Summary: 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.
Summary: Oliver Twist (Barney Clark) is a young orphan in Victorian England who has been sent to a dank workhouse run by the miserly Mr. Bumble (Jeremy Swift) when it is learned there is no one to care for him. When Oliver dares to ask for more gruel, he is sent away to live with an undertaker, who treats him poorly. This movie is dark and very cruel at times with it's plot. the acting is fine and the all film as this grey and dirty look to it that lacks the film down for me.
Summary: Um bom filme, que mostra uma realidade que ninguém nunca imaginou para uma criança, muito menos para uma como Oliver Twist. Esse filme transpira emoção e drama, não um tipo enjoativo de drama, mas algo que se quer saber mais, procurar sobre a história, ler o livro. É uma pena que o livro deixe a desejar, neste caso.
Summary: Actually, the "best" version is a matter of opinion, whether you prefer the 1922 Frank Lloyd version, the 1948 David Lean version, the 1968 Carol Reed musical version, or the 2005 Roman Polanski version. But there is little doubt that the 1922 version is the "best" in terms of being the most faithful to Dickens' original novel, virtually every major character and subplot is included with little in the way of changes, quite a feat for a 74-minute movie.
" The World is a Dark place when you're a Poor Orphan "
15 November 2012
Summary: 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.
Maybe too short and rushed, but it looks great and Coogan and Chaney are memorable
27 June 2012
Summary: While not the best film version to me(the David Lean film), it is a very interesting one for reasons other than and as well as being silent. At 74 minutes though, I did think it was too short, and because it is such a lengthy and complicated novel with a lot going on, what was translated on screen, which was as much as possible seemingly, came across as too rushed with some characters disappearing before we even get to know them.
Summary: For me, David Lean's film is still the best version of Charles Dickens' great novel. However, while flawed this 1933 version is worth seeing at least for curiosity value. It is too short at 70 minutes, and feels rather rushed narratively. Dickie Moore is cute as Oliver but looks comfortable and his performance consists of a lot of overdone facial expressions.
Summary: There have been many versions of Dickens' story, "Oliver Twist". While I have not seen them all, I have seen the very famous David Lean version as well as the musical "Oliver!". Despite being handicapped by a shorter running time and being a silent, the 1922 version stayed amazingly close to the original story and included some sub-plots that are usually omitted in films. I don't think these omissions in later films are necessarily bad as Oliver being shot and Mr.
Summary: This was the second "Oliver Twist" movie version I got to see. The first one I saw was the 1948 version. In comparison, I think that this 1933 version is neither inferior neither superior to the 1948 version, just different. It's an interesting alternative to the 1948 version, though, although (admittedly) that one is more detailed and more loyal to the book. The 1933 version moves at a faster pace. As a result, it is considerably shorter.