- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
100A grounded and unusually matter-of-fact adaptation.
-
100Altogether remarkable, a near-masterpiece.
-
90This is that rare movie version of a great novel in which watching IS reading.
-
88Polanski's film is visually exact and detailed without being too picturesque. This is not Ye Olde London, but Ye Harrowing London, teeming with life and dispute.
-
83Yet precisely because this is by Roman Polanski, it's irresistible to read his sorrowful and seemingly classical take, from a filmmaker known as much for the schisms in his personal history as for the lurches in his work, as something much more personal and poignant.
-
83Despite the movie's several shortcomings, it leaves us sated. That's because, unlike Oliver's workhouse, it does give "some more" - more emotional breadth, more hardscrabble farce, and more haunting drama.
-
80With tact and enthusiasm, Mr. Polanski grabs hold of a great book and rediscovers its true and enduring vitality.
-
75The movie about literature's luckiest orphan may teem with children, but it is not for them.
-
75Dark, dank and violent, filled with terrifying scenes in which exploited children are beaten, shot or starving to death. In other words, it's just as Dickens wrote.
-
75It's worth noting that Oliver Twist will likely be no Harry Potter at the box office, due in no small part to a lack of bombastic special effects and supernatural subplots, yet it's nearly as entertaining, even without the wizardry.
-
75The movie is 23 minutes longer than the Lean version, yet it somehow seems much less evocative of the novel's immense scope and texture. And its Cockney accents are such a strain to understand that as much as a third of the dialogue is indecipherable.
-
70Accomplished if lacking in urgency, this Oliver Twist (scripted by Ronald Harwood, who also wrote "The Pianist") showcases Polanski's proven gift for Dickensian caricature.
-
70Polanski's version, though handsomely realized, is a fairly conventional rendering of the novel that probably won't be counted among his best films.
-
70The most effective counterweight to Polanski's fatalism is young Barney Clark, whose Oliver--although given to few words--is unshakably alive and responsive, even as he's being buffeted violently by forces beyond his control.
-
70A respectable literary adaptation but lacks dramatic urgency and intriguing undercurrents.
-
70Without Nancy and her demon lover, Polanski's Oliver Twist feels handsome, steady, and respectful; it has that touch of mummification which wins awards. But Dickens had murder in mind--women killed for their kindness, children for lack of food--and he wanted us to howl and hyperventilate. He asked for more.
-
70Polanski honors the craft of classical storytelling and never flinches from the book's melodramatic extremes in portraying the horrors of poverty.
-
67As in "The Pianist," Polanski is content to allow the film's narrative to evoke the emotions he wishes his audience to experience.
-
67And that ultimately may be the problem with the Polanski version: by bringing Oliver forward, you push the drama backward.
-
Filming on locations in Prague and in various Czech locations serving as London and the English countryside, the director delivers Dickens' tale with some style. The style, however, is that of a more cautious artist than Polanski is at his best.
-
63Turns out to be far more interesting for grown-ups (the movie is probably too long, and too much, for little kids anyway).
-
Dickens was a sentimentalist, but even his happy endings are more nuanced than Polanski's brutal anti-sentimentalism.
-
63The big surprise in Polanski's Oliver is the lack of a discernible personal stamp, especially from such a directorial master of the macabre.
-
63The result is an expertly made, very watchable film that's curiously lacking in impact. By Polanski standards that has to be a disappointment.
-
63As an introduction to the story for someone with no previous exposure to Oliver Twist, Polanski's movie is adequate.
-
63So what's surprising here isn't Polanski's choice of material but his utter failure to put any distinctive stamp on it.
-
60The biggest surprise in Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist is that there are no surprises.
-
60None of the actors completely satisfies.
-
50It's unlikely audiences will be echoing a starving Oliver's most famous line: "Please, sir, I want some more."
-
50Kingsley seems determined to rescue this old chestnut of a character from Jewish stereotypes, but to what end? Oliver's boyhood has become worse than Dickensian - it's bland.
-
50Kingsley is one of very few lively things about Polanski's plodding, by-the-numbers Oliver Twist. And in this dreary setting, he comes across more as a desperate clown than a saving grace, which makes it all the more awkward that no one else is clowning along with him.
-
A disappointingly flat, disjointed affair.
-
50Two dramatic problems beset Roman Polanski's darkly handsome new film of the Dickens novel. The boy is as passive as ever, and bleak in the bargain -- instead of glowing like the Oliver of the musical, he takes light in -- while Ben Kingsley's Fagin and Jamie Foreman's Bill Sikes manage to make villainy a bit of a bore.
-
40Handsomely produced but emotionally inert offering.
-
40Lacking energy and pace and enslaved by a ghastly score, this tepid movie left me longing alternately for David Lean's thrillingly grim 1948 masterpiece, and Carol Reed's chipper 1968 sing-along, with pretty tunes by Lionel Bart.
-
30The fact that there's nothing wrong with it -- that there's nary a scenic detail or scrap of dialogue or performance that isn't utterly on the nose -- is precisely what's wrong with it.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 12 out of 17
-
Mixed: 2 out of 17
-
Negative: 3 out of 17
-
6A movie greatly exaggerated, pessimistic and dramatic. But it's a good movie and very cultured.
-
9