Interesting but takes more liberties than I would have liked.
Added 6/15/2009
Positives:
- The film absolutely explores the character of Monks as well as provides other important background information. Monks is portrayed as a hurt, greedy young man, but one that an audience could sympathize with.
- The production does an excellent job with Mr. Bumble's and Mrs. Mann's sequences, especially after they are married.
- Most of the plot follows logically even though the plot line had been "twisted."
- Fagin is at least portrayed as a bad-guy as in the novel and unlike in the musical Oliver! or the 2007 BBC production.
Negatives:
- The first 100 minutes of the film are spend exploring and interpreting 5 to 10 pages of the novel. While I think providing more background information on Edward Leerford and his parents was a positive choice, I wish they would not have spent more than 20 minutes exploring this part.
- Rose's character is not sufficiently explored. While she is portrayed as innocent and kind as a child, I really detested the are-you-the-boogie-man-sequence. Children in Rose's class were not idiots in the early 1800s. As soon as Rose saw Edward, she would have screamed and/or ran way. I understand the scene was supposed to play off of Monk's ugliness, but please, burglars have deformities as well as legendary boogie-men.
- Oliver is too young in this production. He should be played by an actor who appears at least 12 years old. The Dodger and Charley Bates are played by actors who appear almost adults. This takes away the psychological scenes between Oliver and the Dodger. In other words, there is not reason for Oliver to want the Dodger's acceptance, since the Dodger is like another Bill Sikes rather than an influencial peer of Oliver.
-Too many minor characters are eliminated or combined. Another reviewer, HAMLET, explores some of the combinations.
- Fagin is too much of a magician with a touch of insanity. In the novel, Fagin is a great psychological manipulator and hardly insane until the end when he is about to be hung.
*******************************
Overall, the production was interesting to watch.
However, I recommend the 1981 adaptation with Eric Porter as Fagin for people who want the story told in the most loyal manner. Unfortunately, the 1981 adaptation is not perfect, either (especially the 4:3 ratio and picture quality). However, it is the most loyal to the novel color production as of 2009.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Best I've yet seen of the Twist tale!
Added 2/25/2009
I decided to buy this on DVD and compare it to the recent version of Oliver Twist that just played on Masterpiece Theater with Timothy Spall. Wow! I thought that one was good, but this one is the best I've seen.
I must start with the performance of Marc Warren as Edward Leeford. He took a character I couldn't have cared less about in other versions and painted a heartbreaking portrait of a disturbed human being.
I actually love Robert Lindsay's take on Fagin. From his look to his voice, he's a perfect physical interpretation of the character. Sure, the incorporation of magic into Fagin's background isn't exactly faithful to the book, but I like how it adds a bit of flavor and flamboyance to the him. While other versions have started making Fagin more sympathetic, this mini-series chose to stay reasonably faithful to the more flawed aspects of Fagin. Great job by both the filmakers and Lindsay. (Timothy Spall in the newest version is an interesting choice and very quirky. But I feel like I'm watching the true Fagin with Lindsay)
I was looking forward to Andy Serkis' Bill Sikes and he was appropriately scary. He's certainly physically brutal and not one you'd want to cross. I thought Serkis might add more layers to the character, but apparently not. In truth, it's difficult to turn a character so evil into anything more than a monster.
Julie Walters and David Ross do a fine job as Mrs. Mann and Mr. Bumble. I have to admit, however, I grew less interested everytime their characters appeared onscreen. Not the actors' fault. I just kept asking myself, "Why do we keep going back to these two?" Of course, they do become fairly important later on.
Sam Smith is pretty much the sort of kid I see when I think of Oliver Twist in terms of his angelic look. But I also liked his performance overall and the way he responded to others by making comments sometimes under his breath. Keira Knightly's Rose (who looks shockingly older than her actual age in this) is almost as heartwarming as Emily Woof's Nancy is heartbreaking. Also Michael Kitchen is a joy as Mr. Brownlow, as is Annette Crosbie as Mrs Bedwin. I don't want to forget Sophia Myles who really brings Oliver's mother to life.
This brings me to episode one of the mini-series, which is essentially the prequel to the more familiar story. It really ties together questions I probably had when watching other versions of the story. When I heard part one was entirely before the famous workhouse chapter, I was concerned. But Myles, Kitchen and Warren really make it work.
I was touched almost to tears when Oliver relays his story to Rose and Mr. Brownlow while lying in bed. Also when Oliver feels sympathy for Edward.
While the mini-series apparently takes a few liberties with Dicken's original story, it's very faithful compared to most versions and beautifully done.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Could have been much better
Added 12/23/2008
There's a lot of things that this version of Oliver Twist got right. The cinematographer did a great job, and--for the most part--the casting and acting were superb. Standouts include Andy Serkis as Bill Sikes, Marc Warren as Monks, and Lindsay Duncan as Monks' mother. The biggest name in the cast, Keira Knightley, was also the least convincing, but that can certainly be excused by the fact that she was--what?--13 or 14 when this was filmed. The decision not to do as so many others have done and write the Monks storyline out of the script was a good one, and even the decision to take liberties with the novel by greatly expanding that part of the story is forgivable because of how skillfully it was done.
So why only 3 stars? Because not all of the modifications were so well done, and some of them seem inexplicable or indefensible. Finding a politically correct way to portray Fagin nowadays is a delicate task, but the decision to turn him into a Czech magician strikes me as bizarre. In the book, Fagin comes across as a complex, conflicted character, but in this video his behavior is so random that he seems to have no character whatsoever. Moving away from the lovable Jack Wild type of Artful Dodger was a good move, but turning him into a more or less generic thug doesn't seem true to Dickens' vision.
Bringing Dickens' work to the screen, of course, requires some compromises, but since Oliver Twist is a relatively short novel and there were six hours to work with here, necessary compromises were few in number. (That there seemed to be plenty of time to subject the viewer to monologue after monologue by the tiresome Fagin suggests that time wasn't really a factor.) A lot of the changes in this version seem to simply be a case of the writers thinking that they're better storytellers than Dickens. Was having the Artful Dodger suggest that Brownlow is a pedophile an attempt to modernize the story? Was Dickens' portrayal of sincere religiosity excised because it's an offense to modern sensibilities? And then there are what can only be interpreted as changes for change's sake. For example, why in the world have Fagin kill Bill's dog?
Two concluding comments: The blurb on my copy that says "A must for family viewing . . ." should not be interpreted as a claim that this video deserves to be G-rated; it doesn't. And if you're a devoted Dickens fan (like me) you may be happier skipping the commentaries by Russell Baker, who, in my opinion, gives Fagin a run for his money as the most annoying presence on these discs.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Not Dickens
Added 8/7/2008
Having recently listened to the novel read on CD, it seemed an opportune time to see a movie version. I picked this one largely because of the reputation of Masterpiece Theater. In this case, that was a mistake. I understand that a 600-page book into a two hour movie without losing some of the book. That was another part of what motivated my choice--this was six hours.
Unfortunately, the first two hours was spent "explaining" the background (which comes much later in the novel) and introducing major plot elements that are absent from the book. The last four hours was a lame retelling of most of the story (again, however, with unnecessary plot changes).
Part of the problem was the casting. The book takes Oliver from the age of ten to about twelve. The child chosen for the role, however, appeared to be no more than seven or eight years old, definitely too young for the part.
Another problem was the acting. Most of the characters seemed to be phoning in their roles, except for Michael Kitchen (Foyle's War) in the part of Mr. Brownlow. The actor who played Fagin played him as insane. The Bill Sikes character was a nonentity.
All in all a serious disappointment. About the only thing that can be said in favor of the movie was that they got the period setting right. Aside from that, look elsewhere for a good adaptation of the book.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Interesting Version Of A Classic Story, But Ultimately A Mixed Bag Of A Mini-Series.
Added 7/12/2008
When I first heard of this mini-series, my first thought was, "Why another film version of this story?" Then, I realized, upon seeing a scene from this series on YouTube, that this was probably the first version to include Rose Maylie, a character often cut from movie & TV versions of the story (I'd grown up seeing the 1968 musical "Oliver!," which is a classic, and had also seen the Disney made-for-TV version) and wonderedhow the filmmakers had handled her character in this version. Upon learning that Kiera Knightley played Rose, I was the more enthusiastic, as I had seen her in the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movies, "STAR WARS Episode I: The Phantom Menace" and "Pride & Prejudice."
Ultimately, I was diasppointed. Though the decision to flesh out Oliver's baxkstory for 98% of the 1st episode was a brave one, so much of it was out of sync with the novel that at times I wondered if this was really based on "Oliver Twist, Or The Parish Boy's Progress" (the original title of the story when it was serialized in "Bentley's Miscellany" in 1837). The entire mini-series (6 hours split onto 3 discs) altered much of what was left of the novel. Some examples follow (with possible spoilers). While not a complete listing of the vast liberties taken with the novel, these are some of the most blatant.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MINI-SERIES.
In the novel: Monks & Oliver's father dies of a mysterious ailment.
In the mini-series: Monks' mother kills his father and watches as he dies.
In the novel: Mrs. Maylie & Mrs. Bedwin are two separate characters who befriend Oliver.
In the mini-series: Mrs. Maylie & Mrs. Bedwin are combined into one character.
In the novel: Doctor Losberne is an old man and Harry Maylie is Mrs. Maylie's son & Rose's suitor.
In the mini-series: Doctor Losberne & Harry Maylie are combined into one character.
In the novel: Sikes accidntally hangs himself.
In the mini-series: Sikes commits suicide.
In the novel: Mr. Brownlow was not only an old man, but he never knew Rose personally until she came to him on Nancy & Oliver's behalf.
In the mini-series: Mr. Brownlow is depicted as a middle-aged man AND as Rose's guardian.
This last deviation REALLY IRKED me.
In the novel: Rose intereacts more with Oliver.
In the mini-series: Rose barely spoke with Oliver (not Ms. Knightley's fault; it was the screenwriter's fault); in addition, there was hardly any emotion when a secret involving both of them was revealed (again, it was entirely the screenwriter's fault).
When aired on TV in 2002, it was rated TV-PG for violence. Actually, the mini-series is Not Rated. I enjoyed it, as a period piece and, of course, because of Kiera Knightley (who was, I deeply feel, sorely underused).
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
