Stephanie K
Iscritto in data apr 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi4
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni10
Valutazione di Stephanie K
Don't get me wrong, I was so excited when I initially saw the preview for this movie. I grew up on the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and what made me so pleased about this version was the fact that it looked so different and so original.
Not all of this film was bad, either. I did find the part with the squirrels incredibly funny, as well as Wonka's introduction to the children. I thought the children themselves were very strong performers as well, especially Philip Wiegratz as Augustus. The fact that their characters were a little more fleshed out was also a nice touch. Sadly, that's where the positives of the film end.
My first major problem was with Johnny Depp. I think Depp is a great actor, but his Willy Wonka was more reminiscent of a thirteen year old work experience kid than the eccentric candymaker who revolutionised chocolate. The way Charlie and Grandpa Joe regarded him in awe seemed completely unjustified, because it never was convincing that he created all the bizarre inventions that were depicted so well. I also found his backstory completely irrelevant and annoying. The Oompa Loompas were disappointing as well, with no charm or fascination. I couldn't understand anything they were singing, which is a shame because Dahl's little poems were very funny.
What irritated me so much was that Burton claimed that this version was so much closer to the book, when in fact it was completely corrupted. The original story about a group of unpleasant children being punished in horribly appropriate ways was completely pushed to one side to make room for a theme about family, which relied solely on a little backstory and a few minutes of resolution. The end result is a plot that distracts from the theme, and a theme that distracts from the plot. What makes this even more frustrating is the sugar coated message that is all but hammered into the audience's heads. I can remember being utterly terrified when I watched the original at six and having to hide behind the couch more than once. Yet, despite the dark nature of the movie, I loved it. Every time I put it in the VCR, I would feel a tingle of excitement that came from knowing that I would be scared out of my wits. Kids aren't as fragile as you might think and to give them just another happy message as this movie does accomplishes nothing. It's just like every other kid's movie made and as such will probably not appeal to them in any way. It also goes against the whole nature of Dahl's dark and horrible method of storytelling. I very much doubt this film will stand the test of time as the original does, purely because it fails to distinguish itself in any way.
Really, you're far better off watching the 1970s version. Just make sure that you have a couch you can hide behind.
Not all of this film was bad, either. I did find the part with the squirrels incredibly funny, as well as Wonka's introduction to the children. I thought the children themselves were very strong performers as well, especially Philip Wiegratz as Augustus. The fact that their characters were a little more fleshed out was also a nice touch. Sadly, that's where the positives of the film end.
My first major problem was with Johnny Depp. I think Depp is a great actor, but his Willy Wonka was more reminiscent of a thirteen year old work experience kid than the eccentric candymaker who revolutionised chocolate. The way Charlie and Grandpa Joe regarded him in awe seemed completely unjustified, because it never was convincing that he created all the bizarre inventions that were depicted so well. I also found his backstory completely irrelevant and annoying. The Oompa Loompas were disappointing as well, with no charm or fascination. I couldn't understand anything they were singing, which is a shame because Dahl's little poems were very funny.
What irritated me so much was that Burton claimed that this version was so much closer to the book, when in fact it was completely corrupted. The original story about a group of unpleasant children being punished in horribly appropriate ways was completely pushed to one side to make room for a theme about family, which relied solely on a little backstory and a few minutes of resolution. The end result is a plot that distracts from the theme, and a theme that distracts from the plot. What makes this even more frustrating is the sugar coated message that is all but hammered into the audience's heads. I can remember being utterly terrified when I watched the original at six and having to hide behind the couch more than once. Yet, despite the dark nature of the movie, I loved it. Every time I put it in the VCR, I would feel a tingle of excitement that came from knowing that I would be scared out of my wits. Kids aren't as fragile as you might think and to give them just another happy message as this movie does accomplishes nothing. It's just like every other kid's movie made and as such will probably not appeal to them in any way. It also goes against the whole nature of Dahl's dark and horrible method of storytelling. I very much doubt this film will stand the test of time as the original does, purely because it fails to distinguish itself in any way.
Really, you're far better off watching the 1970s version. Just make sure that you have a couch you can hide behind.
Patti LuPone, the original Eva Peron on Broadway, announced when this film was released that she wouldn't see it. "It looks like a boring piece of s***" she said, and claimed that she would watch it if it had the kind of electricity she had experienced during her run, but that it had none of that. Now, LuPone is a Diva, there's no getting around that fact. As a result, the respect I have for isn't huge, but it's still there. So I'm glad that she still hasn't seen this movie because it undermines everything that makes the stage show such a hit.
Visually, it is stunning. As soon as the music starts, however, and Antonio Banderas begins his mediocre version of "Oh, What a Circus", you'll thank God that you didn't pay what you would to see it on stage. Madonna's lack of talent is highlighted miserably - every song was transposed for her to sing it more comfortably, and she still sounds weak. Her acting is awful as well. If anyone bothers to listen to the lyrics of the songs, they will realise that the intention of the show is not to make Eva Peron seem like a saint as is occasionally the assumption. Yet, this seems to be the central theme of Madonna's portrayal and as a result there is a contradiction between the acting and music, when in actuality they should be enhancing each other. This makes the film difficult to watch at the best of times.
Antonio Banderas is also disappointing. He can carry a tune, certainly, but anyone who has heard David Essex sing the role, or even Michael Ball singing some of it in concert, will realise that carrying a tune does not mean carrying an audience's attention. Che is one of the greatest male parts Lloyd Webber has written, and is hardly done justice here. Speaking of not doing justice, I was also saddened by Jonathan Pryce. He is an amazing performer usually, so I don't know what wrong here. Watch Hey, Mr Producer! if you want to see Pryce doing great musical theatre.
All in all, this is not a movie you want to watch if you love the stage show, or films in general. **/*****, solely for the visuals.
Visually, it is stunning. As soon as the music starts, however, and Antonio Banderas begins his mediocre version of "Oh, What a Circus", you'll thank God that you didn't pay what you would to see it on stage. Madonna's lack of talent is highlighted miserably - every song was transposed for her to sing it more comfortably, and she still sounds weak. Her acting is awful as well. If anyone bothers to listen to the lyrics of the songs, they will realise that the intention of the show is not to make Eva Peron seem like a saint as is occasionally the assumption. Yet, this seems to be the central theme of Madonna's portrayal and as a result there is a contradiction between the acting and music, when in actuality they should be enhancing each other. This makes the film difficult to watch at the best of times.
Antonio Banderas is also disappointing. He can carry a tune, certainly, but anyone who has heard David Essex sing the role, or even Michael Ball singing some of it in concert, will realise that carrying a tune does not mean carrying an audience's attention. Che is one of the greatest male parts Lloyd Webber has written, and is hardly done justice here. Speaking of not doing justice, I was also saddened by Jonathan Pryce. He is an amazing performer usually, so I don't know what wrong here. Watch Hey, Mr Producer! if you want to see Pryce doing great musical theatre.
All in all, this is not a movie you want to watch if you love the stage show, or films in general. **/*****, solely for the visuals.
