Oliver Twist (1951)

Best movie of this year hands down!

I love this movie so much

I wanted to but couldn't!

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

On the whole David Lean was more satisfying in small-scale Black and White than wide screen Colour and this more or less definitive version of Oliver Twist reinforces that opinion. In retrospect the opening sequence - almost a visual definition of 'gothic' - although probably intending to contrast the soon-to-be-crowded screen with the bleak, empty and pitiless landscape, has little or nothing to do with what follows and what follows owes more than a little to German Expressionism with sharp contrasts in light and shade and odd angles to spare. An astute Casting Director managed to scare up some suitably gargoyle-like faces for the Workhouse Board which set the scene more dramatically than actual shots of living conditions. All in all the casting is well up to snuff throughout even to relatively minor roles like that of Peter Bull. A fine adaptation that holds up well.

Aside from the wonderful musical "Oliver!", this is probably the best version of "Oliver Twist" you can find. "Oliver!" is a bit light-hearted--while this 1948 version is clearly more vivid in its portrayal of evil. Both are very well worth your time.As for the story, I won't bother recounting it--it's such a familiar story. Instead, I want to briefly focus on how it's different from some other versions. Although Oliver Twist is clearly the star of the film, this version de-emphasizes the boy--and focuses a lot more energy on the evil surrounding him--such as the Beadle and, more importantly, on the horrid Bill Sykes. You won't find a more vivid portrayal of Sykes (Robert Newton)--and at times it's a bit hard to watch the guy--it's very rough stuff for the time and even today. For instance, while the camera doesn't show all of his brutal beating he inflicts, it is loud and vicious--and the way the camera focuses on the panic-stricken dog is brilliant and VERY disturbing. It's also amazing to see Newton's face as he sits there looking at the corpse hours later--as if HE is horrified by his actions! You also see death in the eyes of the animal and in its body language--and is one of the most amazing scenes I can recall from the era. I wonder how they elicited that reaction...I sure hope they didn't do anything horrid to the dog to make it do that.Another portrait in evil that is quite good is Alec Guinness as Fagin. While you might not recognize him under all that makeup, it's him in one of his earliest films. An interesting note is that Israel banned the film for its antisemitic portrait, though at least unlike the original editions of "Oliver Twist" at least Fagin isn't constantly referred to as 'the Jew'! I really don't think the portrayal is, in itself, antisemitic BUT it does feed into a common stereotype of the era--of the wicked and money-hungry Jew. In fact, Dickens himself apparently came to regret how he described Fagin and de-emphasized this in later editions (removing most of the Jewish references). I would say that Guinness' character was less Jewish and more a subhuman troll! He is cruel and vicious--and little like the funny Fagin in "Oliver!".Apart from the VERY vivid portraits of evil, the biggest star of the film is the great cinematography. There are wonderful shots--with unusual angles and lighting. And, because of this, the film appears very similar to some American film noir pictures. Lovingly shot, that's for sure. Overall, a terrific picture--one of the best of the era. And, well worth seeing.

As already said, this version of 'Oliver Twist' is more loyal to the time when it took place, being more authentic than other versions (many versions exist). I don't know what the other versions are like, but they can't be as bad as 'Oliver & Company' by Disney, which is a completely modified concept of this story with artwork that can only be classified as a disgrace.This is one of the great-looking B & W films and it has great sceneries too. The film is generally well-made and directed. John Howard Davies alone takes the whole thing. This charismatic English child-actor is so overlooked. Even if he did very few movie roles, he deserved more popularity thanks to his natural-born talent and charm. Here he has a very moving acting as the lead character, Oliver Twist. You really care about Oliver, he's such a good kid and goes through so many bad things that you can say he practically loses his childhood - that is, he isn't given the happy childhood he should have had and deserved. But at least there is a happy ending waiting for this sweetie.Robert Newton's acting as Bill Sikes is great, although his best performance is probably as Long John Silver in Disney's "Treasure Island". Here he obviously's got his two legs. Robert Newton was a charismatic but ill-fated actor due to his lack of reliability and problems with the booze.

I can't even believe there are people who prefer this narrative jalopy to Lean's infinitely finer 'Great Expectations.' Oliver Twist is simpleton fodder. The waif protagonist is NOT interesting. He is acted upon, and actions occur around him because having a child protagonist is essentially uninteresting and problematic. Because he's so helpless and feeble (read: virtuous), nothing complex can happen to him without introducing some adult agents. Any danger Oliver experiences, lost its threat 50 years ago from over-familiarity. Every Dickens story involves illegitimacy and tiresome coincidences. OT features the biggest whopper of a coincidence in all of Dickens oeuvre: Imagine you're an orphan who doesn't know who your parents are. Imagine yourself lost in a massive city. Imagine the first person you steal from, just happens to be your long-lost grandfather. Oh come on... what a hideous, clumsy, amateurish device. Bill Sikes is one dimensional. Nancy's motives shift inexplicably. I found nothing interesting in this non-complex plot from the very first viewing. Only Great Expectations miraculously escaped Dickens tiresome, facile morality. The only reason this receives three stars is for the dramatic b/w camera work.