The Name is Babe, Cinema_Babe
Jan. 6th, 2006 04:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cinema_babeLet me finally live up to my LJ screen name and start giving my opinion on a few movies I seen recently.
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory
My response to this file can be summed up in one word. "WHY?"
I'm going to assume that anyone reading this has seen the original (and if you haven't by all means go out and rent it tonight!) I'm going to avoid spilling plot points where the two films differ significantly.
As a refresher, Charlie Bucket is a poor boy who becomes one of 5 children who get the chance of a lifetime to visit Willie Wonka's Candy Factory. The factory is a magical place where oompa-loompas do all of the work. Mayhem ensues.
The good thing is that this movie has prompted me to go back and read the Roald Dahl's orginal story to get a sense of how closely this movie captured it. I thought it was well made and Burton's vision as a director shines through.
That being said, I don't need to see this movie again.
First, I thought that Tim Burton's typical color palette (somewhere between 'Bruise' and "Deep Charcoal" gave the picture's visual aura a muddy appearance. Even the chocolate river had a dull overcast to it. Secondly, Johnny Depp was creepy in a Michael Jackson sort of way, ifyaknowwhatImean. Third, Burton made the choice to answer a question that is left unanswered in the original. While it's a valid choice and makes for a mildly amusing scene, I think it undercuts the ripple of menace that lies just under the surface of the Wonka character.
Finally, why, why, why, why, why? I'm just not sure what this film brought to this story that the original didn't. The special effects are certainly more high tech but why only 1 one ommpa-loompa reproduced thousands of times? (I think they used 6 or 10 in the original.) Some of the CGI was more obvious then I think it should have been in a film that cost $150 million to make.
All in all, this film was not an abomination but it was kind of pointless.
Crash
This Altmanesque film by Paul Haggis is a gem (and the latest bit of evidence that absence of an Oscar for Don Cheadle is proof of a tear in the time-space continuum.)
People of all classes and colors making assumptions about the behaviors and motivations of others based on their assumed race and nationality. The more these people undercut the humanity of others by stereotyping them, the more two dimensional and stereotypical they themselves become. And yet Haggis allows you to see these same characters in moments that allow you to see them as compassionate, brave and vulnerable.
It's message is not presented subtlety and some situations are telegraphed looong before they occur but this didn't diminish the story for me.
You must see this film.
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory
(I must disclose up front that I am a major fan of the Gene Wilder version of this story.
My response to this file can be summed up in one word. "WHY?"
I'm going to assume that anyone reading this has seen the original (and if you haven't by all means go out and rent it tonight!) I'm going to avoid spilling plot points where the two films differ significantly.
As a refresher, Charlie Bucket is a poor boy who becomes one of 5 children who get the chance of a lifetime to visit Willie Wonka's Candy Factory. The factory is a magical place where oompa-loompas do all of the work. Mayhem ensues.
The good thing is that this movie has prompted me to go back and read the Roald Dahl's orginal story to get a sense of how closely this movie captured it. I thought it was well made and Burton's vision as a director shines through.
That being said, I don't need to see this movie again.
First, I thought that Tim Burton's typical color palette (somewhere between 'Bruise' and "Deep Charcoal" gave the picture's visual aura a muddy appearance. Even the chocolate river had a dull overcast to it. Secondly, Johnny Depp was creepy in a Michael Jackson sort of way, ifyaknowwhatImean. Third, Burton made the choice to answer a question that is left unanswered in the original. While it's a valid choice and makes for a mildly amusing scene, I think it undercuts the ripple of menace that lies just under the surface of the Wonka character.
Finally, why, why, why, why, why? I'm just not sure what this film brought to this story that the original didn't. The special effects are certainly more high tech but why only 1 one ommpa-loompa reproduced thousands of times? (I think they used 6 or 10 in the original.) Some of the CGI was more obvious then I think it should have been in a film that cost $150 million to make.
All in all, this film was not an abomination but it was kind of pointless.
Crash
This Altmanesque film by Paul Haggis is a gem (and the latest bit of evidence that absence of an Oscar for Don Cheadle is proof of a tear in the time-space continuum.)
People of all classes and colors making assumptions about the behaviors and motivations of others based on their assumed race and nationality. The more these people undercut the humanity of others by stereotyping them, the more two dimensional and stereotypical they themselves become. And yet Haggis allows you to see these same characters in moments that allow you to see them as compassionate, brave and vulnerable.
It's message is not presented subtlety and some situations are telegraphed looong before they occur but this didn't diminish the story for me.
You must see this film.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 06:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 11:41 pm (UTC)Very happy (Belated) Birthday, BTW. Many Blessings to you in 2006!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 09:53 pm (UTC)That said, I agree with your take on Crash...one of the better ensemble pieces I have seen in a very long time, perhaps since The Usual Suspects.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 11:49 pm (UTC)Hmmm, maybe I should make that 97%?