Oliver Twist

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-

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.

This is quite an accurate adaptation of the novel,and for the most part,quite satisfying.Curry does a good job,although I always thought of Sikes as a more burly chap.West does what he can as Bumble,but is miscast.Bumble's pride,arrogance,monumental conceit and collosal ignorance are to be matched by a hulking obese brute,masquerading as charity,piety,and responsibility.West comes across as a silly,dotty,and senile clod-he's just not grotesque enough.The muscular Scott lacks the physically frail quality for a proper Fagin-and his attempt to save Nancy at the end is totally out of character.Dickens created a villain-true,persecuted,discriminated against,and the victim of religious and racial bias-but a calculating,vicious,treacherous snake all the same.Everything else being considered,this is quite watchable,entertaing,and captures much of the spirit of the novel.

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.

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.