Twist

I would say that most people are not aware of and are very naiive about street life, and that that might influence their perceptions of this movie. I enjoyed it and thought it touched on a lot of issues that very rarely get touched on, and thought that while some portions were a little overdrawn, overall it was a very moving pieve of film that had a lot of truth embedded in it.

I would say that the people here that say that they have seen "too many movies about hustling" have probably never had the experience themselves. One cinematic exploration is surely enough for them, I suppose.

However, if you have not been exposed to "too many" hustler movies already, I would encourage you to check it out.

The acting is superb and I especially liked Joshua Close.

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?

I just read the review of TWIST by this knut knipp and I would advise him to stick to mainstream movies, dude go check out the new spidey movie, it rocks! Twist is no fun movie, but being a teenage male hustler is no fun thing either, unless you have a rich sugar daddy willing to take care of you. And i have known a few guys in that situation. But I guess if you're in Toronto, things can't get much worse, but a bus to LA would be a welcome change. I really don't see why the writer/director used Oliver Twist as a plot guide, it really is sort of absurd. A movie on hustling in bleak Canada doesn't need a "fagen" or an "oliver" to make it work. The performance by Nick Stahl is truly astounding, this guy is a great actor and could give the young River Phoenix a run for his money. There is no happy ending, like there was in the original Oliver, but I suppose Dickens had to keep his publisher/editor happy and the books had to sell. Actually he was the equivalent to today's Disney movies, where such banal exercises as Holes, has to conclude with everyone living happily ever after. If you like niche movies and are not into the general crap that comes out of Hollywood, then i say check out 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.

It goes without saying that updating and reinventing a classic tale is a minefield of potential mismatches, and anyone familiar with the original is disinclined to suffer fools gladly. In this case, even if the viewer tunes out Dickens, the best that can be said of it is that some of the acting (particularly Stahl) scores and the technical values are at least adequate.

Because none of the characters is fully developed, there is no opportunity to judge much beyond that. And because the plot is therefore weak and wobbly, the only thing left for comments is trying to find isolated bits of action or notions relating to one's own experiences. For example, I found the scenes involving heroin use strangely devoid of release, merely technical and prophylactic. In order for a screenplay to succeed, it needs to draw the viewer into the feelings of the actors. That happens only rarely here in spite of what one senses is good dramatic potential.

I think I'll stick with Dickens.