POLANSKI FILM 2005
Added 9/21/2009
Another Polanski film that isn't quite satisfying, although well made, set design and cinematography. Primarily a kid's film, but also for adults. All in all, it just didn't grab me, I wasn't that interested in the characters either.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Why another Oliver Twist film?
Added 1/3/2009
I am an aficionado of Charles Dickens. I know his literary works inside and out. I consider him a great author (even if he was a bit eccentric and long-winded.) However, after watching this film, (which I purchased for a very low price), I have two questions I would like to have asked the producers and script-writers.
(1) What was the purpose of making another version of Charles Dicken's classic 400 page novel?
(2) Did you really expect the film to sell well considering how many other competing versions are in existence?
In answer to the first question, I think people in charge of the production believed that there were not enough other wonderful versions of the novel. Polanski in an interview noted that the last really good Oliver Twist film was the musical "Oliver!" from 1968 with Mark Lester Ron Moody. It won 6 academy awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Maybe its success could be duplicated?!
In answer to the second question, it is possible that people believed if the acting was well-done (which I think it was), the sets were well-created (I think they were), and the story seemed believable (I think it does) then people would be willing to spend money to see the film in theaters.
Now, the film did not perform very well at the box office even though I believe Barney Clark and Ben Kingsley both played their roles wonderfully (especially Kingsley). I believe the reasons are as follows:
People know the major elements of plot of Oliver Twist. It is a very famous work of classic British Literature. Children read it in middle school, in high school, and in college. Few aficionado's of literature could possibly have missed understanding the basic plot of the novel. What some people (at least this writer) would have liked to have seen more of is addressing of the subplots (i.e. those concerning Monks, Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble, the Dodger's court scene, etc.) These aspects are not addressed AT ALL in this film, which instead changes some of the action, (i.e. Mr. Brownlow's house is "robbed" in Polanski's version.)
If the acting in this film could have been created into a miniseries like the BBC Oliver Twist miniseries of 1985 with Ben Rodska and Eric Porter (only with better acting and better sets), it could have done well on television. People would have watched it. However, clearly this would not be practical from a financial standpoint.
In short, this 120 minute film gives good acting, an interesting plot (even if subplots are lost), and decent extra-features. However, it fails to play out the book - the one aspect that might hold more people's interests. Therefore, while this Dickens' aficionado finds this film worth his time, other lovers of literature may reach different conclusions.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
It truly looks beautiful; it just feels rather bland...
Added 8/12/2008
The story of `Oliver Twist' is very widely known and has been done time and time again for the big as well as the small screen. When you attach an Oscar winning director like Roman Polanski to the more recent adaptation of the Dickens classic you start to get your hopes up, because in all technicality it should be amazing. Well, technically speaking it is. The sets are flawless, the costumes are accurate, the mannerisms and speech of the characters seems to fit well. Everything seems to work, but for some reason it just doesn't. I found myself dreadfully bored throughout most of the film, and the facets of the film that were so lauded upon its release (they actually threw Kingsley into contention during the Oscar race) were found by me to be ridiculously over-praised.
I don't think I need to go into the story behind `Oliver Twist' since just about everyone knows what this film is about. Young Oliver, an orphan, finds himself taken in by a band of young thieves, all controlled by the devious Fagin. When Oliver jeopardizes Fagin's livelihood and dastardly Bill Sykes makes it his mission to take care of Oliver.
The acting is decent at best, aside from a few standouts. Barney Clark is not very strong in my opinion. He manages to grow with the film, and by the films closing I either was used to his blemishes or he had actually corrected most of them. Jamie Foreman is no where near as villainous as he should have been. Sure, we hate the character of Bill Sykes, but here we are more or less hating his actions as apposed to his person. A better actor would have really made us loathe everything about him. Kingsley is a mess as Fagin. In my humble opinion he is the worst thing about this movie. His performances is ridiculously comical and honestly takes away from the seriousness of the film. Then there is Leanne Rowe and Harry Eden, two shining stars in a vast sea of mediocrity. As Nancy and the Artful Dodger respectively these two actors really `get' their characters. Rowe is soft and sincere and Eden is superbly cast in a role that really should have been the only one getting any sort of Oscar attention.
What the film lacks in the cast it does make up for in picture. The cinematography is splendid to say the least; truly gorgeous to look at, and like I mentioned, the set pieces and costumes and all that comes with it are fantastic as well. Polanski captures a mood with this film, and I admired that, but for some reason the film as a whole comes across rather dull and uninspired to me.
I know that my distaste for this film is not really the popular vote here. Maybe I just watched this on a bad day or something and probably should give it another try before I go around condemning it (which is not what I'm doing for it does have its redeeming factors). I just don't think that this is the version to go with. It looks updated and glossy and prettier than the previous adaptations, but the older versions in my opinion have a little more heart and are much more endearing. This version just doesn't have that extra something to keep my interest. Polanski is a masterful director and this style really suits him (`The Pianist' is one of my favorite films) but this is not one of his grandest attempts and the end result is much less than I personally expected.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Oliver Twist Lite
Added 3/16/2008
Polanski's version of Dickens' classic is visually stirring (its use of computerized backgrounds sets a new standard) and has real heart and soul, particularly in the form of Ben Kingsley's sympathetic Fagin, and Leanne Rowe's endearingly charming Nancy, but this tale strayed too far from the novel to be either the definitive or even one of the top adaptations of this 150-year-old best seller. Well worth seeing, for sure, but not a replacement for the experience of reading the source material. And, hey, didn't the canine actor who played Bill Sykes' dog, Bullseye, look like he could be the many-times-great-grandfather of Petey from The Little Rascals?
(BTW, this is my second, and censored, attempt at submitting this review. Apparently Amazon doesn't like comments on this filmmaker's past...)
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Trim "Twist" ala Polish Polanski , an absolute eye catcher
Added 3/1/2008
I love my Dickens trimmed down by Oscar winning screenplay writer Ronald Harwood (The Dresser,The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and The Pianist),imbued with the genuine empathy of Oscar winning director Roman Polanski (The Pianist,Rosemary's Babyand Chinatown (Special Collector's Edition)) and add the parsley on the plate of the music of Oscar winner Rachel Portman (Emma: Music From The Miramax Motion Picture,The Cider House Rules: Music from the Miramax Motion Picture,Chocolat: Music from the Miramax Motion Picture (2001 Film)) and outstanding cinematography which lends to the authenticity of the story, and this makes for me the best screen adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic.The DVD special features are a film makers dream as you get to hear these greats discuss their very unique vision for this retelling of "Oliver Twist."In hindsight, I would watch these fascinating special features first in order to understand their vision.It is dark and foreboding. Purists of the book may or may not care for it as Harwood,whose classic book on the teaching of screenplay writing Another Time,cuts and trims Dickens' story,but really captures the essence better than I have ever seen it done! (IMO) .As a film, it zinged for me and was as palatable as Beef Wellington with a robust Shiraz!
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
