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. Monks were not vital to the success of the films. But, if you are a purist, then you'll probably love this early version.
I will not try to recap the story. You probably know it already and it's one of the most well-known stories in the English language. Instead let's talk about the film's merits and deficits. The film looks good. The costumes and sets are very nice and I like how ratty the kids' clothing looked--not like Hollywood costumes but like rags worn by the poor. The acting was also quite nice. Jackie Coogan sure looked pathetic and small--and that helped with the role. Also, Lon Chaney was given top billing and I worried that he might overdo the role of Fagin--putting too much into the role. But, he was just fine and the cast in general was quite good. The only deficit of the film is the running time. At a bit over 70 minutes, the story goes by a bit too quickly and I would have liked the film stretched out a bit more. But, as the overall film went very well, this is only the smallest of complaints. Well worth seeing and one of the better silents.
I will not try to recap the story. You probably know it already and it's one of the most well-known stories in the English language. Instead let's talk about the film's merits and deficits. The film looks good. The costumes and sets are very nice and I like how ratty the kids' clothing looked--not like Hollywood costumes but like rags worn by the poor. The acting was also quite nice. Jackie Coogan sure looked pathetic and small--and that helped with the role. Also, Lon Chaney was given top billing and I worried that he might overdo the role of Fagin--putting too much into the role. But, he was just fine and the cast in general was quite good. The only deficit of the film is the running time. At a bit over 70 minutes, the story goes by a bit too quickly and I would have liked the film stretched out a bit more. But, as the overall film went very well, this is only the smallest of complaints. Well worth seeing and one of the better silents.