Change Your Image
Stephanie K
Reviews
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Sickeningly sweet
Don't get me wrong, I was so excited when I initially saw the preview for this movie. I grew up on the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and what made me so pleased about this version was the fact that it looked so different and so original.
Not all of this film was bad, either. I did find the part with the squirrels incredibly funny, as well as Wonka's introduction to the children. I thought the children themselves were very strong performers as well, especially Philip Wiegratz as Augustus. The fact that their characters were a little more fleshed out was also a nice touch. Sadly, that's where the positives of the film end.
My first major problem was with Johnny Depp. I think Depp is a great actor, but his Willy Wonka was more reminiscent of a thirteen year old work experience kid than the eccentric candymaker who revolutionised chocolate. The way Charlie and Grandpa Joe regarded him in awe seemed completely unjustified, because it never was convincing that he created all the bizarre inventions that were depicted so well. I also found his backstory completely irrelevant and annoying. The Oompa Loompas were disappointing as well, with no charm or fascination. I couldn't understand anything they were singing, which is a shame because Dahl's little poems were very funny.
What irritated me so much was that Burton claimed that this version was so much closer to the book, when in fact it was completely corrupted. The original story about a group of unpleasant children being punished in horribly appropriate ways was completely pushed to one side to make room for a theme about family, which relied solely on a little backstory and a few minutes of resolution. The end result is a plot that distracts from the theme, and a theme that distracts from the plot. What makes this even more frustrating is the sugar coated message that is all but hammered into the audience's heads. I can remember being utterly terrified when I watched the original at six and having to hide behind the couch more than once. Yet, despite the dark nature of the movie, I loved it. Every time I put it in the VCR, I would feel a tingle of excitement that came from knowing that I would be scared out of my wits. Kids aren't as fragile as you might think and to give them just another happy message as this movie does accomplishes nothing. It's just like every other kid's movie made and as such will probably not appeal to them in any way. It also goes against the whole nature of Dahl's dark and horrible method of storytelling. I very much doubt this film will stand the test of time as the original does, purely because it fails to distinguish itself in any way.
Really, you're far better off watching the 1970s version. Just make sure that you have a couch you can hide behind.
Evita (1996)
Watch it, don't listen to it. Actually, don't watch it either.
Patti LuPone, the original Eva Peron on Broadway, announced when this film was released that she wouldn't see it. "It looks like a boring piece of s***" she said, and claimed that she would watch it if it had the kind of electricity she had experienced during her run, but that it had none of that. Now, LuPone is a Diva, there's no getting around that fact. As a result, the respect I have for isn't huge, but it's still there. So I'm glad that she still hasn't seen this movie because it undermines everything that makes the stage show such a hit.
Visually, it is stunning. As soon as the music starts, however, and Antonio Banderas begins his mediocre version of "Oh, What a Circus", you'll thank God that you didn't pay what you would to see it on stage. Madonna's lack of talent is highlighted miserably - every song was transposed for her to sing it more comfortably, and she still sounds weak. Her acting is awful as well. If anyone bothers to listen to the lyrics of the songs, they will realise that the intention of the show is not to make Eva Peron seem like a saint as is occasionally the assumption. Yet, this seems to be the central theme of Madonna's portrayal and as a result there is a contradiction between the acting and music, when in actuality they should be enhancing each other. This makes the film difficult to watch at the best of times.
Antonio Banderas is also disappointing. He can carry a tune, certainly, but anyone who has heard David Essex sing the role, or even Michael Ball singing some of it in concert, will realise that carrying a tune does not mean carrying an audience's attention. Che is one of the greatest male parts Lloyd Webber has written, and is hardly done justice here. Speaking of not doing justice, I was also saddened by Jonathan Pryce. He is an amazing performer usually, so I don't know what wrong here. Watch Hey, Mr Producer! if you want to see Pryce doing great musical theatre.
All in all, this is not a movie you want to watch if you love the stage show, or films in general. **/*****, solely for the visuals.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Reasonable, not great
***Spoilers***
I didn't expect much of this movie, and neither, I assume, did a lot of people given its origins. I was dragged to the movie with a group of friends, and I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised. Whilst it wasn't the best movie I have ever seen, and definitely not the most memorable, it was amusing and enjoyable in most places. My biggest concern, though, was the plot holes - if the pirates, once cursed, couldn't die, then how come Orlando Bloom's father was killed by the other pirates? Also, how did he come to be on the ship at the beginning of the film? I didn't think that the plot was thought through, and while the film was fast paced enough for an audience member not to have to worry too much about these errors, I would have rathered a greater amount of continuity in the story. My other concern with the film was the portrayal of the characters of Elizabeth's father and Annamaria. I felt that Elizabeth's father in places was trying to be a comic character, such as during the climax of the film, whereas other times you were expected to take him seriously. Jonathan Pryce is a great actor, and I thought it was a shame that he was stuck in a part with no personality that served either to spell out the feelings of other characters or to give the audience comedic relief. I also would have liked further development of Annamaria, the token black woman on the otherwise politically incorrect, white-male-dominated Interpreter ship. Her only lines seem to be either to make assumptions which are wrong, or to yell at the central characters. There was no real feeling in her character. If the producers had really wanted to be politically correct, they would have served better to either discard the character altogether or make her a more rounded character, rather than inserting her as a prop merely to keep the minority groups happy. Criticisms aside, I though Johnny Depp gave a fine performance, which was quite surprising considering the last movie I saw him in was "From Hell". "Pirates" is an ok movie, not the best release this year, but it will serve as good rental material. 7 out of 10.
Escape of the Artful Dodger (2001)
Barron films gone bad
Ok, don't get me wrong, Barron Entertainment is not a bad company. Shows like 'Ship to Shore' and 'Chuck Jones' are reasonable, though not great to watch, good for school holiday viewing. I'm a huge fan of Oliver Twist though, so I saw this once for the sake of seeing it, and it's bad. The acting is terrible all around, and it has plot holes and absolutely no relevance to the original book at all aside from character names. I don't have a lot else to say on it - I switched the channel halfway through, out of fear that if the wind changed I might have a permanent grimace. All I can say is, don't bother. You'll only end up wanting that half an hour of your life back so you can watch something decent that's Oliver Twist related, like the musical or the 1948 movie. I never thought I'd see a worse version than the 1999 BBC series, but this takes the cake.
Spider-Man (2002)
Not all it was cracked up to be.
Ok, I love Tobey Maguire and I thought he was fantastic in this. However, he and the visual effects were the only redeeming features of this movie. Kirsten Dunst can't act. I don't know how she managed to get the part - she so didn't deserve it. I found it painful to watch her. Also, what happened to the big climax? The whole film (and the advertising campaign) promised some huge, edge-of-your-seat type movie, and as the movie progressed it seemed inevitable that the climax was going to be huge. But there was none. I left thinking to myself 'was that some sort of joke? That was nothing like the ads and entertainment shows promised.' I'm tempted to see the next one for Tobey alone, but if it's anything like this one, then I'll wait for it to come on TV. It wasn't worth the money.
A Kid in King Arthur's Court (1995)
Shockingly awful
I watched this movie during the school holidays at my grandparents, solely for the reason that it had the very cool Ron Moody in it. Poor guy. He must have been desperate to star in this shocker of a movie. The only reason I finished watching this was so I didn't have to talk to my grandparents. I mean, honestly, you'd think that the producers would just be a little bit more worried about setting the medieval scene as opposed to having modern day attitudes with some cheap old costumes thrown in. When that kid played his music to the court, anyone who knows any vague something about that period would know that they probably would have KILLED him, thinking he was the devil or something. Plus the fact that women were allowed to fight, to talk to young men alone, to marry who they wanted to... I know this is meant to be a kids movie, but Disney has really underestimated the intelligence of the younger generation with this shocker. It's a miracle Kate Winslet became a star after this.
Oliver! (1968)
Great stuff.
The other night I dreamt that I was at a stage performance of this musical, and I turned around and Charles Dickens was sitting next to me. When I woke up I put this video on and tried to imagine how he would react if he saw this. I really don't know how he would react. This movie has a lot of things going for it, but I don't think being true to the novel is one of them. Don't get me wrong, I love both the novel and this movie, but I look at them individually as opposed to looking at them as different versions of the same story. I would not reccomend this to anyone who likes their Dickens pure, but it is a great movie regardless. My favourite numbers are "Who Will Buy?" "Be Back Soon" and "I'd Do Anything". I think the casting is perfect, with the exception of Mark Lester - the kid has no personality and is about as exciting as a plastic straw. Ron Moody is brilliant, not to mention hilarious, as Fagin, Oliver Reed is great too as Sikes, as is Shani Wallis. I have yet to see someone play Nancy to her standard (I might get to meet her in a couple of weeks!!!). I love Jack Wild too, he is the funniest kid. I think it's a real shame that he hasn't done a lot since. Although this gets violent towards the end and may not be suitable for younger viewers, it's still a wonderful musical that has stood the test of time.
Nuns on the Run (1990)
Sorry Eric, but...
The other weekend I got out about 10 movies out which featured my love, Eric Idle. Watching this at about 2:30 in the morning on a depressive chocolate high made it seem much better that it was, which was still pretty bad. I didn't find it funny, it was just annoying more than anything else. The whole plot was inconceivable and unconvincing, the script itself was incredibly poor. True, Idle and Coltrane do their best, but sadly it isn't enough to keep this Titanic of a movie afloat. There was no story, no driving force behind it and as a result, it flopped. If, like me, you're an Eric fan, stick to his better movies. Don't taint his image by seeing this rubbish.
Hey, Mr. Producer! The Musical World of Cameron Mackintosh (1998)
Absolutley brilliant
I loved this - almost all of the stars gave some of their best performances. Jonathan Pryce was great in both his roles, David Campbell, Hugh Jackman and Philip Quast did Australia proud (I have met Philip - he's as wonderful a person as he is an actor), Sonia Swaby was perfect as Nancy, and Elaine Paige gave Grizabella all she had and was great also. Some were a little dissapointing...Liz Robertson didn't quite make the standard as Eliza that Julie Andrews set, and Bernadette Peters wasn't as good as she normally is, she sounded really tired. I liked You've Gotta Have A Gimmick, and Poisoning Pigions in the Park, as well as the sections from CATS, Little shop of Horrors, the Phantom, Oliver and Les Mis - although they cut so much out of the songs by that stage that there literally were only half of them left. But, despite this, it was fantastic. I could watch this all day, it was so good.
Oliver Twist (1999)
I've seen better
I have always loved this story - the hopeful theme, the excellent characters and Dickens' realistic and meticulous descriptions. So when this was aired, all my friends told me to watch it, because it was really good. So I did. And I enjoyed it. It didn't stick to the book too often, and Mr Bumble and Fagin weren't that Dickensian, but Monks was brilliant and there were some ingenious moments of direction. Then I watched the final episode, and was so disappointed. Someone else said they were almost in tears by the end. I was too - it was so poor. It was as though the scriptwriter skimmed through the book and made the rest up. It was rushed, especially during Sikes' escape, and as a result lacked any feeling to it. The only feeling was in the one place it shouldn't have been - Sikes. Dickens wrote him as an unfeeling, brutal character. If at any point he loved Nancy, he would never have said so, least of all to Fagin. That one line, "I loved her, Fagin" ruined everything the film had going for it. Unbeliveable. Which describes Fagin. Pathetic. Alec Guinness was so much better - he was realistic. As was Frances L. Sullivan. I don't think that guy who played Mr Bumble realised that the character was a poke of fun at the parish beadles. As well as the dodger... if Dickens wrote that he was around Oliver's age, do you think the dodger was MEANT to be around Oliver's age? On the other hand, as well as Monks' superb acting, Rose Maylie (sorry, Fleming) was pretty good, as was Nancy, except she didn't show any love for Bill. They must have got the two mixed up. I much prefer Lean's 1948 version. It may be abriged, but it's better than the expanded attempt at Dickens.