HLGStrider
07-18-2005, 07:07 AM
I went to see 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" today with my lil'sister. I went in very hopeful. I had noticed right away that the title was not "Willy Wonk and the Chocolate Factory" (the title of the very well done but unimitatable Gene Wilder film) but "CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory" (the title of the book itself.). I was full of hope that this version, rather than copying the uncopyable film, would make a fresh go at one of the freshest, funniest, open-hearted books of the last century. Roald Dahl was a genius, and "Charlie" is his master work. The Gene Wilder film was good (I believe Dahl himself was in on the screen play), but there were some things that could have been fixed. I never got that whole "gobstopper/Slugsworth" addition. I like having squirrels as the hands of God, rather than the more passive and stupid geese who just sit there while Veruka Salt basically throws herself down the garbage shoot.
So, I was hopeful. I was worried too. The original movie scared me to death when I was a child, and I wasn't sure how Kelly would take kids getting sucked up pipes and getting filled with juice. She is a braver child than I, however, and I don't think she'll have any nightmares from this one.
Tim Burton is an interesting director. I seem to be one of the few ones who like his Batman renditions (my comic book friends curse him for putting Micheal Keeton in the part among other things). He is a bit dark for children's movies, but I think Dahl is a darker author. Kids die in his work.
Initially I was thrilled with the movie. They did a lot right! The begining was so much what I had always imagined Dahl would have had it. The story of the Indian prince, left out of the first movie, was excellently portrayed. The mood was perfect. The Bucket family's poverty, which came across as sappy and altogether too real in the first edition, was more in key with the original text, being more humorous, as if they don't know how strange they are, as if they don't know that they are living in a house that slants at an acute angle. Etc, etc, etc.
The children, who came on one by one, were perfectly cast, the finding of the tickets was beautifully done. I really enjoyed the scene in the candy store "He has a golden ticket!" It was gorgous!
Then something went wrong, and that something was Johnny Depp. I couldn't believe it, but the person that they were probably depending on to sale the film, the Oscar winner, the man who played the perfect pirate, I just wanted to knock him off the screen he was so pitiful and so annoying. He was not funny, simply weird.
Truthfully, I wasn't crazy about Gene Wilder in the part either, so maybe I just have an unusual idea of what Willy Wonka is, but why can't he be a short, slight, jumpy guy in a beard. Why does he have to be a spacy, philosophical weirdo or a limp wristed (which is how Depp comes across), not all there, slightly traumatized weirdo.
The whole "dentist father" back story was interesting, but what was wrong with him simply doing it because he loved candy. Christopher Lee was wonderful in the part, but the part simply didn't belong in that movie. Neither did the whole "family" conflict at the end. It was out of place. It over complicated the character.
It was simply WRONG.
Why couldn't they have done it right? The rest of the elements were so wondeful. They DID put the squirrels back where they belonged. They DID restore the original songs (I wasn't crazy about the musical style because it was too hard to hear the words), taking away the ridiculous but all too catchy "Oompa Oompa" whatever. They did get the snowy streets, the chocolate castle, the mountain of fudge, the great glass elevator, the beauty and strangeness. . .but why, oh why, did Johnny Depp fail so miserably at a part that could have been done so well? UGH!
Ok, I'm done now. I'll just go and wait patiently for Steve Martin to screw up on the Pink Panther (no one can be Peter Sellars! NO ONE!).
So, I was hopeful. I was worried too. The original movie scared me to death when I was a child, and I wasn't sure how Kelly would take kids getting sucked up pipes and getting filled with juice. She is a braver child than I, however, and I don't think she'll have any nightmares from this one.
Tim Burton is an interesting director. I seem to be one of the few ones who like his Batman renditions (my comic book friends curse him for putting Micheal Keeton in the part among other things). He is a bit dark for children's movies, but I think Dahl is a darker author. Kids die in his work.
Initially I was thrilled with the movie. They did a lot right! The begining was so much what I had always imagined Dahl would have had it. The story of the Indian prince, left out of the first movie, was excellently portrayed. The mood was perfect. The Bucket family's poverty, which came across as sappy and altogether too real in the first edition, was more in key with the original text, being more humorous, as if they don't know how strange they are, as if they don't know that they are living in a house that slants at an acute angle. Etc, etc, etc.
The children, who came on one by one, were perfectly cast, the finding of the tickets was beautifully done. I really enjoyed the scene in the candy store "He has a golden ticket!" It was gorgous!
Then something went wrong, and that something was Johnny Depp. I couldn't believe it, but the person that they were probably depending on to sale the film, the Oscar winner, the man who played the perfect pirate, I just wanted to knock him off the screen he was so pitiful and so annoying. He was not funny, simply weird.
Truthfully, I wasn't crazy about Gene Wilder in the part either, so maybe I just have an unusual idea of what Willy Wonka is, but why can't he be a short, slight, jumpy guy in a beard. Why does he have to be a spacy, philosophical weirdo or a limp wristed (which is how Depp comes across), not all there, slightly traumatized weirdo.
The whole "dentist father" back story was interesting, but what was wrong with him simply doing it because he loved candy. Christopher Lee was wonderful in the part, but the part simply didn't belong in that movie. Neither did the whole "family" conflict at the end. It was out of place. It over complicated the character.
It was simply WRONG.
Why couldn't they have done it right? The rest of the elements were so wondeful. They DID put the squirrels back where they belonged. They DID restore the original songs (I wasn't crazy about the musical style because it was too hard to hear the words), taking away the ridiculous but all too catchy "Oompa Oompa" whatever. They did get the snowy streets, the chocolate castle, the mountain of fudge, the great glass elevator, the beauty and strangeness. . .but why, oh why, did Johnny Depp fail so miserably at a part that could have been done so well? UGH!
Ok, I'm done now. I'll just go and wait patiently for Steve Martin to screw up on the Pink Panther (no one can be Peter Sellars! NO ONE!).