El hijo de la parroquia

This 1933 version of the Charles Dickens masterpiece is a true oddity. Featuring performances ranging from very good to hysterically bad, and camera work ranging from amateurish, with glimpses of visual artistry and beauty. Dickie Moore is a very young Oliver Twist, with the face of an angel, but zero acting ability. This fact didn't bother me as some of the faces this kid makes are just so hilarious and inappropriate for the scene he is playing, that you just gotta love him! It is actually an endearing performance. Sonny Ray, the actor who played the Artful Dodger had to be pushing 40, which also brought about some unintentional laughter. He also was utterly devoid of any acting talent whatsoever, which makes me wonder just why he was cast at all. However others fare much better here. William Boyd was quite effective and fearful as the sinister Bill Sykes, and Irving Pichel certainly looked the part of Fagin. Also worth mentioning is an actress named Barbara Kent, who played the part of 'Rose'. Again, no acting talent whatsoever, but she possessed that certain porcelain beauty that is associated with silent film stars, and she is delightful to look at here. It must not be forgotten that this is a 1933 production, and one of the first 'talkies'. This was a transitional time for cinema, as actors were still employing the techniques that were used during the silent film days, where body movements and facial expressions were greatly exaggerated in order to get the point across without spoken dialog. This kind of acting is sometimes present here, and i do not think it hinders the production. The best performance has to be that of Nancy Sikes, played wonderfully here by actress Doris Lloyd. She played that difficult part with the right measure of hardness, with a heart and a good nature kept well hidden from scoundrels Fagin and Bill. The fact that this has such a low budget lends this old film a spooky, sometimes surreal quality. There is some effective use of shadows and light. The dark, murky quality here makes Fagin and the others appear as sickly degenerates. And best of all it follows the Dickens story quite faithfully, omitting certain things for budget reasons, most likely. I love the story so much, and those who love to see these immortal characters come to life should get great enjoyment out of this film. This is the third film adaptation of Oliver that I have obtained. I enjoyed the Polanski version, and the David Lean version even more. So by the time I got around to this version it was just a pleasure to see all these characters that I know so well come to life in yet another production of this timeless story. Also the fact that this film is so old lends it another level of mystery and strange beauty somehow. Sometimes a low budget adds to the grittiness of the material. And this is one of the few versions that includes the final scene of Fagin in prison, where he is visited by Oliver, an important scene that is sadly missing from the David Lean version. For fans of the book and the other films, I recommend hunting down this lesser-known film version of a literary masterpiece. This should be a treat especially, for fans of the earlier days of cinema.

I was a bit surprised to find that tiny and ultra-low budget studio Monogram made this Dickens story--well before the famous British version from the late 1940s and the Oscar-winning musical. Now because Monogram had few funds compared to the big studios, I expected the film to be terrible but it actually surprised me. It was competently made and in some ways surprisingly good.

When the film begins, you see a shot that is supposed to be England back in the 19th century--but you can see rather modern buildings from this aerial view! Fortunately, the rest of the film DID look period and the costumes and sets appropriate. But, because it was Monogram, the film is full of mostly unknown and lesser talents. By far the most famous star is young Dickie Moore who plays Oliver Twist--a bad casting decision but not a surprising one as Moore was about the hottest male child actor of the day. He was simply adorable. But, he was also too young for the role and he was not a particularly good actor--at least in this point in his young life. Also, oddly, the Artful Dodger was way too old--looking like a man in his 20s instead of a precocious teen criminal. As for the rest, however, they were surprisingly good.

As far as the story goes, it was greatly rushed--and that is the biggest deficit of the film apart from Moore. Instead of slowly unfolding it seemed to go way too quickly. But, it did hit the important parts of the Dickens story and did something subsequent versions seemed to forget--that in the end, Fagan was hung for his litany of crimes! All in all, worth seeing and surprisingly well done.

NOTE: I previously reviewed this one and was much harsher towards it. I am not sure why, but it seemed better the second time around...

A hamfisted low-budget version of Oliver Twist (the first to be filmed since the advent of sound) from Poverty Row studio Monogram. Dickie Moore plays the title character, and while he looks cute he can't act to save his life, which is probably why he is given so few lines. Irving Pichel at least has fun as Fagin and William 'Stage' Boyd makes a suitably brutish Bill Sykes.

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. This version is also clearly made under a cheaper budget while the 1948 version looks more expensive, but this fact doesn't bother me.

The 1933 version isn't yet the first movie adaptation of this familiar story, however it had the merit of being the first sound version. In this version, Irving Pichel plays Fagin and frankly I prefer him over the 1948 version's Fagin who is just too ugly and creepy. At least Fagin here is nowhere near as creepy. The controversial William "Stage" Boyd stars as Bill Sikes in this version. Comparing to the 1948 version's Sikes, this Sikes looks much bigger and more intimidating although more delicate in his speeches.

I like Dickie Moore as Oliver Twist. Even though John Howard Davies plays Oliver Twist with more feeling and his acting seems more realistic, I don't think that Dickie Moore is any inferior. His performance is just different. Dickie Moore is perfectly cute although he is a quite young and tiny Oliver Twist. True, sometimes he makes hilarious faces which aren't appropriate for the scenes he is performing, but I find that rather amusing instead of something to criticize and I like him for that.

A woman makes her way to a workhouse and dies after giving birth to a boy, who is named Oliver Twist by the workhouse authorities. When he is 9 years old, and apprenticed to an undertaker, he runs away to London where he meets a pickpocket named The Artful Dodger, who takes him to his boss, Fagin.

Based on the novel by Charles Dickens, this is the first talking version of the story but sadly it does not do it justice. Much of the acting is quite stiff and falls short of expectations, other than the performance of the credible young Dickie Moore in the title role. Watch it only if you are a fan of the book.