An orphan boy in 1830s London is abused in a workhouse, then falls into the clutches of a gang of thieves.An orphan boy in 1830s London is abused in a workhouse, then falls into the clutches of a gang of thieves.An orphan boy in 1830s London is abused in a workhouse, then falls into the clutches of a gang of thieves.
William 'Stage' Boyd
- Bill Sikes
- (as Wm. Boyd)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely (and usually badly) edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film.
- GoofsWhen Oliver is scrubbing the workhouse dining room floor, he looks up and smiles at the camera just before the bell goes for breakfast.
- Quotes
[first lines]
Oliver's Mother: My baby, my boy. I want to see him.
- Alternate versionsIn the version usually shown on TV now, the entire sequence with the Sowerberrys and Noah Claypole is missing. This makes it seem as if Oliver runs away from the workhouse, not the undertaker's shop.
- ConnectionsEdited into The Our Gang Story (1994)
Featured review
I was a bit surprised to find that tiny and ultra-low budget studio Monogram made this Dickens story--well before the famous British version from the late 1940s and the Oscar-winning musical. Now because Monogram had few funds compared to the big studios, I expected the film to be terrible but it actually surprised me. It was competently made and in some ways surprisingly good.
When the film begins, you see a shot that is supposed to be England back in the 19th century--but you can see rather modern buildings from this aerial view! Fortunately, the rest of the film DID look period and the costumes and sets appropriate. But, because it was Monogram, the film is full of mostly unknown and lesser talents. By far the most famous star is young Dickie Moore who plays Oliver Twist--a bad casting decision but not a surprising one as Moore was about the hottest male child actor of the day. He was simply adorable. But, he was also too young for the role and he was not a particularly good actor--at least in this point in his young life. Also, oddly, the Artful Dodger was way too old--looking like a man in his 20s instead of a precocious teen criminal. As for the rest, however, they were surprisingly good.
As far as the story goes, it was greatly rushed--and that is the biggest deficit of the film apart from Moore. Instead of slowly unfolding it seemed to go way too quickly. But, it did hit the important parts of the Dickens story and did something subsequent versions seemed to forget--that in the end, Fagan was hung for his litany of crimes! All in all, worth seeing and surprisingly well done.
NOTE: I previously reviewed this one and was much harsher towards it. I am not sure why, but it seemed better the second time around...
When the film begins, you see a shot that is supposed to be England back in the 19th century--but you can see rather modern buildings from this aerial view! Fortunately, the rest of the film DID look period and the costumes and sets appropriate. But, because it was Monogram, the film is full of mostly unknown and lesser talents. By far the most famous star is young Dickie Moore who plays Oliver Twist--a bad casting decision but not a surprising one as Moore was about the hottest male child actor of the day. He was simply adorable. But, he was also too young for the role and he was not a particularly good actor--at least in this point in his young life. Also, oddly, the Artful Dodger was way too old--looking like a man in his 20s instead of a precocious teen criminal. As for the rest, however, they were surprisingly good.
As far as the story goes, it was greatly rushed--and that is the biggest deficit of the film apart from Moore. Instead of slowly unfolding it seemed to go way too quickly. But, it did hit the important parts of the Dickens story and did something subsequent versions seemed to forget--that in the end, Fagan was hung for his litany of crimes! All in all, worth seeing and surprisingly well done.
NOTE: I previously reviewed this one and was much harsher towards it. I am not sure why, but it seemed better the second time around...
- planktonrules
- Oct 21, 2010
- Permalink
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El hijo de la parroquia
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 20 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content