Twist

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.

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 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.

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?

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.