|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Oliver Twist (2005 movie) » User review

Um, what happened to the middle?

  • Dec 4, 2006
Rating:
+1
Pros: Acting, sets

Cons: The last half of the film is paced badly and can be hard to follow

The Bottom Line: Watch the first half of the movie then read the last half of the novel. Recommended with reservations.

Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie''s plot.

I think with Oliver Twist, Roman Polanski bit off more than he could chew.

The story is well known. Oliver Twist is an orphan who barely survives the workhouse and escapes from his apprenticeship with an undertaker to make his way to London. In London he is befriended by the Artful Dodger who introduces him to the thieving gang run by the mysteriously kind Fagin. Oliver is arrested for something he didn’t do, and the victim of the crime, Mr. Brownlow attests to this and takes Oliver in. Fearing that their lair would be exposed, Fagin and the reprehensible Bill Sykes contrive to find him and bring him back. He is shot, recovers, and is rescued by his accidental benefactor from before. Roll credits.

The Academy Award winning The Pianist is Mr. Polanski’s last film before Oliver Twist. The sets for each of these films are similar in that they are so real it is hard to believe that they were staged. Similarly, the performances are one and all excellent. Barney Clark (Oliver) doesn’t have to carry the film by himself, but could if needed. He is intense and can hold his own against an actor with the power and strength of Ben Kingsley (Fagin). In fact, all of the children part of Fagin’s gang seemed to enjoy playing their parts and their oddly functional family works very well on the screen.

The set and performances take all of the attention; the music is only apparent when the scenes do not contain much action and it is all pastoral and similar to the way the pastoral scenes in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Thinking back, I don’t recall what the music was like during the action sequences, so at least it didn’t get in the way.

For the first 75 minutes, the movie is almost overwhelming in its faithfulness to the novel. The problem is, once that 75 minutes are up the remaining 60 minutes stray quite far from the book. I am not saying that movies based on novels need to be slavishly faithful; film is a different medium and cannot capture all that is written in a book (usually anyway—and in some ways, moving pictures can help a reader grasp a part of the story he or she might have missed when reading it). The issue is that the film is so slavish for the first half, but then engages in some serious story cutting and rearranging. It’s like watching a film where the writer responsible for the script could only make it halfway through the novel then turned to the Cliffs Notes for the remainder.

Oliver Twist, especially in the beginning, can be considered a type of Holocaust story. The workhouse is where orphans and indebted adults go to do menial work while getting very little to eat. Mr. Dickens is at his most sarcastic when discussing the working conditions and the food. He talks about watering down the gruel even more and about how much cheaper it is to bury those unfortunates who essentially starved to death because their coffins need not be very large. It would not be at all difficult to parallel Mr. Polanski’s early life in Nazi occupied Poland with the life of Oliver Twist for the majority of the novel. What I see happening is that, when it is clear enough that Oliver will come out well in the end, Mr. Polanski was finished and just needed to wrap up the movie as quickly as possible.

Oliver Twist is not an easy story to retell. In many ways, it is Mr. Dickens’s masterwork; not only is it extremely socially consciousness but it presents this consciousness in an artful, darkly comic way. Also, the character of Oliver Twist is more rounded and realistic than many of the downtrodden that populate the majority of Mr. Dickens’s oeuvre.

I’m not sure how to rate the film. The first half is wonderful; the second half was like a series of wind-sprints to get to the credits. This format screwed up the pacing so that it was hard to get a handle on it. What was calm and contemplative became anxious and harried. The best advice I can give is this: stop watching the film when Oliver gets shot—then pick up the novel and start reading from where he gets shot. That way you get the best of the movie and the complete story (though you miss much of the brutal sarcasm that makes this novel so powerful).

Recommended:
Yes

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
0
Thought-Provoking
0
Fun to Read
0
Well-Organized
0
Post a Comment
More Oliver Twist (2005 movie) reviews
review by . November 22, 2008
(2005 version with Ben Kingsley)      Not quite as Dickens wrote it   And lacks even one song   This remake's sort of "okay"   But it's two whole hours long     The classic orphan story   With artistic liberty   It casts out Ollie's half-brother   And Brownslow's family     The actors are all very good   It's not their fault the plot   Doesn't focus …
review by . January 25, 2006
posted in Movie Hype
Charles Dickens' famous story of the perseverance of the individual in the crumbling society of poverty in mid 19th century London has been scripted for film many times: the catalogue lists 19 versions and that doesn't include some films using the matrix of the story only. The results are variably successful: David Lean's 1948 version is brilliant, Renny Rey's 4 part mini series in 1999 was good, Tony Bill's TV film in 1999 had the flavor, the musical version 'Oliver!' was a resounding success, …
About the reviewer
Paul Savage ()
Ranked #57
I name and describe everything and classify most things. If 'it' already had a name, the one I just gave it is better.
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
cyclone_march
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki

Roman Polanksi's adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel.

If Charles Dickens were alive to see Roman Polanski's faithful adaptation ofOliver Twist, he'd probably give it his stamp of approval. David Lean's celebrated1948 versionof the Dickens classic and Carol Reed'sOscar®-winning 1968 musicalare more entertaining in some ways, but Polanski's rendition is both painstakingly authentic (with superb cinematography and production design) and deeply rooted in the emotional context of the story. Both Polanski and Dickens had personal experiences similar to those of young Oliver (played here by Barney Clark) -- Polanski in the Nazi-occupied ghettos of Poland during World War II, and Dickens during his hard-scrabble youth in Victorian London -- and this spiritual kinship lends a certaingravitasto the tale of a tenacious orphan who escaped from indentured servitude in London society and is taken in by Fagin (Ben Kingsley) and his streetwise gang of pickpockets. As the evil Bill Sykes, who exploits Oliver for his own nefarious needs, Jamie Foreman is no match for Oliver Reed (in the '68 musical) in terms of frightening menace, but even here, Polanski's direction hews closer to Dickens, while the screenplay by Ronald Harwood (who also wrote Polanski'sThe Pianist) necessarily trims away subplots and characters for the sake of narrative economy. All in all, thisOliver Twistrises above most previous versions, and with the benefit of Kingsley's ...
view wiki

Details

Genre: Drama
Release Date: September 23, 2005
MPAA Rating: PG-13
DVD Release Date: January 24, 2006
Runtime: 130 minutes
Studio: TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists