|
| | I think my problem with the movie was the difference between the two portrayals of Will Wonka. In the original version, Gene Wilder's Wonka was pretty weird, sure, but he was weird in the oddball, nutty professor sort of way. He was a really genuine and likeable character. But Depp's Wonka was, well, in a word, "creepy". I didn't get that he was a genius at all, just that he was this really messed up guy who got his jollies out of watching Oompa-Loompa sing and dance. It was really offputting, and sort of ruined the movie for me. It was still enjoyable for me, but just not as much as I would have suspected. And did anyone notice that he was British as a kid and then suddenly turned American? |
| |
|
| | its an obvious comment, but it sure does remind you of the michael jackson story a bit. |
| |
|
| | I agree that the predominant flaw of Burton's not-quite-remake lies in the formerly titular character of Willy Wonka. While Burton tried to bring Wonka as a character to the forefront of the film, he failed to make him a more interesting or likeable figure. And the telling of Wonka's backstory only served to rob him of his mystery and charm. Gene Wilder's portrayal of Wonka's character was that of an adult with the creative heart and curious mind of a child. Johnny Depp's Wonka, however, had more the mind of a confused, growth-stunted Teletubby. Yes, in a word, creepy. Mr. Jackson: Take note. |
| |
|
| | But Willy Wonka put hundreds of people out of work, closed the factory to outsiders and shut himself in it for years. In all that time, the only outside contact he had was with a tribe of indentured servants who can also never leave. How could he have any of the social graces and wouldn't he be very pale? I re-read the book last week; Wonka's creepy and sadistic. |
| |
|
| | It's always a bad idea to compare two movies that obviously have a lot of differences, but I'm going to do that anyway, however briefly. My largest problem, in retrospect, with the new movie is its near-copying of the original. The issue here, for me, is twofold: first, the book contains certain indispensible scenes that each movie understandably had to include; second, Charlie Bucket lacks 100% of the charm and pain of the original. Does anyone else remember feeling the original Charlie's hunger, not just for food or chocolate, but for a normal life? I remember distinctly from the first movie that we often saw Charlie juxtaposed with other children before he even found the ticket. This juxtaposition showed not only the privilege of other children, but also the ridiculous adult reactions to the ticket contest. Remember the teacher who taught math by relating it to the contest? How bad did we all feel for Charlie when he said "one(or was it two?)" and the teacher could not even fathom the number in the context of his lesson?
Basically what I'm saying here is that the reason the original worked was because it possessed endless charm and sensitivity. This new one felt like Batman Returns: the ridiculous storyline felt like an afterthought to circus-like silliness. With the update, Charlie Bucket becomes an afterthought in the face of Willy Wonka. Yet, no matter which story we're encountered with, the story is always supposed to be about Charlie. |
| |