Oliver Twist

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

As a Dickens fan, I was very excited to see the 1982 Oliver Twist, starring George C. Scott as Fagin and Tim Curry as Bill Sikes. The musical version of 1968 is one of my favorites, and I also hold the 1948 adaptation in very high regard. However, this version was lousy. It was so awful, I nearly (and should have) turned it off on several occasions. Why pollute my brain with something so inferior when there are other, better versions I could have watched instead?

I was really surprised by how cheap this television production of Oliver Twist seemed, since it was under the helm of Clive Donner, director of the George C. Scott A Christmas Carol, which was so well done. Everyone's costumes looked clean, the wigs were laughable, and the camera was placed and framed like it was the director's debut. George's lack of a Cockney accent was appalling, Cherie Lunghi's acting was straight out of community theatre, and little Richard Charles as Oliver was hardly a better choice than Mark Lester was fifteen years earlier. I know it's tempting to watch every version ever made, especially if you like the story and love Charles Dickens, but you don't have to watch this one. Entire portions of the story are cut, so you won't even be treated to a faithful adaptation.

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 is the first movie adaptation I have seen of Charles Dickens' classic - a story where orphan boy Oliver Twist (Richard Charles) escapes the orphanage in England and end up being taken in by a band of thieves.

From what I remember, this movie followed the novel pretty well, capturing the elements of the story such as the old English times, the sinisterness of Fagin (George C. Scott) and Bill Sikes (Tim Curry) and the famous "Please sir, I want more sir" catchphrase by Oliver Twist.

The acting was good for the most part - nothing that was really mind-blowing though. It's just very average at times, particular that of the Oliver Twist character, who was portrayed as a little too skinny, pale and malnourished and I thought his white hair made him look too ghostly. The plot, though, was steady-paced and made the movie was pretty intriguing enough that I didn't find boring or dreary. Director Clive Donner did a nice job in keeping the film interesting and engaging.

Grade B-