August 7, 2005

  • It has to be compared, so I've got to say that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is in fact a totally different kind of movie than "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory." 
    The simpliest way to explain this is that the 2005 version is more of a
    fantasy drama with a more twisted perception of the story, while the
    1971 version is more or less a fantasy musical that is very kid
    friendly. I also prefer Gene Wilder's eccentric Wonka, compared to Johnny Depp's
    demented and disturbed version. But it's really not fair to choose a
    favorite, because like I said already, they are two totally different
    kinds of movies. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory is a more inspired
    adaptation of the book, with it's magnificent visuals and having more
    focus on the characters of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka. You
    understand those two characters a lot more with this version, and in
    many respects, Freddie Highmore and Johnny Depp are more memorable in those roles than the
    1971 movie. Willy Wonka though is a very disturbing character in the
    first place, and in a more "normal" setting, the parents of the other
    kids would definitely have threatened some law suits on him. So keep in
    mind that even though the movie feels like it's based in a realistic
    world, it's still a fantasy.  The oompa loompas were pretty
    awesome too, and while the songs aren't as memorable as the 1971
    musical, the ones they had here were pretty damn good. Great movie and exceeded all my expectations. "B+"

    I'm a big fan of the Battle Royale Japanese film from 2000, and an even bigger fan of the novel by Koushun Takami that it was adapted from. In 2003, the sequel for the movie was released as Battle Royale II : Requiem,
    so I was excited about it.  Just like the first film, I planned to
    wait for the promised director's cut before watching it, and so I
    waited....and waited. It wasn't until this year that the director's cut
    for BRII (now subtitled "Revenge") was released. Well, I finally
    watched it, and I've got to say that I'm gravely disappointed. 
    I've been warned that it's nowhere near as good as the first movie, but
    I didn't think that it would be this far off the quality of the first
    one.  The first film (while not exactly flawless) had memorable characters, character
    development, an engaging premise, Takashi Kitano
    as the memorable teacher, well directed sequences, and an emotional
    core.  The sequel however tried to reach those same achievements,
    but failed.  Admitedly, it might partly be due to the fact that the director
    passed away during production, and that unlike the first film this one
    had no established novel to base it's story on. This one literally is a
    direct sequel to the story established in the first film. The way the
    sequel was done, it easily reached increased levels of pretentiousness,
    it was overly melodramatic, the acting was absolutely atrocious, and it
    was on the verge of campiness. It simply couldn't meet that fine line
    that the first film was able to achieve. While I admire this movie's
    take on terrorism and the idea that powerful nations can get out of
    hand, I'm afraid that this sequel really really wasn't necessary. "C-"