More with the psychidelic queer, less with the child molester creepy
Tonight, Jeff and I went to see a double feature. We initially went to the dollar (technically $1.50, but oh, well) theatre to see Fantastic Four, and then Jeff convinced me to stay and watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I hadn't really wanted to see either, and just went to humor him, but it turned out to be a good evening.
The Fantastic Four is one of the worst comic book movies I've ever seen. [Of course, I've mainly seen the ones that are considered above average: e.g. Spider-man and the X-men movies.] The script was abominable, the cast strictly B- and C-list (the only one I'd heard of was Jessica Alba as the token female; the men were pretty, but nothing special), and I just had nothing to connect to. There is no way that events in the movie could have actually happened, even in a suspension-of-disbelief sci fi universe.
-Exposure to huge amounts of radiation in the form of a solar flare will kill you and destroy your genetic material, not give you superpowers.
-No matter how human DNA is altered, it won't make you into rock or metal, or allow you to be invisible, because that is not possible for the human frame or carbon-based life. [Well, let me think about the invisible thing; perhaps one could construct some kind of shield that would bend/deflect light, but that's not the same as invisibility. I dunno.]
-Exposure to huge amounts of radiation will not alter all of one's genetic material in exactly the same way all at once. That's just silly.
-Even if one's genetic material is, by some freak one-in-a-trillion chance, altered simultaneously in its entirety, the changes won't be apparent instantaneously because one must wait until all one's cells are replaced.
-Don't even get me started on Stretch-Guy and Flame-Boy. "Supernova bad." Ugh!
-Furthermore, exposure to the same radiation should have given everyone the same effect (death), not all different (pick your superpower trick).
Anyway, the movie is just bad. Science aside, the plots has holes you could drive a Hummer through. The writers don't make you even remotely care about the characters. The acting is laughable, but I'm willing to let it go; it's a comic book movie, after all. The thing that bothers me is the wasted potential. The writers and director could have plumbed the depths for nuances on the difficulties of celebrity and being "different" (something that the X-men franchise and even Ghost Busters have managed to do), or preach a lesson on the value of teamwork and sticking up for your friends, but they forego such possibilities and focus on explosions and forgettable one-liners instead. Alba is absolutely and uniquely gorgeous (see her in her Dark Angel days), yet this movie manages to make her into a standard cleavage-and-tight-outfit comic babe, while giving her several unflattering hairdos in an unnatural blonde (to go with the cleavage and tight outfits) color. Metalloid Bad Guy is totally unmenacing (even the Green Goblin was a more compelling villain, and I thought he was just silly). I can't believe they tried to use the ending to set up a sequel-- as if anyone wanted to see more of this yawn-fest.
Fast forward to an infinitely better fantasy movie: Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I've never liked the 1970s Gene Wilder version of this tale; it's too weird and creepy, with little payoff entertainment-wise. I had my doubts about this version, since I don't much care for Tim Burton's work, either; I don't find him particularly witty or visually appealing, and it seems like he tries too hard. Well, I'm glad to admit that I was WRONG in my pre-judging of this Willy Wonka (see, I can admit it when I'm wrong), because I thoroughly enjoyed my $1.50 outing to the land of the Oompa-Loompas. In my own defense, however, the ads and previews of this movie did seem to emphasize the creepy/weird aspect of the movie, and that was what I hadn't appreciated about the original film to begin with (hence, the title of this post, and by queer I don't really mean homosexual-- although I think there might be some overtones of that-- but rather the traditional meaning of unsettlingly eccentric).
The Visuals: Yes, Burton stills tries way hard, but at least, in Roald Dahl, he has found material worthy of his effort. I've read and enjoyed Dahl's books, and Burton really captures the dark and twisted (sometimes literally, as in the case of the Buckets' house) essence there. He gets an A- for a production that supports, and doesn't overpower or detract from (my view, contrary to some of the reviews I've read), the film itself. Nobody is a harsher critic than I when it comes to substance-less style, so be assured, Mr. Burton, this review should be more precious than anything from Mr. Ebert.
The Writing: Good script, fast-moving and full of zingers, most of them delivered by Mr. Depp with mincing aplomb. The story is more complete than that provided by Dahl (to the best of my memory), but I'm not complaining, because it gave Christopher Lee a cameo as an uptight dentist (but no more spoilers from me). The writing gets a B for accomplishing its purpose in a more than adequate manner.
The Players and Performances: It's Johnny Depp's show all the way, of course, and I'm thinking that I really must go out of my way to see Finding Neverland, because for all of his seeming oddity, I'm coming to consider Mr. Depp one of the best actors of this time. His Jack Sparrow in Pirates was a revelation to me, and I'm thinking that with some more intelligent choices, that Academy Award might become a reality. Depp's Wonka is twitchily anti-social, yet not without conscience. The page-boy bob, the top hat and cane, the lilting whisper and comments on notecards... he somehow seems like he could be a real person (although not, as some have speculated, Michael Jackson; Mr. Jackson has never been, to my knowledge, nearly as articulate or well-dressed as Mr. Wonka). Is this Dahl's Willy Wonka? Perhaps not, but this is the perfect Wonka for this particular movie. All the focus on Depp should not distract one from the solid performance of Freddy Highmore as the earnest heart of the film; he is loveable without being cloying. Nor may we neglect any of the supporting players who contribute so well to the general quality: Helena Bonham Carter (Can this lady ever be made to look unattractive?) and Noah Taylor as Charlie's loving parents; David Kelly as Grandpa Joe (not to mention the other amusing grandparents); all of the other children and their respective parents; and the aforementioned screen legend, Christopher Lee. Special honor and mention (and a special Oscar, in my opinion) should go to Deep Roy as all of the Oompa-Loompas, singing and dancing in a variety of MTV-inspired musical numbers and basically holding the entire narrative together. The cast of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory get a solid A for ensemble acting!
The Theme: Did it have an underlying message? Was there some finger-wagging about use of third-world sweat-shop labor in factories? Were we supposed to be inspired to live out our dreams, no matter how seemingly frivolous (like candy)? To be ourselves? Was it really about valuing one's family as the only measure of true success? I'm not sure, to be honest. I'll give it a C for thematic amibuity, but that's okay, if preaching a message wasn't the main point of the movie. If Mr. Burton wants to enlighten me, he is free to do so.
Overall: I rate this movie 4/5 stars. I'm not sure whether it was really all that great a movie, in and of itself, or if it just seemed great, because I saw it immediately following Fantastic Four, which would have made a low-budget Western seem like Stagecoach. Aw, heck, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
The Fantastic Four is one of the worst comic book movies I've ever seen. [Of course, I've mainly seen the ones that are considered above average: e.g. Spider-man and the X-men movies.] The script was abominable, the cast strictly B- and C-list (the only one I'd heard of was Jessica Alba as the token female; the men were pretty, but nothing special), and I just had nothing to connect to. There is no way that events in the movie could have actually happened, even in a suspension-of-disbelief sci fi universe.
-Exposure to huge amounts of radiation in the form of a solar flare will kill you and destroy your genetic material, not give you superpowers.
-No matter how human DNA is altered, it won't make you into rock or metal, or allow you to be invisible, because that is not possible for the human frame or carbon-based life. [Well, let me think about the invisible thing; perhaps one could construct some kind of shield that would bend/deflect light, but that's not the same as invisibility. I dunno.]
-Exposure to huge amounts of radiation will not alter all of one's genetic material in exactly the same way all at once. That's just silly.
-Even if one's genetic material is, by some freak one-in-a-trillion chance, altered simultaneously in its entirety, the changes won't be apparent instantaneously because one must wait until all one's cells are replaced.
-Don't even get me started on Stretch-Guy and Flame-Boy. "Supernova bad." Ugh!
-Furthermore, exposure to the same radiation should have given everyone the same effect (death), not all different (pick your superpower trick).
Anyway, the movie is just bad. Science aside, the plots has holes you could drive a Hummer through. The writers don't make you even remotely care about the characters. The acting is laughable, but I'm willing to let it go; it's a comic book movie, after all. The thing that bothers me is the wasted potential. The writers and director could have plumbed the depths for nuances on the difficulties of celebrity and being "different" (something that the X-men franchise and even Ghost Busters have managed to do), or preach a lesson on the value of teamwork and sticking up for your friends, but they forego such possibilities and focus on explosions and forgettable one-liners instead. Alba is absolutely and uniquely gorgeous (see her in her Dark Angel days), yet this movie manages to make her into a standard cleavage-and-tight-outfit comic babe, while giving her several unflattering hairdos in an unnatural blonde (to go with the cleavage and tight outfits) color. Metalloid Bad Guy is totally unmenacing (even the Green Goblin was a more compelling villain, and I thought he was just silly). I can't believe they tried to use the ending to set up a sequel-- as if anyone wanted to see more of this yawn-fest.
Fast forward to an infinitely better fantasy movie: Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I've never liked the 1970s Gene Wilder version of this tale; it's too weird and creepy, with little payoff entertainment-wise. I had my doubts about this version, since I don't much care for Tim Burton's work, either; I don't find him particularly witty or visually appealing, and it seems like he tries too hard. Well, I'm glad to admit that I was WRONG in my pre-judging of this Willy Wonka (see, I can admit it when I'm wrong), because I thoroughly enjoyed my $1.50 outing to the land of the Oompa-Loompas. In my own defense, however, the ads and previews of this movie did seem to emphasize the creepy/weird aspect of the movie, and that was what I hadn't appreciated about the original film to begin with (hence, the title of this post, and by queer I don't really mean homosexual-- although I think there might be some overtones of that-- but rather the traditional meaning of unsettlingly eccentric).
The Visuals: Yes, Burton stills tries way hard, but at least, in Roald Dahl, he has found material worthy of his effort. I've read and enjoyed Dahl's books, and Burton really captures the dark and twisted (sometimes literally, as in the case of the Buckets' house) essence there. He gets an A- for a production that supports, and doesn't overpower or detract from (my view, contrary to some of the reviews I've read), the film itself. Nobody is a harsher critic than I when it comes to substance-less style, so be assured, Mr. Burton, this review should be more precious than anything from Mr. Ebert.
The Writing: Good script, fast-moving and full of zingers, most of them delivered by Mr. Depp with mincing aplomb. The story is more complete than that provided by Dahl (to the best of my memory), but I'm not complaining, because it gave Christopher Lee a cameo as an uptight dentist (but no more spoilers from me). The writing gets a B for accomplishing its purpose in a more than adequate manner.
The Players and Performances: It's Johnny Depp's show all the way, of course, and I'm thinking that I really must go out of my way to see Finding Neverland, because for all of his seeming oddity, I'm coming to consider Mr. Depp one of the best actors of this time. His Jack Sparrow in Pirates was a revelation to me, and I'm thinking that with some more intelligent choices, that Academy Award might become a reality. Depp's Wonka is twitchily anti-social, yet not without conscience. The page-boy bob, the top hat and cane, the lilting whisper and comments on notecards... he somehow seems like he could be a real person (although not, as some have speculated, Michael Jackson; Mr. Jackson has never been, to my knowledge, nearly as articulate or well-dressed as Mr. Wonka). Is this Dahl's Willy Wonka? Perhaps not, but this is the perfect Wonka for this particular movie. All the focus on Depp should not distract one from the solid performance of Freddy Highmore as the earnest heart of the film; he is loveable without being cloying. Nor may we neglect any of the supporting players who contribute so well to the general quality: Helena Bonham Carter (Can this lady ever be made to look unattractive?) and Noah Taylor as Charlie's loving parents; David Kelly as Grandpa Joe (not to mention the other amusing grandparents); all of the other children and their respective parents; and the aforementioned screen legend, Christopher Lee. Special honor and mention (and a special Oscar, in my opinion) should go to Deep Roy as all of the Oompa-Loompas, singing and dancing in a variety of MTV-inspired musical numbers and basically holding the entire narrative together. The cast of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory get a solid A for ensemble acting!
The Theme: Did it have an underlying message? Was there some finger-wagging about use of third-world sweat-shop labor in factories? Were we supposed to be inspired to live out our dreams, no matter how seemingly frivolous (like candy)? To be ourselves? Was it really about valuing one's family as the only measure of true success? I'm not sure, to be honest. I'll give it a C for thematic amibuity, but that's okay, if preaching a message wasn't the main point of the movie. If Mr. Burton wants to enlighten me, he is free to do so.
Overall: I rate this movie 4/5 stars. I'm not sure whether it was really all that great a movie, in and of itself, or if it just seemed great, because I saw it immediately following Fantastic Four, which would have made a low-budget Western seem like Stagecoach. Aw, heck, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Kiti at 9:17 PM
3 Comments:
I'm glad you liked Charlie. I have friends who prefer the incredibly creepy old version. They said the new one is too creepy and weird. I'm like ... wa-huh???
I grew up watching the older version. It really isn't creepy, kids. I love it and will most likely die still quoting it. At the same time, I was able to appreciate this newer version separately. They have different focuses, different characters, different looks, etc. They're different enough where I don't think they need to be compared with each other at all.
As for Depp, I agree he's one of the best around. The thing about him is that I don't think it's his life's ambition to acquire an Oscar. He plays parts that he enjoys and finds interesting and/or challenging. If an Oscar happens to come his way eventually, I have the feeling it will be an added bonus, but not a defining moment for his own career goals.
Deb and Sherida say it's creepy; Jeri says it's not. Oh, well, we'll just keep watching what we like, eh?
Jeri, I agree that Depp isn't focused on winning an Oscar, but it would just be interesting to see what happens with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home