Because I like George C. Scott, I am fond of this film. He is a very worthy Fagin, one with a hard edge, and a sense of evil. Too often, we forget he is an opportunist and a user of young boys. He is not the sweet old man that we see in the musical. I also thought that Tim Curry had that look of evil that he is quite good at. There are scenes, such as the death of Nancy, that are almost too cruel for the audience. Fagin betrays her because of self interest and sets the psychopathic Sykes after her. The boys are pretty good because they get at the baser sides of life. The back streets of London are well presented. The workhouse scenes are acceptable. The one really weak characterization is that of Oliver. The child who plays him is really weak and seems to be coached. When he cries he's not convincing. The rest of the people are so much more interesting. Then again, I don't know if I like Oliver all that much anyway. What Clive Donner does capture is the spirit of the times, much as he does in the later Scott version of A Christmas Carol. This is entertaining enough, though it suffers a bit from the made-for-television syndrome of parceling out commercials.
11 Reviews
While the David Lean film is the definitive version, this adaptation has its flaws but is a solid and underrated one
TheLittleSongbird8 October 2009
I will tell you, the 1948 David Lean film is magnificent, and the definitive version of Charles Dickens' classic novel. Now I liked this; it did have a decent script, director Clive Donner does more than acceptably portray the harshness of the Victorian era, and fluid camera-work considering it is noticeably lower budget an adaptation of the novel out of all the adaptations I have seen. The performances were very good; George C.Scott was oily, vile, manipulative and shrewd like Fagin should be. I will admit, although I am a massive Tim Curry fan, I was initially perplexed why he was cast as Sikes. Curry isn't exactly big and burly and I don't associate him as a violent murderer, but in terms of acting, he was extremely chilling and very effective in his role. Especially when he sees images of Nancy after he kills her, and speaking of the death scene, that was very brutal. In fact, this film is one of the more violent adaptations of the novel I've seen. I liked the dog too. Cherie Lunghi is as lovely as ever, and indeed vulnerable as Nancy, and Michael Horden is a splendid Mr Brownlow. In fact the only two weak performances came from Richard Charles as Oliver-he just couldn't carry the film on its own- and Timothy West sadly is miscast as Mr Bumble not being grotesque enough. The plot was hugely condensed of the content from the book, and consequently lacked the masterly storytelling that made the David Lean film such a classic. All in all, a flawed but respectable adaptation of a complicated book. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Dickens really has had a twist.
mark.waltz19 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Those only familiar with the musical version of Charles Dickens famous British novel will being perplexed by much of this TV adaption. The basic premise of the story remains with young Oliver Twist (Richard Charles), a sweet faced workhouse orphan, running away after being treated cruelly and ending up in the den of pickpockets led by George C Scott's Fagin. There he meets the kind-hearted Nancy, played with sweet innocence by Cheri Lunghi, and victimized by her lover, Tim Curry and the well dressed criminal Oliver Cotton who wants young Oliver dispatched of because of a family secret he holds. Nancy's determination to keep Oliver in the upper class household of noblemen Michael Horden results in gruesome violence and some shocking twists that may have indeed been in the novel but were cut out of Lionel Bart's 1960 British musical that took Broadway by storm in 1963 and became an 1968 best picture Oscar winner.
Of course this was not the first non-musical version of "Oliver Twist", having been filmed as a low-budget poverty row film in 1933 and then immortalized by David lean in the opulent 1948 version. each version has taken its own twist on the classic story, but this is by far the most unique if not the best. Performance-wise however, it is brilliant, with Scott, Curry and especially Lunghi claiming top honors for their acting performances. I found Tim Curry's Bill Sykes to be far less Sinister than previous versions although that of course changes when he is pushed to the brink. The true villain is Oliver Cotton's character of Monks coolest motivations are truly evil for the others are simply trying to survive.
The fantastic George C Scott has a twinkle in his eye and provides a lovable insight into the character of Fagin, commanding every scene he appears in. Lunghi, whom I became fascinated by with her performance as the Bohemian lesbian in the TV mini-series "Ellis Island", shows a beautiful vulnerability in her tragic character, and while she has had some impressive big budget credits hasn't gotten the exposure in American films that she deserves. Young Richard Charles is appropriately innocent yet determined in the title role, but not much Insight is given to the character of The Artful Dodger, played as basically a bit part by Martin Tempest. Having seen the musical version several times when I first saw this on TV and its 1982 premier, I can't help but think of the songs while watching it but it is unique and its own style and opulently made. Dickens purists may be very disappointed in the changes and eliminations, but I can't see anybody being upset by the realistic atmosphere of England during a time when indeed it was wretched to be a workhouse orphan.
Of course this was not the first non-musical version of "Oliver Twist", having been filmed as a low-budget poverty row film in 1933 and then immortalized by David lean in the opulent 1948 version. each version has taken its own twist on the classic story, but this is by far the most unique if not the best. Performance-wise however, it is brilliant, with Scott, Curry and especially Lunghi claiming top honors for their acting performances. I found Tim Curry's Bill Sykes to be far less Sinister than previous versions although that of course changes when he is pushed to the brink. The true villain is Oliver Cotton's character of Monks coolest motivations are truly evil for the others are simply trying to survive.
The fantastic George C Scott has a twinkle in his eye and provides a lovable insight into the character of Fagin, commanding every scene he appears in. Lunghi, whom I became fascinated by with her performance as the Bohemian lesbian in the TV mini-series "Ellis Island", shows a beautiful vulnerability in her tragic character, and while she has had some impressive big budget credits hasn't gotten the exposure in American films that she deserves. Young Richard Charles is appropriately innocent yet determined in the title role, but not much Insight is given to the character of The Artful Dodger, played as basically a bit part by Martin Tempest. Having seen the musical version several times when I first saw this on TV and its 1982 premier, I can't help but think of the songs while watching it but it is unique and its own style and opulently made. Dickens purists may be very disappointed in the changes and eliminations, but I can't see anybody being upset by the realistic atmosphere of England during a time when indeed it was wretched to be a workhouse orphan.
Good Adaptation;Some Strange Casting
hans10106729 November 2000
This is quite an accurate adaptation of the novel,and for the most part,quite satisfying.Curry does a good job,although I always thought of Sikes as a more burly chap.West does what he can as Bumble,but is miscast.Bumble's pride,arrogance,monumental conceit and collosal ignorance are to be matched by a hulking obese brute,masquerading as charity,piety,and responsibility.West comes across as a silly,dotty,and senile clod-he's just not grotesque enough.The muscular Scott lacks the physically frail quality for a proper Fagin-and his attempt to save Nancy at the end is totally out of character.Dickens created a villain-true,persecuted,discriminated against,and the victim of religious and racial bias-but a calculating,vicious,treacherous snake all the same.Everything else being considered,this is quite watchable,entertaing,and captures much of the spirit of the novel.
Scenes Cut From Video Release
phillise2 October 2009
This is a good version of Oliver Twist I remember from my childhood. I saw it on TV in the US. However, I want to the poster who says that the scene where Oliver asks for more is missing entirely. It most definitely WAS filmed!It was very moving when shown on TV, as it has Oliver ask for another starving urchin--not exactly the way it was in the book, but let me sound a bit blasphemous for suggesting the scene one-uped Dickens. The scenes leading up to the coffin-maker are there as well. This poster seems to be referring to the VHS that was released briefly in the ninties in the US. For some unknown reason, this version omits these very scenes just like the poster says. It cuts out the very heart out of the movie! Also, the blurb on the back sounds more like Great Expectations than OT, as if whoever wrote didn't even know the story! However, this poster claims to be from London, and this page is referring to a British release of the film, which is not even available in the US. Were these scenes somehow lost?
Not a bad adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic.
OllieSuave-0077 August 2014
This is the first movie adaptation I have seen of Charles Dickens' classic - a story where orphan boy Oliver Twist (Richard Charles) escapes the orphanage in England and end up being taken in by a band of thieves.
From what I remember, this movie followed the novel pretty well, capturing the elements of the story such as the old English times, the sinisterness of Fagin (George C. Scott) and Bill Sikes (Tim Curry) and the famous "Please sir, I want more sir" catchphrase by Oliver Twist.
The acting was good for the most part - nothing that was really mind-blowing though. It's just very average at times, particular that of the Oliver Twist character, who was portrayed as a little too skinny, pale and malnourished and I thought his white hair made him look too ghostly. The plot, though, was steady-paced and made the movie was pretty intriguing enough that I didn't find boring or dreary. Director Clive Donner did a nice job in keeping the film interesting and engaging.
Grade B-
From what I remember, this movie followed the novel pretty well, capturing the elements of the story such as the old English times, the sinisterness of Fagin (George C. Scott) and Bill Sikes (Tim Curry) and the famous "Please sir, I want more sir" catchphrase by Oliver Twist.
The acting was good for the most part - nothing that was really mind-blowing though. It's just very average at times, particular that of the Oliver Twist character, who was portrayed as a little too skinny, pale and malnourished and I thought his white hair made him look too ghostly. The plot, though, was steady-paced and made the movie was pretty intriguing enough that I didn't find boring or dreary. Director Clive Donner did a nice job in keeping the film interesting and engaging.
Grade B-
" The World is a Dark place when you're a Poor Orphan "
thinker169115 November 2012
Considered the finest author of the Victorian Era, Charles Dickens wrote, among other novels, the story of " Oliver Twist. " Beginning in 1922, many film adaptations have depicted the horrific settings of the young waif and the dark misery of England's Workhouses. This version which stars' the multi-talented George C. Scott as Fagin, is the most memorable. If you have read the original novel published in 1837, you are fortunate. Further, this particular movie is indicative of the harsh, indeed, brutal life of poverty-stricken English children, described by the author. The cast of the movie is superb and includes, Richard Charles as Oliver, Tim Curry as murderous Bill Sikes, Michael Hordern as Mr. Brownlow and Oliver Cotton as the compassionate Nancy. All in all, this is the best film adaptation of Dickens' superior novel and a true Classic in every sense of the word. Easily recommended to all. ****
Horrendous
catjoescreed10 January 2009
This is without doubt the absolute worst version of Twist I've ever seen, and I've pretty much seen them all. Oh, no question, the cast was great. George C Scott was wonderful as Fagin, Curry was quite nice as Sikes. Cherie Lunghi and Michael Hordern have always been big favorites of mine, going back to their days as Shakespearean actors in the BBC filming of the entire Shakespeare canon. And I was so glad to see the character of Charlie get his due - his part in the plot is so often elided.
But the plot! Oh my God, the plot! Was there ever such a condensation? Dozens of characters left out, dozens of crucial plot points obliterated in the interests of squeezing this story into 100 minutes or so. Some of the most important story elements were kept, but were stuck in at the wrong places, leaching them of their poignancy. I even found myself laughing at a couple of places, the stuff was handled so badly. Nancy's death scene, by the way, was given the goofiest interpretation I've ever seen.
I liked Sikes' dog. It's usually shown as an English bull, but in this version it was a Benji-style mutt. Yeah. I liked the dog. That was about it.
But the plot! Oh my God, the plot! Was there ever such a condensation? Dozens of characters left out, dozens of crucial plot points obliterated in the interests of squeezing this story into 100 minutes or so. Some of the most important story elements were kept, but were stuck in at the wrong places, leaching them of their poignancy. I even found myself laughing at a couple of places, the stuff was handled so badly. Nancy's death scene, by the way, was given the goofiest interpretation I've ever seen.
I liked Sikes' dog. It's usually shown as an English bull, but in this version it was a Benji-style mutt. Yeah. I liked the dog. That was about it.
Watered Down Version
papccs9 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This, yet another version of Oliver Twist is something rather peripatetic. The plot, something which I'm certain most people know, in this movie is rather confusing. It comes across as the director throwing scenes together without any purpose. The scene where Oliver asks for more, is missing entirely.
One minute Oliver watches a boy collapse in the field where they are working, the next Mr. Bumble is proposing to the woman who runs the workhouse, and seconds later Oliver is seen working in the Funeral Parlor. Any sense of continuity for why he is there, has been left on the cutting room floor, if ever filmed. The scenery may, arguably, be more realistic, but the story line itself leaves something lacking.
One minute Oliver watches a boy collapse in the field where they are working, the next Mr. Bumble is proposing to the woman who runs the workhouse, and seconds later Oliver is seen working in the Funeral Parlor. Any sense of continuity for why he is there, has been left on the cutting room floor, if ever filmed. The scenery may, arguably, be more realistic, but the story line itself leaves something lacking.
One of the better film adaptations of the Dickens novel
thomandybish20 March 2001
This seldom-seen television movie from the early eighties does the best of any adaptation(up to that time)of capturing the dispair and wretchedness of life for the poor in 19th century London. George C. Scott's Fagin is oily and vile, and Tim Curry's Sikes is chillingly psychotic. The sets and photography convey a sense of grim poverty and desolation all but absent from most versions. Dickens wrote a Victorian horror story of abuse, starvation, and isolation, and this film does his grim novel justice.
The worst version I've seen
HotToastyRag4 December 2022
As a Dickens fan, I was very excited to see the 1982 Oliver Twist, starring George C. Scott as Fagin and Tim Curry as Bill Sikes. The musical version of 1968 is one of my favorites, and I also hold the 1948 adaptation in very high regard. However, this version was lousy. It was so awful, I nearly (and should have) turned it off on several occasions. Why pollute my brain with something so inferior when there are other, better versions I could have watched instead?
I was really surprised by how cheap this television production of Oliver Twist seemed, since it was under the helm of Clive Donner, director of the George C. Scott A Christmas Carol, which was so well done. Everyone's costumes looked clean, the wigs were laughable, and the camera was placed and framed like it was the director's debut. George's lack of a Cockney accent was appalling, Cherie Lunghi's acting was straight out of community theatre, and little Richard Charles as Oliver was hardly a better choice than Mark Lester was fifteen years earlier. I know it's tempting to watch every version ever made, especially if you like the story and love Charles Dickens, but you don't have to watch this one. Entire portions of the story are cut, so you won't even be treated to a faithful adaptation.
I was really surprised by how cheap this television production of Oliver Twist seemed, since it was under the helm of Clive Donner, director of the George C. Scott A Christmas Carol, which was so well done. Everyone's costumes looked clean, the wigs were laughable, and the camera was placed and framed like it was the director's debut. George's lack of a Cockney accent was appalling, Cherie Lunghi's acting was straight out of community theatre, and little Richard Charles as Oliver was hardly a better choice than Mark Lester was fifteen years earlier. I know it's tempting to watch every version ever made, especially if you like the story and love Charles Dickens, but you don't have to watch this one. Entire portions of the story are cut, so you won't even be treated to a faithful adaptation.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
