since the advent of sound) from Poverty Row studio Monogram. Dickie Moore plays the title character, and while he looks cute he can't act to save his life, which is probably why he is given so few lines. Irving Pichel at least has fun as Fagin and William 'Stage' Boyd makes a suitably brutish Bill Sykes.

A woman makes her way to a workhouse and dies after giving birth to a boy, who is named Oliver Twist by the workhouse authorities. When he is 9 years old, and apprenticed to an undertaker, he runs away to London where he meets a pickpocket named The Artful Dodger, who takes him to his boss, Fagin.

Based on the novel by Charles Dickens, this is the first talking version of the story but sadly it does not do it justice. Much of the acting is quite stiff and falls short of expectations, other than the performance of the credible young Dickie Moore in the title role. Watch it only if you are a fan of the book.

Any version of the movie. The release I had claims Alec Guinness and 1948. But it's actually this one. Not far into sound audio . Think this is better than side 1 with Stud' Lonigan. Much brighter movie. Albeit very skimpy on the plot..

This 1933 version of the Charles Dickens masterpiece is a true oddity. Featuring performances ranging from very good to hysterically bad, and camera work ranging from amateurish, with glimpses of visual artistry and beauty. Dickie Moore is a very young Oliver Twist, with the face of an angel, but zero acting ability. This fact didn't bother me as some of the faces this kid makes are just so hilarious and inappropriate for the scene he is playing, that you just gotta love him! It is actually an endearing performance. Sonny Ray, the actor who played the Artful Dodger had to be pushing 40, which also brought about some unintentional laughter. He also was utterly devoid of any acting talent whatsoever, which makes me wonder just why he was cast at all. However others fare much better here. William Boyd was quite effective and fearful as the sinister Bill Sykes, and Irving Pichel certainly looked the part of Fagin. Also worth mentioning is an actress named Barbara Kent, who played the part of 'Rose'. Again, no acting talent whatsoever, but she possessed that certain porcelain beauty that is associated with silent film stars, and she is delightful to look at here. It must not be forgotten that this is a 1933 production, and one of the first 'talkies'. This was a transitional time for cinema, as actors were still employing the techniques that were used during the silent film days, where body movements and facial expressions were greatly exaggerated in order to get the point across without spoken dialog. This kind of acting is sometimes present here, and i do not think it hinders the production. The best performance has to be that of Nancy Sikes, played wonderfully here by actress Doris Lloyd. She played that difficult part with the right measure of hardness, with a heart and a good nature kept well hidden from scoundrels Fagin and Bill. The fact that this has such a low budget lends this old film a spooky, sometimes surreal quality. There is some effective use of shadows and light. The dark, murky quality here makes Fagin and the others appear as sickly degenerates. And best of all it follows the Dickens story quite faithfully, omitting certain things for budget reasons, most likely. I love the story so much, and those who love to see these immortal characters come to life should get great enjoyment out of this film. This is the third film adaptation of Oliver that I have obtained. I enjoyed the Polanski version, and the David Lean version even more. So by the time I got around to this version it was just a pleasure to see all these characters that I know so well come to life in yet another production of this timeless story. Also the fact that this film is so old lends it another level of mystery and strange beauty somehow. Sometimes a low budget adds to the grittiness of the material. And this is one of the few versions that includes the final scene of Fagin in prison, where he is visited by Oliver, an important scene that is sadly missing from the David Lean version. For fans of the book and the other films, I recommend hunting down this lesser-known film version of a literary masterpiece. This should be a treat especially, for fans of the earlier days of cinema.