comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home
From: Remi
Category: Films
Date: 23 August 2005
Went to see this film with two nephews and one girlfriend. We all generally enjoyed it. The older nephew's English wasn't that good and he gave up half way through. I enjoyed Donny Depp's silly acting. He out-did the children and animals, which is pretty impressive. An observation that was made of Denholm Elliott.
Was intrigued by grandparents. Recognised their faces, but couldn't put a name to them. Wondered what else I had seen them in. 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Twers maybe. Oh no. My computer is doing that thing when it eats up the words as you type them. Very frustrating. Haven't learnt how to un-do that. Want some computer lessons.
Thought it was good, but felt the papers hyped it up. Why was there only one Oompa-Lumpah? Was this an elaborate conceit, or a way to avoid employing little people? How come the new stuff with Christopher Lee? It told us more about Tom Burton than Charle Buckett, and didin'tmanage to add a new dimension to the story-line we already knew. Then the in-jokes about Kubrick's 2001. A bit smug.
When I saw a documentary about the 60s film with the grown-up child actors I realised that this Gene Wilder film was better. More fun and infectious, and more evenly acted. Wilder didn't try to out-act his kids. And the story could actually affect you in an emotional way. Remember how the elevator shot into the sky? Actually wanted to know how Charlie turned out. Not so bothered this time.
comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home