Renny Rye

Agatha Christie's Poirot The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly S01E03

Rating: 2.5* of five

The kid was awful, the dad was *terrible*, and what worked well on the page decidedly did not on screen. The ending, which I thoroughly enjoyed in writing, came across as distastefully and avoidably callous and uncaring. It was the first season so there's a mitigating factor but overall stick to the story version.

***

Agatha Christie's Poirot Four and Twenty Blackbirds S01E04

Rating: 3*of five

The need to fill an entire (fifty-minute) hour with this simple story of greed and murder led the dramatizers Russell Murray and Clive Exton to spin a more elaborate web...adding an estrangement between twins, a strangely publicly known *absence* of testamentary dispositions, a muddled though believable plot to Do the Deed though lacking in the malice that usually activates the greedy perp's actions.

Still not top-drawer stuff but lovely. That is, if one simply tunes out the most stunningly tedious Hastings subplot ever. Cricket? Ew.… (más)

A tad slow, but not overly so, and the decision to sacrifice mystery for an elaborated backstory and chronological narrative works better than one might expect (though it does of course remove some of the potential suspense for someone not familiar with the story from before). There are many moments of wit and charm sprinkled into the dialogue and characterisations (many of which are from the novel, but not all), and the performances of Michael Kitchen and Robert Lindsay in particular stand out (which is saying something, considering the many great actors involved here). That said, for a modern viewer it is all a bit convenient, predictable and tidy by the end, and cutting the total running time by 90 minutes would have given it a pacing that would have helped disguise the worst of that. There is also the question of whether the angelic perfection of the titular character is really all that interesting or plausible in the otherwise obscene and tragic world depicted around him, but considering the relative depth and realism of the rest of the cast, I suppose it's a matter of taste, and that to some Oliver's purity of soul might be an interesting enough juxtaposition.… (más)

Could have been much better

There's a lot of things that this version of Oliver Twist got right. The cinematographer did a great job, and--for the most part--the casting and acting were superb. Standouts include Andy Serkis as Bill Sikes, Marc Warren as Monks, and Lindsay Duncan as Monks' mother. The biggest name in the cast, Keira Knightley, was also the least convincing, but that can certainly be excused by the fact that she was--what?--13 or 14 when this was filmed. The decision not to do as so many others have done and write the Monks storyline out of the script was a good one, and even the decision to take liberties with the novel by greatly expanding that part of the story is forgivable because of how skillfully it was done.

So why only 3 stars? Because not all of the modifications were so well done, and some of them seem inexplicable or indefensible. Finding a politically correct way to portray Fagin nowadays is a delicate task, but the decision to turn him into a Czech magician strikes me as bizarre. In the book, Fagin comes across as a complex, conflicted character, but in this video his behavior is so random that he seems to have no character whatsoever. Moving away from the lovable Jack Wild type of Artful Dodger was a good move, but turning him into a more or less generic thug doesn't seem true to Dickens' vision.

Bringing Dickens' work to the screen, of course, requires some compromises, but since Oliver Twist is a relatively short novel and there were six hours to work with here, necessary compromises were few in number. (That there seemed to be plenty of time to subject the viewer to monologue after monologue by the tiresome Fagin suggests that time wasn't really a factor.) A lot of the changes in this version seem to simply be a case of the writers thinking that they're better storytellers than Dickens. Was having the Artful Dodger suggest that Brownlow is a pedophile an attempt to modernize the story? Was Dickens' portrayal of sincere religiosity excised because it's an offense to modern sensibilities? And then there are what can only be interpreted as changes for change's sake. For example, why in the world have Fagin kill Bill's dog?

Two concluding comments: The blurb on my copy that says "A must for family viewing . . ." should not be interpreted as a claim that this video deserves to be G-rated; it doesn't. And if you're a devoted Dickens fan (like me) you may be happier skipping the commentaries by Russell Baker, who, in my opinion, gives Fagin a run for his money as the most annoying presence on these discs.… (más)