![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tilly_stratfordThey've turned my hero into a girl!
And for all eternity each time I pledge my love for Willy Wonka people will think of him as a bratty gender-confused weirdo. Woe is me.
Still, the movie looked mighty pretty you know. And they kept lots of the original text in there, which pleased me. Pity about the ending though.
It's been a weird year for me - they've made three of my favourite books into movies (The phantom of the opera", The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and now, Charlie and the chocolate facotry) and what I've come to realize is that I'm pretty anal about book-to-movie adaptions. My biggest concern is usually that the characters needs to be true to themselves, and not be overall changed from the way they were in the book (only one who succeeded was Phantom, but - well, I've already flogged that dead horse) - but anyway:
Anything NOT Willy Wonka:
- Overall good performances by the actors. It was particulary funny each time Christopher Lee was onscreen, so me and my sister could hiss "Saruman!" and do "the PalantÃr claw".
- They mostly kept to the story, hooray! Although it was initially fascinating to see a Wonka background story, it all got sort of pointless after a while, and the modified ending (recognizing your son by his cavaties is probably the cheesiest reunion I've ever seen) was anticlimatic and gave the story a - gasp! - pasted-on morale!
- It used quite some time to get to the point, though. We're there to see the chocolate factory, not endless scenes in Charlies house! I liked the look of Charlie's house though, very Burtonesque.
- Oompa Loompas are still freaky. I don't know how you can imagine mischievous mini-people breaking out in song in the book and think "well of course", but on screen they just creep me out. At least it was a better try than the silly ones in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory.
- I was astounded to hear that the songs the Oompa Loompas sang was partly from the original text - they kept a verse from the wonderful Mike Tevee song! But the renditions were so embarassing I hope people will forget them soon. Seriously, Danny Elfman writes some gorgeous scores, but these songs were awful.
- Cute squirrels, bad puns. Very very bad puns. But the squirrel scene looked gorgeous.
- There seemed to be some confusion as to which time period this takes place. The flashbacks and the town were Victorian; Charlie's, Verucas' and Gloop's surroundings were extremely fifties, whereas the kiosk and the other children's surroundings were completely modern. I always liked Roald Dahl's Victorian setting with modern details, I think that's the clue to the whole story.
- There comes a time when "Look! They're wearing funny-looking sunglasses" stops being entertaining.
- Did I mention I liked the overall look of things? The room with the chokolate river was really nicely done. The glass elevator too.
Willy Wonka:
Alright, first: I realize that Johnny Depp created a new memorable character, and that's okay - much like the new Zaphod in Hitchhiker's Guide. But Wonka needs to carry the movie, and my biggest irk was probably that Depp's Wonka carried the movie in the wrong way.
- I read somewhere that Depp based his Willy Wonka on Quentin Blake's illustration (which could work, I agree) and Michael Jackson (which freaked me out a bit). However, Blake's Wonka is always pictured moving and energetic (like the squirrel-like man Roald Dahl wrote him to be), whereas Depp's Wonka is always straight as a candle, only using his hands (with those incredibly annoying creaking gloves).
- I really liked the idea of Wonka being slightly out-of-touch with the world, talking and dressing like they haven't done for decades. At first it was interesting, but they made him so damn clueless, at times he seemed downright mentally challenged. The cross between a child-like adult and a old-school eccentric just made me uncomfortable. In the end I couldn't picture him as anything but a capitalistic Michael Jackson.
- The hair. The haaair!! The godawful girly haaair! I'll have nightmares about it.
- The suit. The best thing in the whole damn movie was Wonka's suit. Had the movie been "two hours of a Victorian velvet coat with dark waistcoat and trousers, top hat, pocket watch and shiny patent-leather shoes with a creepy-looking man inside" I would have camped in the ticket cue.
So in conclusion:
YES:
NO (except for the costume, which is a major yes):
What's that? It's a children's movie? Oooh, that's right.
But anyway, don't worry. Contrary to what I've written, my world's still revolving. Even if two men I've never particularly liked have made an embarassing adaption of one of my favourites books, it won't stop me from pledging my undying love for the canon-Wonka.
The squirrel-like homicidal weirdo of my heart.
Still, it has a nifty poster:
And for all eternity each time I pledge my love for Willy Wonka people will think of him as a bratty gender-confused weirdo. Woe is me.
Still, the movie looked mighty pretty you know. And they kept lots of the original text in there, which pleased me. Pity about the ending though.
It's been a weird year for me - they've made three of my favourite books into movies (The phantom of the opera", The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and now, Charlie and the chocolate facotry) and what I've come to realize is that I'm pretty anal about book-to-movie adaptions. My biggest concern is usually that the characters needs to be true to themselves, and not be overall changed from the way they were in the book (only one who succeeded was Phantom, but - well, I've already flogged that dead horse) - but anyway:
Anything NOT Willy Wonka:
- Overall good performances by the actors. It was particulary funny each time Christopher Lee was onscreen, so me and my sister could hiss "Saruman!" and do "the PalantÃr claw".
- They mostly kept to the story, hooray! Although it was initially fascinating to see a Wonka background story, it all got sort of pointless after a while, and the modified ending (recognizing your son by his cavaties is probably the cheesiest reunion I've ever seen) was anticlimatic and gave the story a - gasp! - pasted-on morale!
- It used quite some time to get to the point, though. We're there to see the chocolate factory, not endless scenes in Charlies house! I liked the look of Charlie's house though, very Burtonesque.
- Oompa Loompas are still freaky. I don't know how you can imagine mischievous mini-people breaking out in song in the book and think "well of course", but on screen they just creep me out. At least it was a better try than the silly ones in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory.
- I was astounded to hear that the songs the Oompa Loompas sang was partly from the original text - they kept a verse from the wonderful Mike Tevee song! But the renditions were so embarassing I hope people will forget them soon. Seriously, Danny Elfman writes some gorgeous scores, but these songs were awful.
- Cute squirrels, bad puns. Very very bad puns. But the squirrel scene looked gorgeous.
- There seemed to be some confusion as to which time period this takes place. The flashbacks and the town were Victorian; Charlie's, Verucas' and Gloop's surroundings were extremely fifties, whereas the kiosk and the other children's surroundings were completely modern. I always liked Roald Dahl's Victorian setting with modern details, I think that's the clue to the whole story.
- There comes a time when "Look! They're wearing funny-looking sunglasses" stops being entertaining.
- Did I mention I liked the overall look of things? The room with the chokolate river was really nicely done. The glass elevator too.
Willy Wonka:
Alright, first: I realize that Johnny Depp created a new memorable character, and that's okay - much like the new Zaphod in Hitchhiker's Guide. But Wonka needs to carry the movie, and my biggest irk was probably that Depp's Wonka carried the movie in the wrong way.
- I read somewhere that Depp based his Willy Wonka on Quentin Blake's illustration (which could work, I agree) and Michael Jackson (which freaked me out a bit). However, Blake's Wonka is always pictured moving and energetic (like the squirrel-like man Roald Dahl wrote him to be), whereas Depp's Wonka is always straight as a candle, only using his hands (with those incredibly annoying creaking gloves).
- I really liked the idea of Wonka being slightly out-of-touch with the world, talking and dressing like they haven't done for decades. At first it was interesting, but they made him so damn clueless, at times he seemed downright mentally challenged. The cross between a child-like adult and a old-school eccentric just made me uncomfortable. In the end I couldn't picture him as anything but a capitalistic Michael Jackson.
- The hair. The haaair!! The godawful girly haaair! I'll have nightmares about it.
- The suit. The best thing in the whole damn movie was Wonka's suit. Had the movie been "two hours of a Victorian velvet coat with dark waistcoat and trousers, top hat, pocket watch and shiny patent-leather shoes with a creepy-looking man inside" I would have camped in the ticket cue.
So in conclusion:
YES:
NO (except for the costume, which is a major yes):
What's that? It's a children's movie? Oooh, that's right.
But anyway, don't worry. Contrary to what I've written, my world's still revolving. Even if two men I've never particularly liked have made an embarassing adaption of one of my favourites books, it won't stop me from pledging my undying love for the canon-Wonka.
The squirrel-like homicidal weirdo of my heart.
Still, it has a nifty poster:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:02 am (UTC)Bring it on! Make sure you leave your address in the post with the screened comments. Can't be having stalkers on my account now, ahem.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-15 02:46 pm (UTC)I added you if thats OK?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-15 08:50 pm (UTC)