Twist

Jacob Tierney does a wonderful job in this movie simply by playing to his actor's strengths. This movie drags the audience through a Arnofskesque journey through a world where there is never a happy ending, and does a fantastic job of it.

The play between the boys (and girls) stuck in Vancouver's shadowy underbelly of sex and drugs illustrates just how lonely the sex industry is for the de facto children caught in it.

The character of Dodge is particularly well played by the often typecast Nick Stahl. Despite typecasting (which is often a sign of true talent in at least one area), he pulls the bitterness of the role right out into the open and twists it slowly between his hands.

Tierney's auteurship of the piece does create a uniqueness that might otherwise be subsumed by various facets of previously done works.

What an original title for my comment. It was what I thought of in a pinch. Anyway . . . the film is based on Oliver Twist, using basically, only the name of the characters and their abject living conditions to parlay a story about male hustlers and their life in Toronto.

The atmosphere created is pitch-perfect, and the audience really gets the feel of the weather in Toronto during winter. It's dark, damp and freezing cold, much like the the world the boys live in. And in the hollowed eyes of the hustlers, you can feel their hopelessness and exhaustion.

It is told in the view point of Dodge, rather than Oliver, and focuses on his life. Dodge is played by Nick Stahl, who does a great job of evoking the scared, hungry, cold and insecure young boy, who has seen too much. Joshua Close plays Oliver, who seems a little too one-dimensional for my liking, but is really effective in scenes with Stahl (especially the alley scene), perhaps a testament to Mr. Stahl's talents.

The film is definitely disturbing. There is no sugarcoating, and yet, there is no sex in the film, only mild violence. Most is left to the audience's imaginations, even the face of the Bill character, who plays the "pimp" in the film. His anonymity may have been used to increase the scariness of the character and his intentions, but almost became a shtick in my eyes, especially after his deplorable actions after finding out his "woman" had betrayed him. Bill was almost too bad to be a "real bad guy."

The lines are blurred between affection, power, violence and sexual need, perhaps most effectively in the one scene, it is all mixed up into one degrading act for Dodge. Some might have found it grotesque or perverted or used for shock value. However, I found it necessary to understand Dodge's actions and his character. It also helps to underline the pervasive cycle of abuse.

The ending is dark and bleak, and full of symbolic undertones. There are many questions left unanswered. I found the film to be very engaging, bittersweet and a good portrayal of how love is the most complicated emotion of all.

You cannot help but get sucked into this film... Beautifully acted, exquisitely filmed. Throughout the film, you want to jump on the screen and rescue Oliver. The audience at the Toronto International Film gasped in unison throughout the film...

A fantastic adaptation of Dickens' masterpiece; who knew that today's Toronto could be as darkly sinister as Dickens' London?

I'd love to invite all viewers of this film to watch it again and try to exact what made it so good. There's the obvious: a great script, great acting from Nick Stahl and "Fagin", great music to paint the moods and a subject matter that holds its grip 'til the end.

But there's the not so obvious. Why were we so absorbed by this film in a way that is quite unusual? Maybe, it's because it's not the monthly Hollywood thriller. But maybe we could watch it again and realise that the way it was shot is the main reason why we were glued to the screen.

For those who like cinematography as art, you can find certain clues of what will happen in the way the story is told from the very first scene: wide angles, proscenium-like framing, rock-steady shots, events not depicted but imagined, lingering images of the gritty places we go with the characters. All these things are unusual in recent film-making (not only American, but from any Country). It's difficult to do and very effective in Twist.

The lighting was kept to its minimum so all the darkness and cold that actually surrounded the real action is transmitted. The possible close-ups were discarded for the framed versions of the character and his surroundings, giving the whole idea of the situation, and not only of that of the character himself.

This film is a daring and very intelligent approach to a new way of doing things. From the adaptation of the novel and the creation of a modern Toronto-from-London-filth-town-to-gritty-city approach to the use of 16mm film instead of the common 35. The selection of format that wouldn't give the super-wide view of Panavision and the blow-up process of the 16mm negative to the theatrical 35mm release, make of this film a truly new way of looking at things. Even the use of sound. When someone is far away from the camera, so is the sound (with some exceptions on several street shots). This makes you get even closer to what's happening, because you must be really attentive if you don't want to lose a word.

All in all, I think this is a film that rose the bar for newcomers and offered a lot to analise, something we now can do in the comfort of home.

Last reflection: Nick Stahl is as chilling as he was in A Man Without a Face, remember?

Nick Stahl's desperate stare sold the movie for me, I rented it based on the cover, having never heard of it. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Joshua Close's performance wasn't all that good, but Nick Stahl's was phenomenal. The movie was really emotional but really subtle. It has an excellent soundtrack, matching every scene to emotional perfection. It's a twist on Oliver Twist but set in modern day Toronto and with male prostitution and heroin instead of pick-pocketing. Don't get hung up on the comparison, look at it as it's own movie. It has the best ending to any movie I've ever seen. Essentialy it's about the blurry lines between affectionate contact, sexual contact, and violent contact. The movie forces you to bottle your emotions by never actually showing explicit sex or violence, it keeps you from getting any release. I think the method worked perfectly. The only two problems with the movie in my mind, are that Joshua Close was cast, and that although the subtleness is excellent, it's sometimes hard to hear every word of the dialogue, so keep it up load and pay close attention.