Change Your Image
mattgstreet
Reviews
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
A psychedelic roller coaster. Burton delivers. As usual.
Given that Tim Burton's previous remake "Planet of the Apes" is seen by many as his worst film and also, given that both Dahl's novel and the 1971 adaptation are seen as classics, he was really touching sacred territory when he started work on this project. So initially, I was a little sceptical about this film. But never the less, I put my faith in Burton's skill as a director and bought a ticket.
The combination of Dahl's uniquely dark writing style and Burton's equally unique dark visual style is a match made in heaven. Dahl always had the knack of being to communicate rather adult and mature ideas to a child audience without having to talk down to them and in a similar sense, Burton's view of the world often communicates to the child with in all of us. Be it the fear of the Headless Horseman in Sleepy Hollow, the child like innocence of Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood's almost child like desire to please his audience or Bruce Wayne's pent up anger and sadness at witnessing the murder of his parents when he was a child in Batman.
First of all, do not compare this to the 1971 film. Any ideas of comparison between the two are totally pointless; this film really is a different kettle of fish entirely. Where as the earlier version put it's own spin on the bulk of the novel, this film owes itself purely to Dahl's vision, Burton's vision and Depp's masterful interpretation of Wonka's character. In this film we see a Wonka who, not only does not like children, but has some sort of phobia or mental condition where the idea of the family unit and parental love sends him into convulsions of sickness and nausea, stemming from his rather dysfunctional upbringing by a fascist father (brilliantly played by Christopher Lee). Does this adequately explain Depp's child like, performance? Absolutely. Does this make his character a little unsettling? Definitely. But this only adds to the mystique of his character, who in order to do the things he has done must be more than a little insane! That is the only aspect of the film where Burton hasn't remained true to the source material; every where else he has remained true to Dahl's story. Other characters have been changed slightly (Mike TV is obsessed with the video games instead of TV), but are still totally recognisable as the characters in the book. The film definitely benefits from the inclusion of Charlie's father (something the '71 version failed to do), giving the sense of a family who, although extremely poor have a strong family bond which makes them richer than all the other spoilt and rude children in the film. Charlie's character perfectly epitomises childlike innocence with Freddie Highmore giving an impressive performance for such a young actor. And you will believe that Grandpa Jo's (superbly portrayed by David Kelly) bedside tales of the miracles of Wonka's chocolate are what captivates Charlie's imagination.
You really do get the sense with this film that it was a labour of love for Burton. He has created a cinematic world that perfectly complements Dahl's literary world with every frame dripping with colour and magic. Put simply: fans of Tim Burton and Roald Dahl will love this film
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Visually entertaining but falls heavily in the script department
"And so it has come to this. Twenty seven years, six films, a $3.5bn box office gross and arguably the most watched and analysed set of films of all time. And it looks like this really is the end. Being too young to remember the impact Star Wars had when the original films were released and too old to be snared in by the flurry of hype and media attention Episode I received, I've always seen myself as an outsider to the Star Wars franchise. Neither hating or nor loving it (even at a young age) I see Star Wars as science fiction without the sci.
Star Wars is not science fiction. To me, science fiction is a TV programme, film or book where the plot revolves around the use of science to solve a problem or more often than not, science and technology being the problem. Be it machines gaining artificial intelligence and attacking people in Blade Runner, the Terminator or the Matrix, aliens leading the human race on a bread crumb trail which will eventually result in the evolution of the human race in 2001:A Space Odyssey, aliens inhabiting our bodies in the The Thing or Invasion of the Body Snatchers through scientific means or aliens trying to annihilator the human race in Aliens. Star Wars is pretty incomparable to all the above films. Star Wars is about love, morality, tyranny, good & evil with no references to science at all. In many ways it draws more parallels with stories in fairy tales and mythology in Classic civilisation where fabled characters have to face seemingly impossible challenges which will inevitably change the course of the world for the better (the impossible challenge in Star Wars being the Rebel Alliance defeating the Empire). So with all that in mind perhaps that is what explains not only the difference between Star Wars and other science fiction texts but also the difference between Star Wars fans and fans of science fiction. Like all movie trilogies where the narrative is continuous, it is quite clear that Director George Lucas is fascinated with ideas of causality, the chain reaction of events and the intricate history of the world that he has created. This is where complications arise. And these complications are easy to deduce. The script, and character development is grossly inadequate and does not back up Lucas's vision. A dramatic and dynamic film such as this requires equally dynamic character motivation and this film does not have that in almost any shape or form. In a film such as these you really need to believe what the characters are saying. Well when Harrison Ford famously said to Lucas "You can type this s**t George, but you sure has hell can't say it", he wasn't half wrong. Having been snared by Palaptine's evil, we see Anakin in Episode III turn to mass murder and child genocide because he feels this will dispel the premonitions he is having of his wife's death. Surely he would need more motivation than that to turn from an honourable Jedi to a homicidal killer? And what of him turning to the dark side? Would he not need more persuading than Palpatine telling him a fairy tale of an old lord who could prevent death? Or how, when rescued Padme Amidala is apparently "physically fine, but will die because she lacks the will to live". These are plot holes which are ridiculous in the extreme. Put simply, what Episode III needed to succeed on a critical level was plot, script (one of the most frustrating things in this film is watched talented actors give such stilted performances because of the dialogue they have to work with) and character motivation that matched Lucas's ambition. On all three counts, it fails. The saving grace in the acting stakes in McDiarmid's magnificently hammy performance as Palaptine that easily steals the show, giving a masterful performance despite clunky lines. And James Earl Jones's much hyped return as the voice of Darth Vadar is reduced to nothing more than a few cumbersome words (Darth shouting the word "Nooooooooooooo!"? I don't think so ). Which is a pity considering Darth's birth is beautifully done. So what are we left with? A thoroughly entertaining popcorn film. Great action sequences, awesome visual effects (the light sabre battles, the opening space battle and CG'd landscapes are particularly jaw dropping) and a reminder that when it comes to constructing a visual spectacle Lucas is second to none. It is in this field where the ball really is in his court. And that's fine. But if you're expect more, get ready to be disappointed
Clue (1985)
I laughed till my stomach hurt
A hysterical spoof of the well known board game Cluedo, known as Clue
in America. One of the best comic castings ever. Tim Curry as the Butler- brilliantly wild eyed, OTT and campy. Any fan
of The Rocky Horror Picture Show will simply adore his performance in
this film. And Michael McKean as Mr.Green- After This Is Spinal Tap, he
gives his best performance in Clue. The cast really does not have any
weak spots who are all supported by a very funny script. John Landis at
his mid eighties best. The only downer is the different endings use similar script which does
get a little tiresome, but apart from that a flawless comedy. Now go
and see it!
Alive (1993)
Very good, but could have been better
There are some films you watch where when they finish you think "I really enjoyed that....but" and Alive is one of those movies. This film should be about how a group of humans overcome the severe cold, hunger, sadness of losing their loved ones and live to fight another day...and by most accounts it is. But what this is lacking from this film is a feeling that these people were pushed to the very limit of human endurance. What we do see on screen for pretty much the entire time is a group of handsome young men, who never lose weight, never seem colder than someone waiting for a bus in winter, never state that they're hungry much, teeth never chatter, do not get frost bite (which must have been rife). Even the two severely injured lads at the back of the plane on stretchers are alert and seemingly healthy for most of the film when they must have been in agony. Also, why do we not see how they reached civilization? Where is the man on horseback that they made contact with? Surely that is one of the most important points of the tale?!! But on the plus side I thought the acting was good, the bits of humour were quite well done, direction and cinematography were some of the best I've ever seen and the special effects were amazing, worthy of an Oscar nomination. I'll give it 8/10, cos all in all it still carries a very important lesson that the human instinct of survival is the strongest of all. The documentary after the film is also very powerful and if not more moving than the actual film itself.