User reviews

I was not impressed. the film showed flashes of brilliance, and certainly Tierney shows promise as a director - but the film lacked depth and story. What did this film tell me? There was no growth - and I don't mean the characters; stagnation of life is a concept that can be delivered successfully in film - but the story has to DEVELOP. And there was no development here.

One major hindrance in this regard was the Oliver Twist connection. Using Oliver Twist is fine and dandy, but these characters represented the Dickensian characters in name only. Their personalities were lost. And although there were a few visual allusions to Dickensian London (the street lamps and wrought-iron cots come to mind), the feel of Toronto just doesn't cut it atmospherically.

As well, the story of Oliver Twist was filled with satire, wit, sexual innuendo...it also had mystery and tension. This film lacked every one of those characteristics. All of the potent factors of the novel disappeared - and even the lack of a 'perfect' ending - which was the one aspect that rankled me in the novel - didn't help the film, as this ending lacked resolution, and all but lacked a point.

I also felt the characters did not keep to character. I don't mean to Dickensian character (although they certainly didn't keep to Dickensian character either), but merely to believability as characters. I don't believe that Dodge's brother acted as he did. I don't believe that the Senator reversed himself as he did - and speaking of the Senator - what was with the entire locket/parental connection? It was completely ignored in the film, though it clearly alluded to the scenario in the novel where Oliver is discovered to have a connection to a wealthy family...

I could go on and write a deeper dissertation on this film, but sadly have no patience to do so. Suffice to say that this film is a major disappointment because of its sheer potential and its failure to live up to that potential. 5/10

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.

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 wanted very much to like this film. The premise is compelling, the too-close relationships that grow out of necessity for the down and out who basically do whatever they must to continue to be able to get by and get high. Unfortunately, the most intimidating character is kept off screen and is just someone we hear through the phone conversations of other characters. Because this part of the drama remains unseen, it appears that there are 3 related but somehow unmotivated deaths. The scenes between dodge and his brother are poignant but it all takes too long. Every shot is long and slow. Plenty of long drawn-out track shots. Even the establishing shots of exteriors and interiors are lingering. I managed to go and make lunch between crises. Still, there's some real juice in this one.

In the last ten or so years, there has been a rash of movies starring young, white, straight-seeming actors portraying bedraggled streetwise hustlers, with all scenarios (it would seem) stemming from Gus Van Sant's "My Own Private Idaho". This one has the conceit of being a gay updating of Dickens (!) with Nick Stahl as sort of an Artful Dodger of Queer Toronto. The trouble with "Twist" is...that's the only twist, and it isn't a groundbreaking one. These kids, who seem to turn tricks for coffee, cigarettes and the occasional needle, have nothing much to offer us except their names. We see the seedy side of life yet we're given little explanation why Stahl and his friends are so belligerent against hope, without any imagination or the drive to get out and succeed. *1/2 from ****

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 saw this as part of the '04 San Francisco GLBT film fest. The description seemed interesting enough, and Nick Stahl has made a couple good movie choices, so I figured it was a safe bet. Wrong-o. Can we please put an end to the male hustler genre? This Dickinsian train wreck could have been just as easily made by piecing together scenes from the fair "Johns," the violent for violence-sake "Bully," and the utterly stupid "Speedway Junkies."

The movie had a couple nice shots, but any art of the film was wasted by the story. I also really liked the soundtrack. Those two highlights do not justify the 98 minutes of my attention that I gave to this film. I couldn't get out of the theater quick enough, and considered walking out more than once.

Anyone who feels the slightest tug toward this movie should just rewatch "My Own Private Idaho" (if you want a hustler movie) or "In the Bedroom" (if you want a Nick Stahl movie) and buy an Alison Kraus album (for the alt-country/bluegrass soundtrack).

I really enjoyed the film. Although the production was not up to par the film was done well. The acting was incredible, Nick Stahl has gone up in my opinion and the way the darkness of the story was told without being in your face about it was re-freshing.

The music at the end of the movie was incredible and I can't wait until the soundtrack comes out.

Does anyone know of any the artist that perform the music in the movie?

I do not understand why some people do not like the picture. From a story book perspective I do believe that the movie measures up to Private Idaho, although I would put the production quality at a lower level.

Looking at this movie, I wondered if I did not already see it. The theme is not original (anymore), we have seen the setting in other movies, the acting is poor, as is the story. So, there is no reason why I should recommend this movie to anybody.

You cannot help but get sucked into this film... Beautifully acted, exquisitely filmed. Throughout the film, you want to jump on the screen and rescue Oliver. The audience at the Toronto International Film gasped in unison throughout the film...

A fantastic adaptation of Dickens' masterpiece; who knew that today's Toronto could be as darkly sinister as Dickens' London?

When I walked in, I wondered why the theatre was empty. I wanted to like this movie. Hey, Gary Farmer's a funny guy. I hoped to see something balanced, lifelike, with ups and downs. Instead what I saw was a "scared straight"-style, here's-how-bad-it-can-get cliché without any relief, either humorous or realistic.

I was supposed to get taken in by the comparison of this movie to Dicken's story. Except it was nothing like Dicken's story, except for the names and the squalor. The Victorian gentleman had a handle on reality; this paternalistic and uninspired film wants to paint everything outside the mainstream worldview as endlessly fear-driven and hopeless. It's as if the writers wanted to us to think that Dickens was a pollyanna and wanted us to know how bad things *really* are.

Do such awful things actually happen? For sure. Do -all- of these things happen to real people in the real world? No. Which makes Twist a horror film -- if that's what you're after.

Maybe someone wanted kids to know what they might face if they ran away from abusive homes to the big city. In that case, they should have found out what kids face -- verisimiltude anyone? -- instead of throwing together an orgy of dark imaginations.

Jacob Tierney does a wonderful job in this movie simply by playing to his actor's strengths. This movie drags the audience through a Arnofskesque journey through a world where there is never a happy ending, and does a fantastic job of it.

The play between the boys (and girls) stuck in Vancouver's shadowy underbelly of sex and drugs illustrates just how lonely the sex industry is for the de facto children caught in it.

The character of Dodge is particularly well played by the often typecast Nick Stahl. Despite typecasting (which is often a sign of true talent in at least one area), he pulls the bitterness of the role right out into the open and twists it slowly between his hands.

Tierney's auteurship of the piece does create a uniqueness that might otherwise be subsumed by various facets of previously done works.

What this low budget film has going for it is a terrific performance by Nick Stahl. He plays Dodge, a young and straight hustler who works the streets in a gay area of Toronto. Dodge does drugs to quell the emotional pain of having to work at something so debasing. He spends his time alternating between walking the streets, living with fellow hustlers in a dilapidated loft, talking with a diner waitress (well played by Michele-Barbara Pelletier), and teaching a new recruit named Oliver the ins and outs of the "business".

The script is not well written. Questions are left unanswered. And there's lots of downtime wherein not much happens. The result is considerable tedium and boredom, not just for the characters but for viewers as well. The story is depressing because the characters are all so hopeless.

Another problem here is that the concept is not original. We've seen all this before in other films, like "My Own Private Idaho". I'm not sure what the point of "Twist" is, apart from being a contemporary update of the Oliver Twist story. I do like the music at the film's start, and it recurs off and on throughout.

Low-key, and very slowly paced, with long camera "takes", this bleak story would have been better with a little more substantive action. Other than Nick Stahl's fine performance, the movie does have atmosphere, albeit dreary, but not much else.

What an original title for my comment. It was what I thought of in a pinch. Anyway . . . the film is based on Oliver Twist, using basically, only the name of the characters and their abject living conditions to parlay a story about male hustlers and their life in Toronto.

The atmosphere created is pitch-perfect, and the audience really gets the feel of the weather in Toronto during winter. It's dark, damp and freezing cold, much like the the world the boys live in. And in the hollowed eyes of the hustlers, you can feel their hopelessness and exhaustion.

It is told in the view point of Dodge, rather than Oliver, and focuses on his life. Dodge is played by Nick Stahl, who does a great job of evoking the scared, hungry, cold and insecure young boy, who has seen too much. Joshua Close plays Oliver, who seems a little too one-dimensional for my liking, but is really effective in scenes with Stahl (especially the alley scene), perhaps a testament to Mr. Stahl's talents.

The film is definitely disturbing. There is no sugarcoating, and yet, there is no sex in the film, only mild violence. Most is left to the audience's imaginations, even the face of the Bill character, who plays the "pimp" in the film. His anonymity may have been used to increase the scariness of the character and his intentions, but almost became a shtick in my eyes, especially after his deplorable actions after finding out his "woman" had betrayed him. Bill was almost too bad to be a "real bad guy."

The lines are blurred between affection, power, violence and sexual need, perhaps most effectively in the one scene, it is all mixed up into one degrading act for Dodge. Some might have found it grotesque or perverted or used for shock value. However, I found it necessary to understand Dodge's actions and his character. It also helps to underline the pervasive cycle of abuse.

The ending is dark and bleak, and full of symbolic undertones. There are many questions left unanswered. I found the film to be very engaging, bittersweet and a good portrayal of how love is the most complicated emotion of all.

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?

I've just seen this movie on the IFFRotterdam, and was impressed by the acting performance of Nick Stahl. Also the very good camerawork was a very pleasant surprise. It's quite a dark film, not only because it's a film about hustling boys, but also most of the film is shot in darker periods of the day, and i found it really well shot and well use of the diafragma of the camera. The story it's self was nothing special because it's based on Oliver Twist, but with a modern touch. The performances of the actors made it really worthwhile. Nick Stahl is a actor of a kind i expect to last long, and will be able move ahead in his career. He alone is worth viewing this film, very convincing, the way he walks, his look into the camera, his emotion when he has to do his brother....go and see it

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.

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.