Newest Twitter Updates ||>
7.22.2005 ||> Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Right before I began reading Harry Potter, I saw the movie adaptation of another favorite children's book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. When I was a child, I particularly loved Dahl, who wrote one of my favorite books, Matilda. The thing I loved about him was that he was never condescending. Children can be nasty and cruel and he would always depict not just the way adults wanted children to behave, but how they actually were. He was also not above satirizing adults either and that's a relief to a child who can be told constantly that adults are always right, even though they aren't. Dahl hated the first remake of his book, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It's one of those classic movies that survived apart from the book and became a favorite in its own right. I always separated them. Different title, lacking some of the book's fun, but still a great movie. Gene Wilder was great, the kids were funny as hell and the plot was fun despite its heavy moralistic ending. It also gave us sunless tanners the Oompa Loompas, something to compare to when a sunless tanning incident goes awry.
When the new Tim Burton movie came out, I was at first apprehensive, but got used to the idea. I was a bit psyched that this movie would be more like the book. I did enjoy the movie. I thought the kids were both realistic and scary, Johnny Depp was exactly what Tim Burton wanted Willy Wonka to be, and Charlie was a good combination of sweetness and typical kid. Some critics compared Willy Wonka to Michael Jackson. But like Jenah, I didn't see that at all. Willy hated kids, or at least was deeply ambivalent. Jackson created a ranch for children (whatever his motives). So how could they be the same except that they have unnatural reactions to things? The other thing I've been seeing critics get wrong about the movie is when they compare this one to the Gene Wilder movie. This movie was an adaptation of the book, not the movie. Comparing the two is like judging a chocolate-covered caramel to a covered cherry (couldn't resist the candy metaphor, sorry). They look the same, but the bite is completely different. So when people complain that it lacks the spirit of the first, I can't help but think it's because the first movie was so different from the book. But then, how could something compare anyway to a move that touched you when you were a child?
Since I'm very bad with conclusions on my reviews anyway, I'll just end this one by saying: It's a fun movie, so just go in, enjoy it and don't have any preconceived notions about what it's supposed to be. You should be fine.
0 snow blossoms
