View Single Post
  #6  
Old 07-19-2005, 09:45 PM
b.miller
Gentleman Loafer
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: austin, tx
Posts: 461
Send a message via ICQ to b.miller Send a message via AIM to b.miller Send a message via MSN to b.miller Send a message via Yahoo to b.miller
Re: Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
eh, my reasons for not really loving it are pretty unfair i guess... It's just that Tim Burton, who used to make movies that i'd see and really be affected by and feel a heart and soul of an outsider struggling to fit in or an idiosyncratic voice that never quite did what i thought it would but invariably take it somewhere better, I now feel is only one step above a hollywood director-for-hire (that step being his art direction, which has somehow become synonymous with directorial style for him). I suppose there's nothing wrong with this movie (see spoiler paragraph if you want my specific grievances), but it doesn't improve on the first movie so much that I'd consider it a permanent replacement and it's certainly not different enough to see it without drawing comparisons. More important to me, however, it didn't do anything special. It's Burton playing to type... This is where the unfair part comes in because i guess that should be fine and it's not like he messed up horribly. Perhaps I feel that he owes me some ingenuity to make up for the last few he's made... as a "return to form" this is not enough.

I dunno, I wouldn't argue with anyone that liked it... I guess I just secretly wanted more and felt let down when all i got were some CG squirrels. I'm sort of hearing a subtext of "he didn't screw it up! that means it's great!" in some of the reviews I'm reading and from people I talk to. In highschool not screwing up meant like a C+, an A meant great. It's my party though and i can cry if i want to. everyone else have a good time


SPOILER PARAGRAPH - DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LEARN ABOUT STUFF THAT WASN'T IN THE FIRST MOVIE (Can't remember the books enough to know if they were in there or not).

It also seemed like they replaced every scene where Gene Wilder's Wonka felt emotion or connection with Charilie with a goofball flashback. Now, I'm as much of a fan of Christopher Lee as the next guy, but all of these felt pretty forced and they really telescoped the father/son stuff at the end. I liked Wonka more as an enigmatic figure, I didn't really care to find out any more about him other than he was cool. This also connects to a topic me and Gambit have been discussing via email. i just don't need all that information. They take away from Wonka's cool. So now, instead of a perhaps-all-knowing Wonka who recognizes Charlie's innocence and sincerity, he's a neurotic Wonka who's so out of it that he doesn't really care who he hands his factory to, which I'm less enthused about.

END SPOILERS.

Last edited by b.miller; 07-19-2005 at 09:48 PM.