Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
hammy...
15 July 2005
I'm a huge fan of the first movie, and although I expected the best from this, very different version, I was not very happy with what I got.

Without ruining the story, I will say this: this version flips the static/dynamic character structure. Instead of Willy Wonka being the one to emulate, the strong character who impacts Charlie, it's the other way around. Charlie is, in fact, perfect. Too perfect, I thought. It didn't seem very real to me. Meanwhile, Willy Wonka was flawed -- which is not in itself a problem at all -- but his problem, and its solution, came so quickly that it didn't seem very real, to me, either.

As for the good stuff: the visuals were incredible. And incredibly distancing. Many, many things did not make any sense at all. Again, not necessarily a problem, but I felt that it kept many of the universal themes from coming out as strongly as they likely could have.

Another note about the four children: it seems we hear very, very little from them and about them. And there are few factory extras to keep us awestruck. Most of the awe comes from the set designs -- and some very crazy, kooky musical numbers that will have you going, "Huh?" I can't call this a bad movie or a badly done movie. Many things are stopping me from making that judgment. It looks spectacular. And Johnny Depp's performance is also totally, totally cool. But I guess, in the end, what it lacked for me was feeling. Something to keep your heart in it. It looked like a lot of plastic to me. Pretty plastic, but just plastic.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Big points for set design and narrative condensation
26 December 2004
It's no easy job fitting three fabulous children's books in one movie. But Brad Siberling did it. And it's the guy's first feature film.

The most credit goes to the cinematographer and set designers. (If I knew whether hitting the 'back' browser button would erase my comment or not, I would got to the film's main page and find these names. But I don't, so I won't.) But kind of like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, this film is scenic eye candy. Jim Carrey's costumes will get a good series of inner chuckles out of you, but so will all those funky cliffs, caves, and cages in and around the relatives' kooky abodes. Unlike Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Snicket is also good storytelling--considering the obstacles.

If you haven't read the books, this film makes perfect sense, having taken only the main narrative threads from the original weaving to hold the film's three chapters together, taking a few liberties with dramatic emphasis to condense three stories into one.

Bottom line--it's good fun, even if you're 22, as long as you can pardon the story for being a bit childish.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One great big cast party
26 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term "star-vehicle" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed