Wordiezett So much average

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Bereamic Awesome Movie

dukeb0y Now, I like Polanski's movies. But this movie saw SLOW as molasses. Now, the sets, costumes, all look great. The filming, the accents felt like England at that time. The feel of London, the ages where children roamed the streets and stole food, because they had nothing. But as we watched it, I just thought it was WAY to slow. It showed a good look at the rich and the poor at the time. And justice, there was none for the children, really, and I'm sure that's the way it was.People, the harlots, just trying to eek out a living.Two stars for the sets and costumes. But slow.....

arminhage The movie is perfect in every sense. Plays are awesome, production is perfect with attention to smallest details, cast selection is flawless, everyone is in his or her place... but at the end it is just the direct remake of David Lean's 1948 version which was perfect by itself. The movie had no added excitement, like in one of the mini-series based on the novel, Oliver managed o solve his birth mystery and eventually found his true relatives. I don't know if that was the case for the original work but there is no sign of it in this movie, basically it focused on the more dramatic parts of the story rather than more exiting sections. Highly watchable movie but don't expect anything new, can be considered a waste of time somehow but I enjoyed it anyways as I like the original story. Everything is perfect but I can not give more than 5 out of 10 to a direct and unnecessary remake.

ShootingShark Oliver Twist, an orphan in Victorian times, runs away to London to seek his fortune, where he falls in with a gang of pickpockets led by the crooked Fagin. Oliver is caught by the police but rescued by Mr Brownlow, a kindly old man who takes pity on him, but Fagin and his cronies are keen to have Oliver back ...This adaptation of the beloved classic novel by Charles Dickens is a solid, entertaining picture throughout - well made, well acted, evocative and atmospheric. The dirty squalor of the backstreets Oliver finds himself trapped in are both beautiful and horrible, and the movie presents Victorian society realistically without over-emphasising the injustice and poverty. Best of all, it grasps the tone of the characters and their relationships just right; Oliver's warm-hearted pity for Fagin, Sykes' vicious distrust of everyone, Nancy's forlorn hope for a better life. Polanski exploits each character flaw and confrontational scene for maximum dramatic effect, but does so unobtrusively and quietly, giving the film a sense of tenderness amidst the harsh realities. The entire cast are excellent, with Kingsley and Foreman in the flashy key roles, but I particularly like Strong as the foppish accomplice, Toby Crackit. Perhaps most importantly for a period piece Polanski uses people who look the part; veteran British actress Liz Smith, who plays the old woman who rescues Oliver on the road, conveys more depth in one scene with just her face than some TV actors do in an entire career. There's nothing to criticise in this fine drama, except possibly the need for a new version of this story, since both the 1948 black-and-white David Lean version and the 1968 Lionel Bart musical version are outstanding (there are also at least five TV movie/miniseries adaptations). Polanski was well qualified to make it, given the horrors of his own childhood in the Krakow Ghetto, but if nothing else it's a terrific adaptation of a nineteenth-century classic for a twenty-first century audience. A British-Czech-French coproduction, shot in Prague and featuring a lovely string score by Rachel Portman.

TheLittleSongbird 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