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.

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 never ceases to amaze me at all the things he can do. He can make so many different kinds of films well. His range is truly extraordinary. The man who gave us Chinatown, Pianist, Rosemary's Baby has now directed Oliver Twist. I've seen most of the versions of Twist but this is by far the best. David Leans version is often talked about but it is overpraised. It tends to be overly sentimental an very slow in certain places. I'm not for fast moving movies but his version can be quite dull at times. Polanski's film has updated a great story with lush photography of pastoral settings and the narrative moves briskly. He manages to develop the characters quite well despite the pace. The acting from all is superb especially Ben Kingsley who is barely recognizable. I've never been a fan of great books that have been adapted to film but Polanski seems to have a real knack for this sort of thing. He filmed Tess (also an adaptation) 25 years back with an Academy award nominated direction. That film is one of my all time favorites but Oliver Twist is even better. Polanski seems to get better with age. I can't wait to see what he does next.

There was little that Charles Dickens didn't know about human nature. Who better to interpret his work for the screen than the similarly gifted Roman Polanski.

Polanski's film allows everyone their humanity. Even the extras who people the immaculately designed sets, seem to have a life outside of this film. Ben Kingsley's performance as Fagin is not held in aspic in old age, but is full of hints about his earlier life. Oliver's sufferings seem to mirror that of children in many places and in all times. When it is alleviated it is not by those worldly motivations of charity or civil duty. While a carriage full of prosperous people studiously ignore his plight, a poor old woman who has little herself cares for him. While the wealthy city is content for him to die on the street, a criminal feeds him. When Oliver finally takes his place in the middle class, a priggish religiosity reminds us of Victorian society's cure for criminality. In the end Polanski knows and Dickens asserts that individual decency and humanity alone provide hope.

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!