Oliver Twist

Polanski is the kid of guy who likes to dance on the edge. A mixture of clown, genius and artist who has suffered personal tragedy and humiliation but one who keeps cranking amazing films. This Oliver Twist is no exception. Polanski has reworked the story and taken out the 19th century coincidences, e.g., the highly improbable fact that Oliver is Brownlow's grandson and the business with the portrait of Oliver's mother, given the old tale a fresh coat of paint with new amazing character actors such as Leanne Rowe, a young and thoroughly charming Nancy, Henry Eden, a scamp of a Dodger, Jamie Forman, a repulsive Bill Sykes with no redeeming features whatsoever and the veteran Edward Hardwicke as Brownlow. But, it's young Barney Clark who steals the show. In past versions, Oliver is merely a device upon which the other array of characters are hung. We'll all remember Sir Alec Guinness, Richard Dreyfus and Ron Moody's Fagin, Oliver Reed and Robert Newton's Bill Syke, Elijah Wood, Anthony Newley and Jack Wild's Dodger but who were the Olivers? We will remember young Master Barney Clark in this marvelous, intriguing and eye-pleasing Oliver.

I completely disagree with the comment I just read. I thought Roman Polanski did great respects to the story and to Dickens. I thought all of the performances were well done and Ben Kingsley was just amazing. I have been in the production of Oliver! the musical three times and have read the book about a million times. It is one of my all time favorite stories and plays and I have been disappointed with the past Oliver Twist films. I remember a few years ago I saw a very poorly done Oliver Twist with Elijah Wood as the Artful Dodger. This one did not disappoint me as a huge fan in the least. I feel Roman Polanski really understood what Dickens was trying to express in his books. And by the way, the character Oliver is supposed to faint, it is a sign of his weakness. I know I am repeating myself but I really did love the performances. The Artful Dodger was great and Mr.Salsbury was done so justly. Even the smallest characters were performed amazingly. I think the only way someone would foolishly call this off as a poorly written, poorly acted, or poorly done film was if they were blind and deaf! No offense to anyone who is of course, but I was very taken aback, as I said, by the comment I just read about this film. The only thing it has against it is that it's a bit long. I knew where the story was going at every moment but for someone just being introduced to Oliver Twist, it might seem to go on for a while. But if you look back at the history of movies, many of the best films are long. If you are a fan of Charles Dickens, please see this film - you will love it. If you are a fan of Roman Polanski it is one of his best! If you wish to be entertained in a very classic and non-offensive way, please see this film. I just loved it and could go on and on. This is a story and film for all ages!

Perfect, there is no better way to describe this wonderful production by Roman Polanski. This time honoured story by one of the world's greatest writers has been given excellent treatment by a fantastic director.

First, the acting is quite good, not just as one would expect from Ben Kingsley (who out does himself as the scheming cantankerous Fagin), but from the child actors as well, most notably Barney Clark and Harry Eden (who play Twist and Dodger, respectively). Another notable aspect of the cast is they all speak with a thick 19th century British accent, and yet manage to be perfectly intelligible to the audience.

As for the story, well, what can I say, it's Dickens! Some characters are of course cut from the book, and some plot points and elements are missing, but that is to be expected when a book is translated into a film. Despite the cuts, the movie is very faithful to the book, and one could hardly ask for a better translation of written medium to the visual.

Despite wonderful acting and excellent story, my favourite part of this movie is definitely the visuals. The set and costume crew has done an amazing job of recreating the London in which Oliver lived. Every nuance of London, from the slums to the well to do areas has been very faithfully realized on screen. The squalor of the back alleys is almost palpable as the characters trod through the mud, and one is almost tempted to doff their hat when the scenery moves to the middle class homes.

Overall, I can find very little to not praise about this movie, the only thing I can find some flaw with is the soundtrack, as it seems a bit sparse in some areas, and perhaps a bit too repetitive. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of any genre.

The 1948 David Lean film is a classic, that is well worth watching for the outstanding performance of Alec Guiness. This adaptation was very good indeed, but I do think it is inferior to the 1948 film.

The film does look splendid, with fine period detail, and the cinematography is gorgeous. I also thought the score by Rachel Portman was beautiful, and very fitting. Roman Polanski's direction is excellent, and although it is a long time since I read the book, it is fairly true to the source material. Barney Clark gives a charming and vulnerable performance in the title role, and the Artful Dodger and the other boys are well done. Nancy was well portrayed and her character's death was very disturbing, I have to admit. The end scenes were very well staged and perfectly captured on camera.

However, the film does have some less impressive bits. I will confess I was disappointed in Ben Kingsley as Fagin, he wasn't terrible, he just wasn't quite my idea of Fagin. Fagin is supposed to be oily and manipulative, and while Kingsley occasionally had these in his performance, compared to the outstanding performance given by Guiness, it was somewhat anaemic. Jamie Foreman looks the part of Sikes, and evidently has the acting ability, however I felt that something was holding him back, as if he was reluctant to be violent. The dog wasn't quite as convincing as the dog in the 1948 film, in the case of the 1948 film, if there was such thing as an Oscar for animals the dog should've got it. I did like the fact that the film tried to be faithful to the spirit of the book, but it felt a little bloated at times.

Don't get me wrong, it is not a terrible movie, it's just that I preferred the David Lean film, but I did like this film a lot. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Roman Polanski's film is an authoritative take on Dickens' classic. It is expertly paced, slowly immersing the viewer into the plight of the young orphan and its predicament in Victorian England. Through a meticulous period reconstruction, superb acting, and effective characterization (all the secondary characters are memorable), the typically Dickensian theme of the survival of Innocence against all odds is dramatized with utter conviction. The omission of the excessively melodramatic elements from the original story (Oliver's family back-story for instance) contributes greatly to the story's strength by minimizing any trace of implausibility or mawkishness, thus providing a wide-ranging portrait of the Victorian society with its intrinsic inequalities and its rather warped sense of justice. The visuals are splendid and the prevalent detached and non-judgmental approach to an easily emotive story is simply the signature of master director Roman Polanski, who is functioning here on top form.