Oliver Twist (1997)

Very Cool!!!

Just perfect...

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Why, Oh why did anyone agree to be in this movie? I can only assume they were either desperate for work or mad.Aside from the usual argument that it wasn't even slightly faithful to the book, this film just wasn't thought out. At the start as we see Oliver's mother wandering the moors a caption comes up stating that she is 'somewhere in the north of England.' Okay, if this is true, why is everybody at the workhouse a Londoner? I'm from the north of England and no one here talks like Michael Caine, believe me. While we're still on the subject of accents, Elijah Wood performed his role well as he is a rather good actor but this was totally shadowed by bad voice work. At times it was like he was playing Scarlet O'Hara in a GONE WITH THE WIND remake! At others I thought I'd accidentally put the Crocodile Dundee video in by mistake. There was one part in towards the end where he didn't even try and delivered an entire line in his own American accent!I suppose in its defence, this film is not the only one to have certain inaccuracies. Even the revered Oliver! musical has a line "you promised we could go and see the hangin'" when actually by this period, public hangings had been abolished.I actually saw this film on DVD so it's not that I've been denied the opportunity to see this in all it's 'glory' by only seeing the edited TV version. This film is a Disney film and we all know that they can do miles better. This is the corporation that invented feature-length animated movies, they brought us Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, LAdy and the Tramp, Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. This movie is so amateur in comparison to most of Disney's other productions. It comes across as having been made by some errand boy while the studio bosses are on a tea break!

This is almost a good version of the story. Alex Trench plays a sweet, innocent hero very nicely, while Richard Dreyfus throws himself into the role of Fagin with relish. And Elijah Wood really tries to make the Artful Dodger work. It seemed a perfect choice for him after his portrayal of Huckleberry Finn in THE ADVENTURES OF HUCK FINN, and I like the way he tries to get an authentic Cockney accent by doing a Cary Grant impression. The trouble is though he's way too old for this role here (at least compared to the book). If he'd played this immediately after Huck Finn, he would have been perfect. {Someone should really write an essay comparing and contrasting those two characters, it would be a really interesting assignment.)SPOILER WARNINGThe script really doesn't understand the story that well. I cannot imagine for one moment Oliver would even contemplate going back into the dreaded Workhouse after he's been thrown out - especially to retrieve a locket (which in the novel by the way, he's not even aware of). And the treatment of Mr Bumble as a bit part cameo is disgraceful. This hardly seems like the sort of person who would utter a memorable line like; "If the Law thinks that, then the Law is an Ass and a Bachelor - and God help the Law!"And the way that the Dodger and Oliver meet up, when the Dodge STOPS Oliver from stealing doesn't ring true at all. His explanation that it would attract too much attention from the Law sounds ridiculous. It would be much more beneficial for the pro thieves to let the the rank amateurs get caught and keep the Law happy, while the experts get away with it.And adults seem to forget that teens and pre-teens don't really see each other as equals. Most pre-teens find teenagers somewhat of a threat. And when you think about it, Oliver up to the point he goes to London thinks that kids are generally okay and trustworthy, while the older folks are an obvious menace. Which is why if say Nancy or Sykes or Fagin tried to grab Oliver off the street he'd be a lot more wary and terrified. He trusts the Dodger more because he sees the Dodger as an ally and a nice kid like himself - if shrewder to city living. (The fact that the Dodger is one of the most corrupt kids around is something Oliver couldn't possibly know).The script seems to ignore the basic theme of the story that Oliver has to get though this ordeal without a blemish to his character. If he is corrupted in any way whatsoever, he loses; because he is no better than the ones around him. (Of course this is more apparent in the novel where Monks wants him to be corrupted to gain the inheritance of their father).

Haven't read the book, but this movie was Naff. Elijah Wood was bloody horrible (has he ever even been in a decent movie apart from Lord of the Rings?). Richard Dreyfuss tried his best to have some fun, but this has gotta be the weakest of all his roles. My dad read the book and he said they changed everything around. There was way too much family mushiness.

I first saw this movie on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC when it first aired. Months later, I saw it at my former pastor's cabin on a video that he and his wife had taped it on. This is quite differnt than the 1968 musical in many ways. For one thing, the Artful Dodger is much older in this version than in the musical. Instead of being a preteen or young teenager, he's a high school aged teen. Fagin has a much more clean appearance with his cleanly-shaved face. Bill Sykes doesn't look so scruffy either as he does in the musical. At the workhouse, there is a female version of Mr. Bumble and they show Oliver's mother giving birth to him at the beginning. In the musical, the scene begins with the orphans lining up to eat supper. Although this is a great movie, I still like the musical much better.