NOTE IMDb
6,2/10
1,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA queer "Oliver Twist" update set in the hustler district of modern-day Toronto.A queer "Oliver Twist" update set in the hustler district of modern-day Toronto.A queer "Oliver Twist" update set in the hustler district of modern-day Toronto.
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 3 nominations
Maxwell McCabe-Lokos
- Noah
- (as Max McCabe)
Dave Graham
- Buck
- (non crédité)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesAt the end of the film, Dodge pays a visit to Bill's place. His face is ravaged from the mugging of the previous evening. When he comes out of the house, his face shows no signs of the damage that was present when he entered the house.
- ConnexionsReferences Perry Mason: The Case of the Twice-Told Twist (1966)
Commentaire à la une
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?
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?
- cmmescalona
- 23 sept. 2006
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 350 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 47 370 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 887 $US
- 23 mai 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 47 370 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant