Oliver Twist (1997)

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Just when you thought Disney had ruined enough classics, they pounce like a predator on the brilliant work of Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, and turns a great story into a cheap family/children's tale. Now, I haven't read the entire book, but I read much of it when I was younger, and what I remember was definitely much better than this cheap, made-for-TV Disney production. They changed the story very much around, and removed some of the more "inappropriate for younger viewers" details, which pretty much ruins the story, and reduces it to an immature retelling of a great Dickens story. The plot is decent, but it's so damn predictable and dull(not to mention different from the original) that only a child or someone with way too much free time and/or patience could enjoy it. The acting is decent at best, with one or two actors obviously trying to transcend the embarrassing level of acting, but failing miserably due to the awfully written material. The script is poorly written. The characters are badly written and often come off as cliché-ish stereotype versions of the people they're portraying. The dialog is poorly written. The humor is juvenile. Overall the film is a very childish and immature production, which I guess is supposed to represent the target audience. I've said it before and I'll say it again; Hollywood, listen up: a children's movie doesn't necessarily have to be a childish movie. There is a difference, and that difference is most commonly known under the term "level of quality". Even for a TV film this is bad. All in all, a decent Disney production, but if you want a good retelling of the story, look elsewhere. Or, even better, read the book. I hear it's excellent, but I can't remember much of it. I recommend this only to children, and only to children who are ignorant of the works of Dickens. Anyone else should avoid; unless, you have absolutely nothing better to do, you have to kill 90 minutes, and there are no good spots left on the walls to stare at. 5/10

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).

It was sickening; the story was mutilated, the characters and situations changed and the dialogue invented.Charles Dickens must have made 1000 revolutions in his grave. Those who participated in this disaster, should have their SAG membership revoked. To see Richard Dreyfuss as Fagin was enough to send me running to the vomitory.Don't watch it. If it comes on TV, switch channels! McQ

This movie wasn't really all that good and most of the acting wasn't too good either. Richard Dreyfuss certainly didn't shine in this movie although he is in excellent actor. I thought that Elijah wood did a good job and so did a few of the other minor actors, but for the most part it was flat and boring