We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

Hi Geeks, Hayley here.

Back in May, John Pavlich and I recorded a commentary for his Sofadogs website (now with a brand new look you can check out here) for 90s teen thriller I Know What You Did Last Summer. Despite a few syncing problems due to region coding, we had a great discussion and would love you guys to check it out. Pop in your DVD or Blu-Ray and listen as we discuss the subtleties of makeup, annoying and belligerent older siblings, countless offenses of bad writing and more!

Listen here.

Subject: I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

Observers: John Pavlich, Hayley White

Record Date: May 03, 2011, 08:13 AM

Plot Summary: During their last 4th of July shindig together, four friends accidentally hit someone with their car. Fearing the end of their bright futures, they all make a pact to dump the body and keep this terrible night to themselves. Exactly a year later, a mysterious stranger is sending them threatening letters and stalking them, bent on some twisted form of justice.

Note: While I’m based in the US, Hayley resides in Australia, meaning that despite our best efforts, we occasionally run into some sync problems in the recording. Hayley’s DVD is a different region and format, which results in a slightly faster playback. While there are a few instances where Hayley gets ahead of me in the film, they are few and far between and we mostly manage to save face. Remember to listen for the preemptive countdown before starting the film on your DVD.

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

We start our discussion with non-spoiler reviews of the film before falling into a full-on dissection/discussion of the film with heavy SPOILERS. Enjoy!

But I digress. 2009 had its fair share of what I shall broadly term “remakes” and it is to these I will turn a little attention for this article. I will be restricting this discussion to films that fall into this category as it is the easiest field to deal with in terms of it reaching the broadest audience and the one I can talk about the most.

I have to confess though, that I didn’t really get around to viewing that many of the remakes of 2009. Reports of the ones I have missed, however, appear to indicate that I haven’t really missed anything. Still, hope springs eternal and we all know that everyone has different tastes.

So, here I offer my own personal list of top 10 favourite “remakes” of 2009.

10. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Now I know that many people have issues with this movie and I agree with a lot of them. Compared to many other films, Transformers 2 is not the best movie. It’s a movie about robots that can bend and twist into the shapes of cars and things. At the end of the day, it’s not going to be high calibre stuff.

All that said, visually, this movie is pretty cool. Visual effects have come a long way. Shia Lebouf is an ok actor in the movie, certainly better than Megan Fox, and to some extent you do care what happens between the Autobots and the Deceptacons.

Not the greatest by any means but to see a Transformers movie on the screen again in and of itself is quite pleasing. I suspect that there will be yet another sequel so I hope against hope that the story will be a bit better and I perhaps would like to see a new lead come in and interact with these characters. In any case, I’d watch this movie if it was on but wouldn’t actively seek it out.

9. X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Again, it’s no secret that this remake is not a favourite among diehard fans. Like many I was looking forward to this for a long time but as it got closer I started to doubt a little. I finally got to see it on literally the last day it was screening in cinemas here so I think maybe some of my affinity with this movie is merely from the fact of waiting so long for it to come out and then finally seeing it at last.

I cannot deny that a big plug for me for this movie is seeing Hugh Jackman. There’s no denying that he is a very talented entertainer and after three X-Men movies we have gotten very used to him in the role. That said, by this point, I think they’re flogging a dead horse. In the first X-Men movie he was so tough and kick-ass but now in Origins, he’s kinda wimpy. Perhaps the Wolverine character started out that way before all the government stuff but he still seemed too soft for the character that I remember from watching the cartoon series as a kid.

I didn’t know anything about Weapon X so as the story unfolded for me that was exciting and seeing Gambit was cool, but ultimately the ending was a massive letdown. Weapon X wasn’t scary looking and I wanted to be scared by that character. It was really a case of ‘okay get this fight over with already and end the movie’. So, not great but still okay enough to make my top 10.

8. My Sister’s Keeper

I read the book a few years ago when it came out and as a novel it is just a phenomenal read. Jodie Picoult has such a powerful style as a writer that really grips you as a reader and is very good at switching between different character voices and keeping them all unique. She always picks gripping subject matter to do with moral and/or ethical choices in seemingly impossible situations so if this is your kind of thing and if you haven’t read any of her books, I highly recommend them.

I didn’t, however, imagine that this story would be made into a movie. As much as it is a dire situation, in many respects it’s also a bit fluffy so I guess that was why it was picked and then pegged more towards the female, mother/daughter kind of audience. In my opinion, Picoult’s ‘The Pact’ would be a much better film because it is a bit darker and meatier a story to delve into.

I absolutely loved Abigail Breslin in this movie. She is just a sweetie in everything that she does and she is so talented. I really hope that she continues to grow in her success as she gets older. I also loved the other young girl who played her sister. She brought a reality and truth to the character that the film needed to be meaningful.

The casting of Cameron Diaz as the mother was a real turnoff for me. I just wasn’t convinced by her at all. She was too young and pretty for the role. On the flipside I thought Alec Baldwin was too old for his character whom I had envisioned as a younger man when I read the book. Worn out by his work, yes, but still younger.

The saving grace of the movie though, and the reason I rate it in my top 10 is because of the way the filmmakers treated the ending. Anyone who has read the novel will tell you that they completely changed the ending between the novel and the film. In the book, you are blind-sighted (or at least I was) by the sudden and dramatic ending that it adds to the beauty of the story and really tugs on your heartstrings. Being a novel and being able to go completely inside someone’s head gives you the ability to do that. For a movie though, the ending would have been far too clichéd and would have been a ‘quick fix’ so as to make a happy ending.

The ending the filmmakers did choose, however, in my opinion is far more realistic and powerful. Having some personal connection to this story I can say that real life stories like this, more often than not, don’t have that happy ending that we all want. People we love do get sick and die and there is little in the long run we can do to change that. Worth the watch. Make sure you have the tissues and if you are up for it, read the book cuz it is a million times better.

7. Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Okay, so this one is yet another sequel made merely to cash in on a pre-established fan base from the first movie. CGI sells big these days, particularly with kids, and it virtually guarantees to draw the crowds in for the summer holiday period.

For me this one is a big nostalgia hit. I grew up watching Alvin and the Chipmunks on tv practically every afternoon for years and I wish the powers that be would hurry up and release it on DVD already. Yes, the story was lame, stupid and pointless. I inwardly groaned when I saw the sleazy producer from the first one was in it to have another crack at it all. I was also disappointed that Jason Lee had so small a role in it in favour of the younger, edgier human sidekick to the boys who really brought nothing to the table. You need that interaction between Dave and the boys.

But being a girl you just can’t go past the Chipettes, although I was a little disappointed that Britney didn’t have as much sass as the character I remembered. Their singing Beyonce was simply adorable even though the content is a little bit inappropriate for the target demographic. If nothing else, you just can’t get over how cute they all are and how largely faithful to the essence of the series it was, particularly now that the characters as in high school.

Definitely worth it for the nostalgia and just a feel-good hour and a half of pure enjoyment for the young at heart.

6. Terminator Salvation

Yet another disappointment to many, but I confess I really enjoyed it. Maybe it was because I saw it as the first movie at a marathon and the other two films on the bill were really average (Fired Up and Mall Cop) but I liked the action and general storyline of the movie. Christian Bale is a great actor, although a little type cast, and I simply adored Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese.

I’m not that familiar with the original movies either so I guess that’s why I give this prequel the benefit of the doubt. Visually I like the look of this movie. Its gritty and dark enough for my likings though I admit it probably is too ‘Hollywood’ for most. Perhaps it’s simply because I enjoy the story of an underdog. This isn’t really the story of John Conner. It’s about Kyle Reese. But I fully take on board and can understand the complaints and disappointments about this film already expressed on the various podcasts and articles posted here on Geekshow.

In any case, as for me, I liked it, more so than Wolverine or Transformers anyway.

5. Twilight Saga New Moon

Once more, shoot me if you must but I am supremely curious as to how this story is being translated from book to screen. Like it or not, Twilight has a huge fan base that cares greatly in a faithful and loyal retelling of the vampire who sparkles and his teenage lover. Probably because I’m female and have had that experience of being so in love with that guy, I have a soft spot for this. Try not to hate me. :-)

4. Sherlock Holmes

This movie was just kick-ass and with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in the mix how could it not be? Witty, gritty and lots of action and intrigue. Simply delightful to watch. Now this is by no means a perfect facsimile of the Sherlock Holmes Arthur Conan Doyle envisioned. There’s no tweed in sight and I doubt reformed bad boy Robert was exactly the type of actor he would have had in mind to play the part.

But there is something about this movie that is really captivating. Holmes is a recluse yet brilliant in his reasoning, deduction and accuracy – and it doesn’t hurt that he can pack a good punch when needed! At first appearance this is a supernatural type of story but as you get into it you realise that is a facade. Why is it so intriguing? Elementary my dear Watson, this remake knows how to blend the old with the new in a masterful synthesis that hits the right mark or bringing something fresh to an old favourite.

3. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

This is something my brother made me watch and I’m so glad he did. This movie was great. I didn’t know much about it other than it was about vampires and werewolves, but I really enjoyed watching this story of love, betrayal and the fight to be free. I instantly went out and bought the trilogy boxset on DVD that came with free lycan figurine.

Visually it was stunning and the tone was so refreshing and gritty from the jazzed-up style that is often incorporated into the making of so many films of this genre these days. Sure, there is the obligatory humanising of the demonic characters but even after that they still maintain their ferocity and fear factor. Definitely worth the watch for something against the crowd.

2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

What can I say? Harry Potter hit the screen again in 2009 and generally speaking he did not fail at all to disappoint. Like many I am a rampant Harry fan, however, of all the film adaptations of the novels, I must confess this one was not one of my favourite ones. That said; it was still really awesome.

Rupert Grint shines once more as the oblivious boofhead Ron, who is suddenly in possession of the world’s most ridiculous first girlfriend, who good for the actress, fully committed to the role. Poor Hermione! Likewise, it’s great to see Harry and Ginny finally get it together.

Everything we come to expect and be wowed by in a Harry Potter film. Bring on the final two chapters!

1. Star Trek

Easily the knockout hit of remakes in 2009! There is a massive subculture around this particular sci-fi franchise so naturally there is a phenomenal fanbase to draw upon and virtually a guaranteed audience for any new incarnation created. But given that, there is an equally overwhelming pressure for any such incarnation to be faithful, true, accurate and ‘good’ to the dedicated fan of the story.

Fortunately this particular movie knocks all these expectations out of the park in its success. The casting is perfect for each character. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are simply amazing and bring a new depth and life to Kirk and Spock respectively. I especially liked seeing Aussie Chris Hemsworth in the role of Kirk Senior at the beginning of the film which was an unexpected surprise, and he really showed him chops thru the character.

An absolute epic, the film draws you in from the first minute until the last. It’s a long film, sure, but who really cares? The length perfectly does the story justice so it isn’t rushed or overdone. Best of all, the film knows just how far to take things in a new direction and just how close to stick to all that has already been established.

This one was not only completely worth being made, but added much to an already well-loved story. Even if you would never in a million years consider yourself a ‘Trekkie’, check this one out. You might just fall in love a little bit.

So there you go, those are my picks for the year that was. Still on my list to see are Inkheart, Sorority Row, Watchmen, Halloween 2, A Christmas Carol and Dragonball Evolution to name but a few. I suspect I shall be greatly disappointed but I just can’t help but have a little hope.

At the end of the day, there is something easy and comfortable in watching stories that we are already familiar with and are fans of. Although there is also nothing worse than when such stories are retold in such poor fashion as to make you doubt if you really liked it at all in the first place.

No doubt 2010 will hold its own array of remakes which we can all love and hate in whatever measures we see fit. But if Hollywood is kind, there will be more to love than hate, and the mistakes of the past will be learnt from and moved past. Still, the question of ‘to make or remake’ remains constantly in the background, begging moviemakers to really think about the projects they take on and just why audiences should bother paying any of their attention to them.

“Yes, I do believe it was.”

Halloween is my all time favourite horror movie. I know the remake by Rob Zombie has been reviewed on GSE before by Scott but I’ve finally gotten the chance to see it and thought I would throw my 2 cents in for what they’re worth (probably less than 2 cents). Not to mention the fact that H2, Zombie’s remake of the second Halloween film, is due to be released very very soon, if not already for some of you, so I reckon some discussion of his first remake is very timely.

Well, being that the original Halloween movie is high in my esteem, I was greatly sceptical and frankly very resistant to the idea of a remake. I mean, you don’t mess with a classic. Leave my fave slasher alone, Rob Zombie! Having said that, I have stuck with the franchise thru all the misguided and poorly presented sequels and so, felt compelled beyond reason to see this movie. For sure it couldn’t be worse than Halloween 3, 4, 5 or 6 right?

But despite my scepticism, I have to admit that Rob Zombie does a fairly decent job at remaking the film. Let me explain. I don’t think I overly like his film, but it is clear that he understands how to successfully do a remake – by doing something different that builds on what has already been done, staying true to the essence of the original, without corrupting it and changing it too much. Whether you love or hate a remake, this is ultimately what a good one should do. It should make you fall in love with the characters all over again and/or let you see different sides of them or the situations they are in.

The most apparent and successful addition to Rob Zombie’s version of Halloween is the beginning act of the film where the audience is introduced to a 10 year old Michael Myers. There is very little “young Michael” in the original film so it is very captivating to see this young man, even for a brief glimpse, before he commits the savage murders that set him on his course for the rest of the movie.

In a way, Zombie has made Michael more relatable and more human in his retelling by presenting the audience with this sweet little misunderstood guy from a bad family background. Sure Michael sometimes does bad things, but that’s not his fault considering what he goes thru on a day to day basis in neglect and torment… No. It doesn’t really fly for very long as an excuse for his actions, but still, the fact that as a viewer you can question Michael’s guilt in all of it, even for a moment, is a testimony to Zombie’s careful and deliberate retelling of the tale.

The modern Michael Myers is a man with a past, a man with emotions (even if they are seriously screwed up) and is just as worthy of our attention as any other character in the story. In short, he is no longer just a soulless hulking shape bent on killing everything blocking his goals. He is the result of several events and factors gone horribly and devastatingly wrong.

Another thing I did like about the remake was Malcolm MacDowell’s portrayal of Dr Samuel Loomis, Myers’ doctor. Donald Pleasance was so definitive and powerful in that role so it is quite pleasing to have another actor take up the character and truly make it their own. It’s also nice in this film to have some expansion of the character. Act 2 is really where he gets his chance to be thrust to the forefront in a big way and the audience gets to learn a little more about Loomis as a person and the relationship he has with Myers over the many years between the first killings and the night Michael goes after his baby sister.

This relationship between Michael and Loomis is compelling to watch; especially as it goes from one of (supposedly) innocent intrigue of one another, to a strange bond or friendship of sorts (albeit very short lived), to one of complete estrangement. To some degree this helps cement the idea that Michael has human attributes as you watch MacDowell’s portrayal of a torn and fighting with himself between his fear of his patient and his deep desire to help him. This is in stark contrast to Donald Pleasance’s representation of Loomis who feels little if anything for Michael on a personal level.

Before I discuss the “new” Laurie Strode, however, a brief note on the more minor characters in the story. The first and most intriguing is Michael’s mother. The whole casting of her as a struggling single parent with a deadbeat boyfriend and an exploitative job is very well done. This addition to the story adds a new layer of meaning to all that happens. Again it’s that human element that gets underscored but I quite liked it. Her reactions to things plays well against those of Michael, and like Loomis, she is someone who genuinely cares for Michael on that personal level despite the atrocities he committed against their family. That said; I cannot believe after the wonderful job Zombie did in putting her into the story in that way, that he’s bringing her back for the sequel as some sort of stupid spirit. Massive sigh. Stop putting your wife in your films just because you can!

Also worthy of note are Laurie’s two gal pals and the two kids who play Tommy and Lindsey. Thank goodness Danielle Harris has grown up a bit since her last forays into the Halloween franchise. I think she did a good job with what she was given, although the purist in me believes she should have died during the film. O well. Leave it for the sequel I guess. Likewise I think the other actress did okay with what she had to do. The kids were great, especially the little girl who played Lindsey. To me they just seemed very real kids that you would find in the suburbs.

So finally, I turn my attention to Scout Taylor-Compton – the “new” Laurie Strode. Groan. So close Rob Zombie and yet so far. Looks-wise I think she was a very good choice. I know this is a more modern retelling but I found her a bit too sassy for innocent Laurie. Not that I expected or even wanted the extreme that Jamie Lee Curtis did in the original (that portrayal certainly wouldn’t fly these days), but just the way she spoke with her girlfriends, it was sometimes hard to distinguish her from them, as well as her interactions with her mother in the morning before school was too far out there for my tastes in terms of that character. I did feel like she was a good victim and to a certain degree okay at being the heroine but really, I kinda expected her to die by the end of the film, just because she didn’t seem to have enough of that fire in her stomach to stand up to Michael and fight back. Then again, she did shoot him at point blank range in the head.

Despite my best efforts, I just didn’t overly like this film insofar as much as it was a remake of one of my favourites. In and of itself, it’s not that bad. The fact that it is a remake works against it. Honestly though, if the original film didn’t exist and it just came out as a release then I probably wouldn’t have too much interest in seeing it. While done well in a visceral sense, it’s not my usual preference for horror films. I much rather suspense done well without the need for lots of violence and blood. I think less is more with these types of films. Just my humble opinion.

In any case, I think Zombie’s original Halloween remake is going to be loads better than his new attempt at remaking the second one. Judging by the trailer he has swung too far in that bad direction and mucked up the story so much that it is no longer good. Must reserve judgement until I see it, but as there is currently no release date for it here in Australia, I don’t really mind so much that I will have to wait. Would love to hear people’s thoughts for those who live in a place where it is about to be released.

Coming Soon: To Make Or Remake Stargate SG-1 – Children Of The Gods

I did, and I loved it.

Leave your thoughts and opinions on the film below. Warning: Spoiler Zone!

The Moon. For several years now it has illuminated our night sky as well as our imaginations. While some say it merely reflects the light from our Sun, others say it reflects man’s search for purpose in a vast and mysterious universe.
And now one of David Bowie’s kid’s has made a movie set upon this titular celestial plateau.

Far in the future; sometime after the oil lobbies iron fist has unclenched but before apes become our masters; human beings have at last figured out the answer to our energy needs. The solution involves a friendly robot Kevin Spacey, a manned station on the dark side of the moon,  and sending Sam Rockwell’s scruffy ass there to do stuff.
It’s a lonely job but Sam Rockwell’s gotta do it. Actually, I’m not even sure what his job is supposed to be on this space station. Everything looks automated so I’ve concluded he’s just there to keep Robot Kevin Spacey company.
Why this guy? How’d he draw the short straw? And what happens next week when his three year tour is up? These questions and others may be addressed in some manner by the end of the film.

Moon starts off at slow simmer and it took me a while to find it’s grove but once I did I became immersed in it’s spell. The story unfolds with the disarming intensity of a one man, single act play. It’s a claustrophobic introverted drama set against an endless and cosmic back drop. There are emotional heart breaking moments that rival anything in Up.

It’s terse smart sci-fi in the same vein as Danny Boyle’s Sunshine. And while the imagery may not be quite as beautiful as that film’s the story doesn’t derail two thirds in and delivers a satisfying concussion.
This is director Duncan Jones’ first feature film (and he really is David Bowie’s son). Clint Mansel’s (The Fountain)  score drones and hums melodically like a marriage of Radio Head to Carter Burwell. The art direction is austere and sterile  and recalls Douglas Trumbull’s work in 2001 (Did you know there’s an actor in that movie named Glenn Beck? I hope it’s not that same glazed-over cross eyed douche that’s on TV). The effects aren’t state of the art but they’re resourceful and well done. It’s relieving to see practical effects on the big screen again.
It’s a smart, well made film, at once unnerving and entertaining. Sci-fi fans should make it a point to put in on their must see list.

The Infamous Russel James
–
Even the most primitive of societies have an innate respect for the insane.

When I was in high school one of the first books I remember being made to read for English was Susan Cooper’s The Dark Is Rising. It was one of my first tastes into the world of fantasy and even though we were being forced to study it and so all these homework assignments on it, I really liked the book.

I later found out that it was the second in a series of books and eventually I read the other four in the set. The others were ok but not as gripping as The Dark Is Rising was. It wasn’t unlike the Narnia books whereby the second in the series was the most popular and well known of the sets.

But I digress. Years passed and I forgot all about the book until in 2007 I discovered that it was going to be remade into a major motion picture. By then I was completely removed from the target audience that the movie was being aimed at, and I wondered if it was really worth a look. Now that I have seen the film I can say that it really wasn’t overly worth watching, at least not if you were expecting a faithful retelling of Susan Cooper’s captivating tale of one young boy’s coming of age as an Old One and agent of the Light.

The novel The Dark Is Rising is the story of ten (almost eleven) year old Will Stanton. He is the seventh son in the family (in fact he’s the seventh son of a seventh son) and has to jockey for position for everything. Unremarkable as he is, Will can’t help but notice that strange things are beginning to happen around him. The animals are all afraid of him and there’s a strange tramp following him.

The winter cold is closing in and it looks like Will might just get his wish of birthday snow. But with the cold a malicious force is also closing in. The Dark is beginning to rise and as it turns out, Will is the last of the Old Ones of the Light whose charge it is to turn them back. More than that, fellow Old One, Merriman Lyon, informs him that he is the Sign-Seeker who must find all six Signs of the Light before the Dark can if they are to have a hope of driving them back.

It isn’t an easy task for young Will. The tramps is still following him and then there’s the malevolent Rider who tries to thwart his efforts at every turn. But being an Old One certainly has its advantages. Will has powers that he has to learn how to control, as well as times and places he has to visit (quite literally), all of which help him to gain the six Signs of iron, bronze, wood, stone, fire and water.

Unlike the movie, Susan Cooper’s novel delves deeper into the human condition. As Old Ones, Merriman, Will’s mentor and friend of sorts, reflects often on how humans get caught up by their emotions and how it can get in the way of the things they are trying to achieve. This is seen in great example in teh relationship between Merriman and his manservant Hawkin whom he entrusts to help in a great mission of the Light, but ultimately goes awry and spells the dramatic change of fates of all involved. Without having to go into too much detail, Hawkin feels betrayed by the objectiveness Merriman displays in the task that very possibly could have cost Hawkin his life. As a result Hawkin turns to the Dark and new masters causing great problems as Will’s story unfolds.

Now I understand creative licence and how the difference between the mediums of novels and films can affect the translation of certain materials, but I felt the movie makers really went too far with this one, at least in terms of capturing the real essence of the story and the things that make it so powerful.

Will is no longer turning eleven but fourteen in the film. I really didn’t like this as I feel there was no great need to make the central character older. Perhaps they were trying to steer clear of a Harry Potter-esque model, I don’t know, and I guess that makes sense, but this story has been around so much longer than Harry’s has so why not stick closer to the original? Being now fourteen I guess the filmmakers felt he needed a love interest so they created one in a character whose purpose was very far from that, at least in relation to Will as a character anyway. Again stupid and unnecessary.

Another thing I disliked in the film is that Will and his family are no longer British but American simply living in the country as new inhabitants. Again for the story it made so much more sense Will being a Brit as he had a greater connection to the land and the places in which he was questing, as even throughout all the time travelling he does, it was still the same land he was travelling over even if they changed physically over time.

Like Will, the character of Merriman has changed in some ways for the film that I really didn’t understand. Again perhaps it was an attempt to diverge from the Dumbledore/Potter dynamic as certainly the parallels can be drawn between these two sets of relationships but again I feel it was unnecessary to change things. Still a mentor of sorts, Merriman (in the film) has great doubts about will’s abilities and possibilities of success in his mission. Not to mention the fact that the actor they cast looks physically nothing like the striking description given by Cooper. In addition, Merriman almost seems to play second fiddle to another Old One who was a much lesser character in the novel and for no great reason other than to amp up the female involvement in this tale.

As for the aforementioned tramp (known as the Walker) and Hawkin, Merriman’s manservant, both are mysteriously absent from the film. Though the DVD does contain a deleted scene that features the Walker, there is no explanation as to why these omissions have been made. Frankly I can’t work it out an can only surmise they felt it was too complicated a subplot to go down in the film, which I guess I can understand.

But I think the biggest change between the novel and the film is the morphing of Will’s quest for the Signs altogether. There are still six of them, he still has to travel thru time to find them, and he still has to beat the agents of the Dark that are trying to stop him at every turn. But instead of the six elemental Signs, Will has to find five elementals with the final being the soul of a human being. Very strange given the six elements stuff was deeply ingrained in the folklore of the Old Ones. Add to that the fact that Will suddenly has a twin brother he didn’t know about (which makes him the seventh son in the family, not the sixth like he believed) who as it turns out has been held captive by the Rider for years and not missing or dead like the family originally thought.

Having made all these objections, there were a few things about the film that I think were done very well. For one the visual effects were very good, particularly the time travelling and the explosions of fire as Will gets angry over his quest and comes into his full powers as an Old One. These things certainly would have failed in earlier film attempts if they had been made due to today’s advanced film technologies.

I also really liked the young actor they cast to play Will. I think he did a really good job with what he was given and you couldn’t help but root for him. Likewsie, while dramatically younger in age than the Gwen described in the novel, the little girl they got to play Will’s sister and confidante was very sweet and talented for her age.

Call me a purist, and I really feel I haven’t commented very extensively in this very long article, but I just can’t get beyond all the changes that were made to the story of The Dark Is Rising between the novel and the film. In my opinion it was only very loosely the same story and the one that came out in the end was only half as powerful and entertaining as the original. Perhaps that is why the film flopped. It just lost something critical along the way.

My advice – read the book, read the whole series even, but don’t bother so much about the movie. Kids might like it but personally I couldn’t help but be massively disappointed. Another wasted remake.

Sadly for me, I never actually got to see the show on Broadway. For all who did, I envy you greatly. I think Nathan Lane would have been awesome on stage. But I did see the Australian cast perform the show when it came to Sydney. Therefore I feel I can talk with some assurance about the musical as a whole. 

Being the youngest person in the audience on the day at the tender age of 20, it was a very surreal feeling. Most of the audience for The Producers that day were senior citz, a phenomenon I can only attribute to the fact that Reg Livermore, the actor playing Max, is popular with people in the 50+ age range. 

But I digress. When I decided to go see The Producers, I really had no idea what the story was even about. All I knew was that it was by Mel Brooks and that it was supposed to be awesome. I bought the CD soundtrack prior to and listened to it enough to have a good knowledge of the all the songs so that was a plus, yet there were still a few pieces missing, such as what it meant that Ulla was waiting for Leo at eleven. 

Needless to say, the show did not disappoint in any way. It truly was shocking, outrageous, insulting and I really did love every minute of it. The sets were incredible. I liked the way the set revolved back to Max’s office when Leo decided to be a producer and he was kneeling in exactly the same position he had been when Leo left. I still am perplexed at how they had the white replica set of the office after Ulla “tidies up” and how they would be able to have that one last colour spot for her to paint over in white, show after show. 

Speaking of Ulla, I think the expansion of her character was a good move in pushing the story forward. It added an extra element to Max and Leo’s relationship that didn’t exist in the original film. Not to mention the fact that the characterisation of Ulla in the original film as a bimbo merely there for sex appeal and little else, most probably would not fly in today’s culture. And while she isn’t exactly the sort of girl all women would identify with, she does provide a bit more of a gender balance to the story now that she is more prominent. 

The idea of removing the beatnik L.S.D from The Producers is one that I don’t really know how to resolve. In the original film I thought it was an interesting and funny way of sending up Hitler. As I said in part one of this article, I suppose such a character would have been more socially appropriate for the time of the first film, whereas now it might not have worked. Still, Roger jumping in at the last minute to play Hitler is very funny. 

While it will mean little to most of you, I thought the acting by the Australian cast was majoratively fantastic and in my humble opinion, comparable to the repute of the Broadway cast, with the exception of Bert Newton who played Franz. Bert is something of an icon here in Oz, yet I felt his performance left a little to be desired. It was hard to see past Bert Newton the man and believe in Franz Liebkind the character, something that I found a bit easier though still challenging with Will Ferrell in the movie version. Still, I believe that Bert’s health was not the best during the Sydney run of the show so perhaps that attributed to his less than astounding portrayal of the Neo Nazi nitwit. 

On the other hand, I greatly enjoyed Tom Burlinson’s interpretation of Leo and in some ways I feel it is even better than Matthew Broderick’s. While I have grown to enjoy Matthew’s Leo after many viewings of the film, there is just something about him as an actor that I can’t connect with. I found Burlinson’s pathetic and mouse-ishness as Leo humorous and entertaining while I find Broderick’s at times very annoying and frustrating. 

A further mention must be made of the Australian actor who played Carmen Ghia. Like Roger Bart and his hissing that never ended, the Australian actor decided to extend one arm diagonally up before himself and then move out of the scenery at a literal snail’s pace. Very funny and a very controlled and clever way of putting his own stamp on the character, in my opinion.  

Well, I guess since I have already talked about it a little, now would be a good time to turn my full attention to the film. Indeed there is little more to say about the Broadway version except as to how it compares with the theatrical version that came after it. 

I cannot deny that I simply love the new movie of The Producers, however, there are several elements to it that really do not work in a movie format the way they do on stage. It is these elements that I feel undermine the overall success of the film and are perhaps reason why it did not garner as widespread popularity as its immediate predecessor. 

From the minute the opening musical number starts, flaws in approach can be seen right away. I really think the secret to a successful movie musical is maintaining the illusion that the story unfolding exists within its own little world and that said world has no direct correlation with the real world of the audience. 

The “Opening Night” number doesn’t really achieve this. You feel just as if you are sitting in the audience at the stage show. The way the singers look up and out of sight as if playing to a theatre audience is very obvious and their actions and reactions are over exaggerated in a way that does not suit a film format. 

Another example is in the “I Wanna Be A Producer” sequence when the girls wearing pearls burst out of the filing cabinets. The “undesirable” girl in pearls simply does not work the way they have done it in the film. On the stage it is funny. You can tell that the actress is the same one who played the homeless lady at the beginning who suddenly pops up in Leo’s fantasy somehow. In the movie, you aren’t reliant on a limited stage cast to play multiple roles and in the translation, the gag is lost. While I understand that the song and dance routine would need to be reworked if this character were to be removed, I think it would have been worth the effort. 

A similar one is during “That Face” where Ulla and Leo rumble around behind the couch and it jostles to suggest their movement. Great on stage, not as good on film. A better gag could have arranged. Likewise when she asks him why he has gone so far camera right as opposed to stage right. 

But to ignore such negatives for now, I think there are quite a few positives in the film as well. I think the relationship dynamic between Max and Leo is a solid one. Both being film actors, I think Nathan and Matthew know how to strike the right balance in their portrayals from medium to medium as well as the chemistry they have obviously developed as actors. Afterall, without getting this element right, well, The Producers would then have become a flop about a flop. 

Once again the sets are stunning, as are the costumes, but due to the magic of the film world, the crew is able to go that one step further and really flesh out this world. The fountain scene is spectacular, even more so than in the original film. And the world inside Leo’s head when he fantasises about being a producer seems limitless now in a way that just can’t be achieved on stage. 

All in all, the question of to make or remake for me is an astounding yes. Sure, there are flaws and things that fall a little flat in both versions. Certainly the film suffers more from this than the stage show, but I think overall these second and third shots at building upon and making better this crazy story of two very different men with a very unique friendship are for all intents and purposes fairly successful and satisfy the sense of wishing to be entertained. 

Could they have gotten away with just the Broadway show and not the second movie? Sure, absolutely. Still, I do like that you can watch the movie again and again at your convenience. And I also like that for those of us who can’t make it to Broadway, we can still get a bit of a glimmer of what the experience might have been like. 

Beware of *SPOILERS*!!

Discuss this on the forums - (11) Posts

That quote, from the song “Where Did We Go Right?” in the Broadway musical version of The Producers, perfectly sums up how I feel about all three incarnations of this remarkably crude and endearing story. There is so much to cover this week that I have split this one up into two separate articles, so as not to bore you all. 

Well, the first glance that viewers had of this tale was in 1968 when comic genius Mel Brooks had a great idea for a story based on a theatre producer he worked for as a kid who wined and dined old ladies into giving him cheques made out to cash so that he could produce plays. After trying a few different mediums, Brooks realised that his story was best suited in the film format and thus he set about writing and directing his first ever feature, The Producers. Because of the (if greatly delayed) success of this film, Brooks’ career took off and he later went on to make such marvels as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein and Robin Hood: Men In Tights, to name but a few. But I digress. The film starred Zero Mostel and a then unknown Gene Wilder, both of whom were cast perfectly for the roles of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom respectively. 

The plot goes like this. Max Bialystock used to be the King of Broadway. Now he’s a washed up hack who has to romance little old ladies to finance his plays. Leo Bloom is his accountant who, after discovering a minor case of fraud in the accounts of Max’s last play, posits that a producer could make more money with a flop than with a hit. Max embraces his duplicitous nature and embarks the pair of them on a scheme to run off to Rio with a million dollars after producing the biggest flop on Broadway. 

All seems like it’s going to plan: Max is able to convince Leo to leave his humble life as an accountant after igniting his desire to be more in life than someone who counts other people’s money; they find the worst play ever written, called Springtime For Hitler; get the ex-Nazi nincompoop to sign over the rights; hire the gayest director in town to run the show; Max screws over (quite literally) every little old lady in New York to raise the money; they hire a hippie beatnik to play Hitler; and Max gets himself a little Swedish special treat in the form of a secretary who dances like a go-go girl when he tells her to “go to work” to reward himself for all the effort. 

On opening night Max and Leo are as happy as clams – until they hit intermission and the audience makes them painfully aware of how dire things are about to turn out for them! Somewhere along the line all their wrongs have turned out right. Initially shocked and appalled at Springtime For Hitler, the beatnik named L.S.D, shows the audience a riotously funny side of the fuehrer that makes them hail the show as the funniest thing on Broadway. The flop has flipped and Max and Leo are in serious trouble. The “neo-Nazi nitwit” Franz Liebkind, the author, threatens to shoot them, however, Max talks him out of it.  They need a way to close the show and they need it fast, or else Max and Leo are going to go straight to jail. 

The three of them head down to the theatre and try to blow it up. Instead of getting away, Max and Leo are caught by the authorities. The judge is moved by their unlikely and heartfelt friendship so decides not to separate them and sends them both to Sing Sing Prison. There the movie concludes with Max and Leo conducting the prisoners in another musical and running the same scam yet again. 

At the time of its release, The Producers was not at all a popular movie. Still very close to World War Two, people just didn’t find the whole subject matter very appropriate or worth investigating. The fact that his script was initially titled Springtime For Hitler, may have contributed to this feeling. Brooks maintains that people simply didn’t get it; that to fight a dictator like Hitler, the only way to do so successfully was to bring him down with humour. It was only after an accidental screening of the film by renowned comedian Peter Sellers that he jumped on the bandwagon and drew in the masses after placing a large ad in the newspaper describing how good he thought the film was. Then the audiences flocked to see it – and they finally got the joke. 

Zero Mostel as Max Bialystock is fantastic. He is larger than life, boisterous, overbearing, yet charming and hopelessly devoted to being unscrupulous in a bit of an amateurish way. Underneath it all there really is a good heart to the man, and that is shown in his relationship with Leo. 

And Leo. He is a fascinating character. More of a mouse than a man, as Max describes him; he is awfully trapped by his own insecurities and phobias. The idea of taking a leap and making himself vulnerable to something potentially great scares him to death. But Max takes him under his wing and shows him that not only is Leo capable of greatness but that he is a genuinely decent person who really deserves it. Absolutely unknown at the time, Gene Wilder gives a fantastic performance in this film. He is completely neurotic and insecure, mousy and easily frightened, yet genuinely pure, naïve and well intentioned, despite his involvement in the scheming that goes on throughout the movie. 

I also cannot fail to mention the completely marvellous casting of Kenneth Mars as Franz. In a bizarre twist, Dustin Hoffman was initially slated to play this role but pulled out at the last minute when he was hired for The Graduate. Kenneth I think worked out for the best. He is loopy and crazy in the role as well as physically dominating enough to be a bit of a threat to Bialystock and Bloom at the end. Definitely the best portrayal of Franz there has been in my humble opinion, even if the character’s dialogue was better in the two subsequent remakes. 

The jokes are very funny in the original movie, even if I have heard them several times over in the musical stage show and the 2005 film. The little plot changes were not something that I was expecting going in, however, I found them quite interesting in terms of them being abandoned ideas for the story’s two later manifestations. Specifically here I reference the characters of Lorenzo St. DuBois (aka L.S.D) and Ulla, as well as the alterations in plot to the ending segments of the film. 

L.S.D is clearly a mark of the times the film was originally written in. A beatnik hippie was more a sign of the social climate in the 1960s, so it really would have resonated with that audience. Sure, the hippie is recognisable today but it is often nothing more than a cliché. I particularly like the “I liebe ya baby, I liebe ya” section of Springtime For Hitler. Very clever writing from Mel there. And a great way of accomplishing Mel’s goal of bringing Hitler down in people’s perspectives by reducing him to nothing of importance with humour and ridicule. 

Ulla is very different as a character in this initial representation than she is in the later ones. Here she is a much bigger bimbo and the language barrier has a much greater effect on her behaviour. Instead of being attracted to Leo, she seems to be the plaything of Max, submitting to him with a giggle and joyfully shaking herself around to music whenever she is to set to work. Underdeveloped though she is, she serves her purpose as juxtaposition for the little old ladies Max has to swindle, as well as providing a few extra laughs to satiate the audience in the slow moments.

The fact that the original movie is much shorter in duration that its two successors just goes to show just how much extra was added to the story later on. The whole Leo/Ulla love story and their subsequent escape to Rio in and of itself adds at least a good half hour more to the tale in the two remakes. And that’s not even counting in all the musical numbers! But while the whole “let’s blow up the theatre” thing is amusing and decisive, knowing that there is the potential for so much more to the story, it all just feels like a quick fix. Or at Max puts it in the 2005 film, “a sure fire way to end the show”.

Still, this movie is definitely worth watching, if only for the masterful performance of the cast and as the basis for the very huge success of the film’s two remakes. But discussion on the musical and the second film will have to wait till part two for now. Right now let’s take an intermission. 

Usually the feminine feline foil to Batman’s heroics, the Catwoman of the 2004 film is something quite different to the previously established character with a cult following. Instead, this is a unique story far removed from Selina Kyle, the cat burglar gone bad and the Batman who wants desperately to save her. 

Catwoman brings us the story of Patience Phillips, a dowdy, lonely, mousy little artist who works for the biggest cosmetics company around. One morning she spies a cat out on her window ledge and thinking it stuck, risks her life to climb out and rescue it. A cop who is happening by at the time mistakes her for a jumper and rushes up to her apartment to rescue her. 

After the misunderstanding is cleared up, Patience discovers she is late for work and rushes off, leaving her wallet behind. The police officer, Tom Lone, endeavours to retrieve the wallet and return it to Patience later in the day. The two also arrange a coffee date for the next morning. 

After being blasted by her boss over her work he orders her to redo the entire campaign she is working on. She then misses the courier cut off and has to deliver the work herself by midnight. Trekking to the factory, she stumbles over information she should not have heard – the news that the company’s latest product has some dangerous side effects and should not be put into public circulation! 

Unfortunately, her accidental eavesdropping is discovered and the bad guys decide to eliminate her. After some chasing thru science labs and manufacturing areas, Patience escapes into the water tunnels where she is forcibly flushed thru to the ocean and drowns. Washing up ashore Patience is brought back to life by the breath of the very cat she tried to rescue from her window ledge. 

Following a little searching Patience discovers that she has been reborn as Catwoman and has some extraordinary powers. No longer the dowdy pushover she snaps and quits her job, verbally blasting her unreasonable boss in the process. She spend some time with Tom and then decides to reinvent her imagine in line with her new identity as Catwoman. 

When her best friend is admitted to hospital from a mystery illness, Patience links it to the cosmetics company’s new product and devotes herself to making sure those responsible for killing her and bringing the product out are stopped and made to pay. There’s action, mayhem and double-crossing as well as friction with the bewildered Tom who doesn’t know what to believe about Patience. There’s also lots of Halle Berry pouncing around like a cat, cracking a whip and scratching at people with her claw-like nails. 

The rest of the story isn’t really important because honestly it isn’t all that interesting. As a movie, it’s pretty average as these things go. But given that Catwoman is such an iconic character and a favourite of so many, this movie falls woefully short of the hype that it was first released with. It’s not inherently bad…it’s just not particularly good either. 

Of course there is often little point in rehashing tired old material so the movie should definitely be given its props for trying something new. Catwoman in 2004 doesn’t need the Batman to survive. Indeed as we find out at the end of the movie she doesn’t even need Tom Lone or anyone else to make her whole and bring together her fractured identity. Catwoman gets her own story and isn’t just a lesser character in someone else’s tale. 

Patience herself is a bit of a cliché as are her two friends we are introduced to at the office and their whole friendship dynamic. There isn’t a lot of substance to her, nothing raw enough to make her seem real. I just can’t get past the fact that it’s someone as confident and compelling as Halle Berry sitting there trying to play this downtrodden girl-next-door character. You can’t water down such a vibrant person as Halle and do it convincingly, at least not in this movie. There’s very little there for her to work with as an actor and to proverbially sink her claws into. Personally I would have preferred to see her play Selina Kyle over Patience Phillips. 

The casting of Sharon Stone was brilliant in my opinion. She just fits well into that character, no disrespect indented, but you can imagine that someone as beautiful as her and let’s face it, a little advanced in age now, could easily turn bitter and angry over being pushed over for a younger version. Not to mention the awesome action she gets to exhibit, fighting hand to hand with Catwoman towards the conclusion of the film. 

The cat suit is an interesting take to say the least. Possibly the most flesh the feline femme fatale has ever sported before. I have to be honest, and maybe I’m a little bit prudish but I just don’t like it. It seems the filmmakers were trying to highlight the sinewiness of the physical form of a cat and the way it arches its back and how the limbs shift as it moves around but I just feel that more than a bra and pants would have been better. But I understand that if you are gonna cast someone as hot as Halle in the role then you want to play up the sex appeal as much as possible. Not to say that she doesn’t look good – she does – but I think it was a little bit tacky. Plus maybe I’m biased because I really loved Michelle Pfeiffer’s cat suit from Batman Returns. 

In terms of watchability Catwoman isn’t so bad. But it isn’t so good either. Honestly my first impression was really positive, but then after several viewings the flaws and faults are just painfully apparent. It’s not going to send you screaming for the hills. You can sit and watch the movie from start to finish. I mean the movie was done well; it wasn’t lacking in professionalism at all, but in my opinion it just doesn’t have that lasting spark that will bring viewers back to it time and time again. 

Once in a blue moon, sure. Whack it into the DVD player and lose yourself in some average entertainment for 90 minutes. But this is definitely not a film that is so good you want to watch it over and over again in close proximity.

All I can say is thank goodness they didn’t decide to go ahead with the initially planned sequel. Too bad for Halle. Catwoman is a bit of a blemish on her acting record, which could otherwise have been an enormous triumph and success for her. Still, cats do have nine lives don’t they? Maybe she should have saved one for next Christmas instead of making this flop of a movie. 

Of all the films nominated for Oscars this year many of them are great, in fact, it’s fair to say that most of them are. But how many of them are important? How many of them matter? How many of them have the potential of changing the environment around it? I can think of only one; Gus Van Sant’s “Milk.”

Alive with the fiery, unmistakable spirit of a work of art with something to say; “Milk” is a bold and magnificent chronicling of the life of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the first openly gay man elected to public office in San Francisco back in the late 1970’s. Penn, known to the public for his dour demeanor, absorbs himself completely into the role of Harvey, a man filled to the brim with humor and humanity. To Harvey, politics was a lot like his beloved opera; if you sing loud enough and with enough skill, you’ll get your point across. His point; the equal and civil treatment of homosexuals both in California and the entire country. His opponents, an army of conservative Americans led by the likes of Anita Bryant and California senator John Briggs, intent on continuing the discrimination of gays in America. ; In the process, Harvey ignited a social revolution unlike any the country had ever seen. “My name is Harvey Milk and I’m here to recruit you” he shouts into a megaphone, a phrase that quickly became his most well known. “I know you’re angry!” He tells a mob of gays who’ve put up with enough police beatings to last a lifetime. “I’m angry!” The crowd cheers with a fervor at Milk’s words; you can feel it from your seat.

“Milk” is not a film that shows both sides of the argument. This is a film with an agenda, a message. Van Sant’s filmmaking here is an exhilarating mixture of potent story-telling and breathless gospel-spreading. Not since “Good Night and Good Luck” has a film made me both energized and overwhelmed. “Milk” is not only one of the most well-made films of 2008, the best work Sean Penn has done since “Mystic River” and a worthy addition to the underrated canon of Gus Van Sant; it’s one of the most affective and well-made civil rights films of the decade; one whose relevancy will only grow in hindsight. “Milk” was first released only a week after the passing of Proposition 8, the California ballot that restricted same-sex marriage and it only adds to film’s sense of urgency and earnestness.
But all politics aside, “Milk” is an extraordinary piece of filmmaking worth seeking out and enjoying. It’s a film that’s about something, that stands for something. And it’s the kind of film that’s worth treasuring.

As a kid, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a favourite book of mine. I was a big chocolate hound. I still am and in fact now work for a chocolate company ironically enough. There was something just so magic and wondrous as a kid about the possibility of getting to go into a chocolate factory and play around and then to find out you have won it at the very end. Timeless.

I think that’s why the story of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka and the Golden Tickets and everything has lasted for the last fifty years or so. Every kid wants to go to a wonderful place where all their dreams come true.

Since the book was written in 1964 there have been two major film adaptations made, one in 1971 and another in 2005. The first, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a musical starring Gene Wilder, while the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp was a more serious adaptation with a darker Wonka.

The 1971 film has a really interesting story of genesis. The daughter of the director Mel Stuart read the book and told her father she thought it would make a good movie and that he had to make the movie and get Uncle Dave (David Wolper the producer) to put up the money for it. Wolper was already in talks on a side issue with a cereal company to produce a candy bar and how to advertise it, so he convinced them to call it a Wonka Bar and to make the movie as the perfect marketing ploy.

While not as stringently in line with the book as its successor in 2005, the screenplay for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was actually written by the book’s author Roald Dahl himself, with additional patchwork by David Seltzer. So its interesting to watch in that light, however, according to Wikipedia Dahl didn’t like the final result and therefore didn’t consent to sell the film rights to the book’s sequel.

That not withstanding, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is in my opinion a fantastic film, right up there as one of my all time favourites. I think it’s the heart of the movie that really makes it, and I think that it comes from the characters being so genuine. When you see little Charlie Bucket you can see that he has a really good heart, despite all the hardship he has had to endure as a poor kid.

There’s nothing like rooting for the underdog and Charlie Bucket sure is that. When his job as a paperboy can only afford his starving family a measly loaf of bread to go with their cabbage water soup, you know that there is no likely chance that this little boy could possibly have the means to find a Golden Wonka ticket. But the beauty of film prevails and the stars align just right so that the poor boy’s mighty dreams can come true.

Watching the film now as opposed to when I was a kid, you can tell straight away just how amateurish it all is. You can see the cardboard and tape and coloured balloons and know that it is all fake. But somehow, the fact that it is so real and human helps create an incredible suspension of disbelief when watching the film. Willy Wonka’s world is an immensely fantastic one that as the song says is a creation sprung from pure imagination and I think you need a little bit of that so that you can fully enjoy this world that is being laid out before you. To quote Charlie (how ironic) in The Santa Clause 2, “seeing isn’t believing; believing is seeing”.

This extends not only to the sets of the chocolate factory but the actual locations as well. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job in making it a place that seemed as though it could be anywhere in the world, in any little town and could happen to any simple little boy. The costumes were likewise so real and basic, yet impacting enough that you could tell what the characters were like before they even spoke – Willy Wonka himself being a prime example in that wonderful purple coat and top hat.

Speaking of Mr Wonka, I think Gene Wilder did an enormously fantastic job in playing this role. Certainly one of the best performances he has given throughout his career, particularly since he was not at all a singer before he landed this role. He’s mad and crazy and more than a little scary in some moments but there is also something that is just so sincere and endearing and loveable to this maniac of a man who invents the most impossible things.

But having said all this let us now turn to the second adaptation of Dahl’s book, the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Straight away you can tell that this film is completely different in approach to its predecessor, which I think is a great thing. I remember when it was first announced that this film was going to be made there was a lot of discontent with the idea of trying to recreate the magic and wonder of the original film. Thankfully Tim Burton had enough sense to steer well clear away from this wonderful piece of cinematic history and not therefore corrupt or spoil it in any way.

Instead, he returned back to the source material and went thru it with a fine toothcomb, seeking to get all the little details right and to be as faithful to the original novel as possible. Despite how much I adore the first movie, I really love this aspect of the second one. You can see that Burton has an enormous admiration for the full picture of the world that Dahl created in his book.

I think the fact that filmmaking has come so much further nowadays in terms of special effects than it had back in the 70s is a big contributing factor that makes all this possible. Little things like the tangent of Prince Pondicherry and his palace of chocolate, that only appear for a minute or two in the movie, are so much easier to do logistically and economically these days compared to what they used to be. We can have more and more fantastic sights like the fudge mountain, the pink candy boat, and a single guy playing a thousand little Oompa Loompas in the movies we see today because the technology is there and is common enough that these wonderful things can be placed seamlessly in without any disruption to the unity of the film.

Considerable mention must also be made of the way Johnny Depp really threw himself into the role of Willy Wonka and made it his own. His portrayal couldn’t be further from Gene Wilder’s. The makeup and costuming play a significant part in this, however, it’s the strange delivery and mannerisms that Depp puts into the character that sets him apart as a new Willy Wonka for a new age and a much darker one at that. His comic timing is exemplary and helps to break up the tension that builds in some moments of the film.

Ultimately I think that Roald Dahl’s original book is a great story and a story that is worth telling over and over again. The fact that there are two film adaptations is a strong testament to that. The first one has a real heart to it that I think resonates with every generation to encounter it in some way. I think it really speaks to the child in us all.

The more recent film, on the other hand, is visually more compelling. And while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is much closer in likeness to the book it is based on, nevertheless I think it fails to connect with the broader audience that its precursor does. While the performances are good and the visual effects are stunning, there is just that little quality that is missing from it. Perhaps it’s the pure imagination.

Despite all this I really like both film adaptations, however, the former is my personal preference between the two. Yet Johnny Depp just really cracks me up a lot of the way thru the latter. So, I think that in the end its great that such a marvellous story has been retold in a more modern way so that new audiences can come to love this wonderful story as well. The question is, I guess, will the more recent film have as much staying power? Time will only tell.

P.S: If you ever get a chance, watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with the audio commentary of the five original kids on. A great treat for fans of this film guaranteed.

Hulk Smash! Sorry, had to get that out of the way after viewing the Marvel Universe’s latest animated offering, Hulk Vs, which pits the big green guy against Wolverine and Thor among others.

Just as DC has its animated brain trust (in Bruce Timm we believe) so does Marvel. The two wonder kids of Christopher Yost and Craig Kyle who came to us during the X-Men Evolution animated series (and have never left) are at it again with two very diverse stories featuring the Hulk.

Yost and Kyle are quite clever in crafting two separate tales as neither is a straightforward Hulk-a-palooza with the big guy just wailing away, but you do get those moments.

For fanboys (and you know who you are) picking up this DVD for the Hulk Vs Wolverine slugfest, you will not be disappointed as a good part of the (only) 37-minute long film is the two getting to know one another in the most violent way possible. In fact, I felt a little squeamish a couple of times as no longer did I have to use my imagination with the drawings on the page as the Hulk pummeled away at Wolverine’s head or when the crazy-Canuck stuck his claws in the Hulk’s chest, back or various other body parts. Please note both of the features are rated PG-13 with the Wolverine story being the most violent and graphic.

The story is done in such a way that it really is not as much a Hulk story as it is a Wolverine story. The Hulk just happens to be the catalyst for the events and a tour of it’s a Wolverine/Weapon X life. And there is more as in guest stars galore. I am only going to throw one name out there because his appearance actually made me laugh quite a number of times and that is everyone’s favorite Merc with a Mouth, Deadpool. (Make sure you keep the disc running until after the credits as there is an extra scene at the end with the aforementioned Wade Wilson that will leave you in stitches).

Hulk vs Thor finds the big green guy pulled up in Asgard’s business as Loki (yes) has devised yet another scheme to dethrone his hated step-brother Thor. As with any good Asgard story it has all the usual suspects in Balder, Sif, Enchantress, Odin and Hela to name just a few.

There have not been many animated versions of Thor (and the Ultimates does not count because that is not the God of Thunder) and this one does not disappoint. ‘Tis how I suspected hine to be all along on the animated screen, but I digress…

This time the Hulk and Bruce Banner have more to do in the story as they are not as much the central point but pivotal to everything that is occurring and that will happen. For fans of Asgard, Loki’s role will not disappoint. As for Hulk vs lineup, Thor might not be the one I would have picked, but the story was good and I still got my geek moments out with Wolverine.

I usually beat up Marvel for their animated feature production values on a regular basis. After watching the first two Ultimate movies and Iron Man, I gave up and did not even bother with Dr Strange and Next Avengers. The animation is generally not strong nor is the story telling. Well I guess Marvel is learning from its mistakes because both stories are good and worthy of the characters (and most importantly) my time.

The animation is also strong and there are no throw away background scenes where the drummer’s arms go up and down in the same motion the entire time as in Ultimate Avengers (even the Muppet’s Animal changes up his stride every now and then). There is actually a terrific from the page moment during Wolverine’s fight with the Hulk where you see the Hulk’s enraged face in Wolverine’s claws – most excellent.

So there you have it, two films for the price of one is what you get with this one as the second feature, Hulk vs Thor, clocks in at 45 minutes of running time. That is 122 minutes all told. The length is actually just right as neither story tends to drag (and how could it when its rock-em, sock-em Hulk time?).

Back to the superstar duo of Yost and Kyle, the pair have shepherded along some key Marvel animated projects of late, including the recent Fanatastic Four series (which I liked) and the ongoing Spectacular Spider-Man (which is fun). They are the go-to guys when it comes to bringing Marvel’s heroes to animated life. They do not let us down here, although I can not say the same for their current run on X-Force.

If you know anything about Yost and Kyle’s earlier Marvel claim to fame and how one of their characters became the first Marvel ‘toon to make the jump from the screen to the page (ala Harley Quinn) then pay attention during the Wolverine show, especially when they review the Weapon X lab.

Don’t forget to tip your taxi driver on the way out – Peace!

Captain Wednesday – Your Friendly Neighborhood Comic Dude