TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

catjoescreed This is without doubt the absolute worst version of Twist I've ever seen, and I've pretty much seen them all. Oh, no question, the cast was great. George C Scott was wonderful as Fagin, Curry was quite nice as Sikes. Cherie Lunghi and Michael Hordern have always been big favorites of mine, going back to their days as Shakespearean actors in the BBC filming of the entire Shakespeare canon. And I was so glad to see the character of Charlie get his due - his part in the plot is so often elided.But the plot! Oh my God, the plot! Was there ever such a condensation? Dozens of characters left out, dozens of crucial plot points obliterated in the interests of squeezing this story into 100 minutes or so. Some of the most important story elements were kept, but were stuck in at the wrong places, leaching them of their poignancy. I even found myself laughing at a couple of places, the stuff was handled so badly. Nancy's death scene, by the way, was given the goofiest interpretation I've ever seen.I liked Sikes' dog. It's usually shown as an English bull, but in this version it was a Benji-style mutt. Yeah. I liked the dog. That was about it.

papccs This, yet another version of Oliver Twist is something rather peripatetic. The plot, something which I'm certain most people know, in this movie is rather confusing. It comes across as the director throwing scenes together without any purpose. The scene where Oliver asks for more, is missing entirely.One minute Oliver watches a boy collapse in the field where they are working, the next Mr. Bumble is proposing to the woman who runs the workhouse, and seconds later Oliver is seen working in the Funeral Parlor. Any sense of continuity for why he is there, has been left on the cutting room floor, if ever filmed. The scenery may, arguably, be more realistic, but the story line itself leaves something lacking.

Hitchcoc Because I like George C. Scott, I am fond of this film. He is a very worthy Fagin, one with a hard edge, and a sense of evil. Too often, we forget he is an opportunist and a user of young boys. He is not the sweet old man that we see in the musical. I also thought that Tim Curry had that look of evil that he is quite good at. There are scenes, such as the death of Nancy, that are almost too cruel for the audience. Fagin betrays her because of self interest and sets the psychopathic Sykes after her. The boys are pretty good because they get at the baser sides of life. The back streets of London are well presented. The workhouse scenes are acceptable. The one really weak characterization is that of Oliver. The child who plays him is really weak and seems to be coached. When he cries he's not convincing. The rest of the people are so much more interesting. Then again, I don't know if I like Oliver all that much anyway. What Clive Donner does capture is the spirit of the times, much as he does in the later Scott version of A Christmas Carol. This is entertaining enough, though it suffers a bit from the made-for-television syndrome of parceling out commercials.

thomandybish This seldom-seen television movie from the early eighties does the best of any adaptation(up to that time)of capturing the dispair and wretchedness of life for the poor in 19th century London. George C. Scott's Fagin is oily and vile, and Tim Curry's Sikes is chillingly psychotic. The sets and photography convey a sense of grim poverty and desolation all but absent from most versions. Dickens wrote a Victorian horror story of abuse, starvation, and isolation, and this film does his grim novel justice.