MovieChat Forums > Oliver! (1968) Discussion > Is OLIVER! the most disrespected Best Pi...

Is OLIVER! the most disrespected Best Picture winner ever?

posted 11 years ago by zigfried-2
18 replies | jump to latest

When you look at some of the films that have received all sorts of special treatment and special releases; CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG has a blu ray release with all sorts of extras. WILLY WONKA same. Yet OLIVER! has only been released on DVD, and it was a crappy print that looks no better than a VHS tape. The soundtrack has never had a remastered release, just the same soundtrack that was put on the LP and tape; the friggin' songs aren't even in the right order!! And verses are missing.
It is time for this film (winner of numerous Oscars including Best Picture) to get a commercial release worthy of its stature. The film should be remastered and released on blu ray. It should include a remastered and digitally restored soundtrack will ALL the verses of the songs and with the songs IN ORDER. It should include any deleted scenes or backstage filming. It should also include a commentary track with the three surviving stars, Ron Moody, Mark Lester and Shani Wallis. Moody would have a WEALTH of information since he originated the role of Fagin on stage. It is time for OLIVER! to get the "classic" treatment it deserves.

[–] All_Seeing_I 11 years ago

I agree - I also can't imagine its reputation is any worse than the 1971 "Willy Wonka".

[–] bootblack987 11 years ago

Willy Wonka won best picture??!!

[–] All_Seeing_I 11 years ago

No, I think the OP was just bringing it up because it was a beloved children's film from the same time period. The fact Oliver! won best picture (and is better regarded than the other two films generally) and yet has not received the treatment these other films have is probably what confused him.

[–] MJJslilgrl 11 years ago

I agree. There is so much I would love to see; a proper behind-the-scenes documentary, interviews with the cast (not just Ron Moody and Mark Lester), rehearsal footage, footage of the actors recording the songs and a blooper reel
I don't think all this should be too hard to come by.

[–] PillowRock 11 years ago

rehearsal footage, footage of the actors recording the songs and a blooper reel

That's the kind of stuff that may very well not exist. Time was, studios generally didn't store / keep / save (over the long term) footage that didn't make it into the final cut (or the final cut of any promotional behind-the-scenes piece that they made). They also were much less likely to bother filming recording studio voice over sessions or rehearsals at all.

Heck, when the Production Code office required edits to Pre-Code films before allowing them to be re-released to theaters in later years, the studios didn't even bother to keep an archival copy of the original theatrical release versions of movies. That's why the original version of King Kong was lost for decades (eventually a set of the trims was discovered in the home of an old RKO editor after he died; since they were just going to be thrown out, he took a set of them home when they were cutting them out of all of the distribution prints). There's *still* no original release version of Love Me Tonight known to exist.

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

It's NOT a good movie, and sure NOT worthy of the "Best Picture" award. I suggest that anyone who wants to see/read the REAL story, see the Roman Polanski version or read the book.

[–] Miro101 11 years ago

<<It's NOT a good movie, and sure NOT worthy of the "Best Picture" award. I suggest that anyone who wants to see/read the REAL story, see the Roman Polanski version or read the book.>>

On the other hand...it IS a good movie, and sure IS worthy of "Best Picture" award.

So there.

[–] goleafsgo27 10 years ago

I agree with Miro, and I'll add that it does not even pretend to be the real story. It has a disclaimer at the start to that effect, and I might not be alone in noticing that people keep breaking into song and dance. WHAT? You say it's a musical!? OMG, well that would sure explain that then wouldn't it?

I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

The 2005 Roman Polanski film is sewage. Even his fans concede that there's not much to be said in its favour and that it's very forgettable.

[–] moxey (141) 7 years ago

"see the Roman Polanski version"

That was crap.

[–] Future_Games 11 years ago

I've never really read or heard of many people criticising Oliver! and its Oscar win for Best Picture. Crash (2004) seems to get a lot of hate.

ROCK STARS HAVE KIDNAPPED MY SON

[–] sirjeremy 11 years ago

A Man for All Seasons got the same treatment; just a short making of featurette, by the same company, Columbia.

Let's see what's on the bluray when it's out later in the month.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 10 years ago

Well I will say this. It's one of 4 best picture winners that get a rating in the 7s on imdb. The other 3 would be Terms of Endearment, Driving Miss Daisy, and Titanic. The films they were up against get better ratings.

"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld

[–] mrmathexpert4 8 years ago

The movie was awful. How it won the Best Picture is beyond me. That's why it's a totally forgotten film.

[–] moxey (141) 7 years ago

"That's why it's a totally forgotten film"

Where are you? Because I'll tell you this, it certainly isn't forgotten in Britain, and a lot of people consider Oliver Reed and Ron Moody the definitive Sikes and Fagin.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

Oliver is a very good musical I think, with great songs. certainly better than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Willy Wonka. But old films are often released on DVD without special features, there seems to be nothing unusual about that.