Twist

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.

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.

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.

For a small independent film I thought it was good. I kept comparing it--in my mind--to "Love and human remains" and "Eclipse" probably because it too was distributed by Strand and that Strand intro always catches me. I'll agree with others that it was overlong, or would have benefited from tighter editing; some scenes should have been tightened up. But the overlong scenes are probably there because those making the film were really eager to get a point across or create an atmosphere.

Each reviewer seemed to get a different message, as is true of just about all the films reviewd at this site. I was impressed with the way the hustlers absorbed and accepted the opinions others have of them; I've sort-of gotten that same opinion watching boys at work at a local mall and transit depot. Society thinks of them as lepers or diseased or garbage and they begin to think of themselves that way. I often get the impression that they've come to think of themselves as so dirty that even if help were offered they would just say that it's "too late for me." I have heard one-or-two say that, by the way. Someday I'd like to meet one who didn't accept the role society assigned him and actually developed a positive self-image. That's the important gift my mother gave me.. "you're as good as anybody."

Being an romantic old fag I was, of course, much taken by the character of Oliver before he became angry and bitter. Thank God I've become too old to think that I can save anyone who's become hard, angry and bitter; that's for the experts.

The character of Fagan was interesting just because he was played as a person who seemed to have moments of caring that came across to me as sincere; I hadn't expected that. I know I've seen that actor somewhere else, but I can't remember where.

I really thought that the final scene with Oliver in the motel got the film's message across forcefully. It's a shame that the film maker didn't stop there; the empty bed scene over stated the obvious.

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.