It might be wise to note "SPOILERS" here and have a LJ-cut, Austin, as some folks have not yet seen the movie.
I had the same sort of experience with Charlie. I still think I like the Gene Wilder version better, but this one was suitable, enjoyable, truer to the book in moments and updated well. The kids overall have a more modern sensibility, and are as less trusting of Willie Wonka as he is untrusting of them.. except for Augustus Gloop, who was very similar to the original movie's.
This movie felt rather underfocused on Charlie, yes. I think in the first movie, you understood him better, felt his frustrations. "Just in case you think I'm going to win it, I'm not!" This movie's Charlie is subsumed, almost too well-behaved. He wouldn't have tried the Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
All the oompa-loompas being.. well.. one guy... that was surreal. I'm not yet certain if it was good or bad, but it did make for some funny moments. And Christopher Lee in both Star Wars:ROTS and Charlie in the same year is too much character confusion for me.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-05 05:50 pm (UTC)I had the same sort of experience with Charlie. I still think I like the Gene Wilder version better, but this one was suitable, enjoyable, truer to the book in moments and updated well. The kids overall have a more modern sensibility, and are as less trusting of Willie Wonka as he is untrusting of them.. except for Augustus Gloop, who was very similar to the original movie's.
This movie felt rather underfocused on Charlie, yes. I think in the first movie, you understood him better, felt his frustrations. "Just in case you think I'm going to win it, I'm not!" This movie's Charlie is subsumed, almost too well-behaved. He wouldn't have tried the Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
All the oompa-loompas being.. well.. one guy... that was surreal. I'm not yet certain if it was good or bad, but it did make for some funny moments. And Christopher Lee in both Star Wars:ROTS and Charlie in the same year is too much character confusion for me.
--Chiaroscuro