The Goonies

Today I would like to go back and take a look at one of the most classic films that is a fan favorite by everyone. I first saw this movie in my Drama class when I was a freshman in high school. I’m of course talking about the 1985 classic, “The Goonies.” This movie is one of those combinations from Steven Spielberg’s action movies. The reason why this is so special is because of the high-energy performances of the child actors who have the adventures. It’s one of those fantasy stories about a buried pirate treasure, told with a slice-of-life approach where these kids use words that Humphrey Bogart didn’t even know when he was in “Casablanca.” Before this movie was released, there were only movies for children and movies for adults. Now Spielberg made something for young teenagers who have a rather difficult liking in horror. He looks over the formula and watches the production, giving the direction to stylish action veterans (this time it’s given to Richard Donner who had already done “Superman: the Movie” and “Ladyhawke”).

“The Goonies” is very much like “Gremlins,” where it walks on a thin line between cheerful and disturbing, and the exact scenes adults will take an objection towards are the ones kids will like the best: Spielberg is congratulating them on their ability to take the heavy material. The movie begins with an ensemble of memorable kids, including a smart kid (Corey Feldman), a kid with braces (the beloved Sean Astin), a fat kid (Jeff Cohen), an older brother (Josh Brolin in his film debut), and an Asian kid (Jonathan Ke Quan) who has his inventions underneath his clothes. Along the way, the boys pick up a couple of girls (Kerri Green and Martha Plimpton), whose function, as Ebert puts it, “is to swap spit and get bats in their hair.” The kids find an old treasure map and wind up breaking in a hideout of a gang of criminals consisting of two brothers (Joe Pantoliano and Robert Davi), led by their mother (Anne Ramsey). The kids manage to escape the tunnel and go looking for this lost treasure, with the criminals following behind them, joined by the third brother of the criminals who was abused, played by John Matuszak. There are lots of special effects and the same dangers that Indiana Jones escaped from in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (falling boulders, sharp spikes), and a sleigh ride on a water chute that will remind you of the cart ride in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”

If the ingredients are familiar from other Spielberg action movies, the kids are also inspired by “E.T. the Extra Terrestrial.” All of you probably remember the single most important line of dialogue from any movie Spielberg made, which was in “E.T.,” which is the part that you can see right here. The dialogue hears and understands the intelligent way kids use vulgarity into their conversations, especially with each other. That line in “E.T.” had such a shock of recognition that laughing it off will remove any objection you were thinking.

In the movie, the kids say the S word a lot, and it is a measure of Spielberg’s view that the word only makes a PG rating for this movie. Undeniably Spielberg argues that most kids talk like that half the time, and he’s correct. His method is to take these kids that are only 13 and 14 and let them act a little older than their actual age. It’s actually nicer than those old Disney methods, which was to take characters of all ages and have them act like they are 12.

Another Spielberg trademark, which was accomplished by Donner, is a breakneck narrative speed. Things seem to happen quicker in this movie than in six ordinary action movies. There’s not just a thrill in only a minute, there’s a thrill, a laugh, a shock, and a special effect. The screenplay has every single one of the kids talking simultaneously every time. Ebert said, “There were times, especially in the first reel, when I couldn’t understand much of what they were saying.” The movie needs to have a higher volume and with extra treble.

Ebert said in his review, “During “Goonies,” I was often exhilarated by what was happening. Afterward, I was less enthusiastic.” The movie is completely manipulative, which would be fine, except that it doesn’t have the lift of a film that “E.T.” had. It has a large amount of energy but not any charm. It uses what it knows about kids to mix them up, while “E.T.” gave them material to think about, the values to enjoy. Like “Gremlins,” “The Goonies” shows that Spielberg and his directors are complete masters of how to get their audiences excited and get in with the story. “E.T.” was just like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” The movie didn’t simply want us to feel, but also wonder and dream.

Here’s an interesting story: Josh Brolin previously had his career goals set on being a lawyer, but in high school he took an improvisation class where his class would erupt into uproarious laughter, which was the hook for him. After high school, he admitted to going to auditions with a resume that he completely made up, and after going through about 300 auditions, he finally got “The Goonies.”

In the end, you have to see this movie because it is a classic that everyone needs to see. Check in tomorrow to see what I will look at next for “Halloween Month.”

Gremlins 1 & 2

Next up for “Halloween Month” are two movies that almost were reviewed last year. I was debating on whether to review these two movies or the “Ghostbusters” movies, but I decided to go with “Ghostbusters” instead, just for the comedic factor since I had done so many movies that would have scared everyone and decided to go for something more light-hearted. However, I won’t miss out on it this year, so let’s get started with the 1984 classic, “Gremlins.”

Roger Ebert described this movie as, “a confrontation between Norman Rockwell's vision of Christmas and Hollywood's vision of the blood-sucking monkeys of voodoo island.” It’s one of those crazy movies, but has an enjoyment to it. I think Ebert said it best in his review with, “On the one hand, you have an idyllic American small town, with Burger Kings and Sears stores clustered merrily around the village square, and on the other hand you have a plague of reprehensible little beasties who behave like a rodent road company of Marlon Brando's motorcycle gang in "The Wild One."”

The whole movie is a cunning series of send-ups, which were influenced by other movie scenarios that are so simple that they will leave a permanent impact with you. Take the opening scenario of the movie which takes place in a small Chinatown shop where the usual rules don’t work and magic does. After Randall Peltzer, played by the late singer Hoyt Axton, buys a Mogwai named Gizmo, voiced by Canadian comedian who is also a judge on “America’s Got Talent,” had a cartoon series in the 90s called “Bobby’s World,” and also hosted “Deal or No Deal,” Howie Mandel, we now have a new pet that we would buy instead of the basic puppy. Of course, this movie has the basic characters that we have seen in just about every movie: Randall, who is the inventor, Sheriff Frank (Scott Brady) who is the typical sheriff, Randall’s clean-cut son Billy (Zach Galligan), his hot girlfriend Kate (Phoebe Cates), the neighbors (Dick Miller and Jackie Joseph) and the grouchy old lady, Ruby Deagle (Polly Holiday). Also, Corey Feldman is in here playing Billy's friend.

The first half of the movie is the best. This is where we meet cute little Gizmo, who Ebert describes as, “a cross between a Pekingese, Yoda from "The Empire Strikes Back," the Ewoks from "Return of the Jedi," and kittens.” He has huge eyes, he’s cuddly and friendly, and looks like he would make a great household pet, except there are three rules that you need to follow: never get a Mogwai wet, never expose them to bright lights, and never feed them after midnight. Obviously it’s always after midnight. That is to say that this isn’t a retread of the classic Spielberg movie “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” but is that it’s from an older tradition, a fairy tale or the magic realm. The second half of the movie shows Billy breaking all three of the rules, making Gizmo multiply and now all of the Mogwais (except for Gizmo) have turned into Gremlins, led by the sinister Stripe, voiced by the great Frank Welker (famous for voice works like Fred in "Scooby Doo," Megatron, Soundwave, Skywarp, Mixmaster, Laserbeak, Buzzsaw, Rumble, Frenzy, Ravage and Ratbat, as well as Autobots Mirage, Trailbreaker, Chromedome and Sludge in 'Transformers," Dr. Claw in "Inspector Gadget," and Ray and Slimer in 'The Real Ghostbusters"), and they look like they resemble the aliens in “Alien.” Even Michael Winslow, best known for his role as Larvelle Jones from the "Police Academy" franchise, is providing the Gremlins vocal effects along with Bob Bergen (the voice of the Looney Tunes character, Porky Pig), Fred Newman, Peter Cullen (best known for voicing Optimus Prime from the "Transformers" cartoon), Mark Dodson, Bob Holt, and Michael Sheehan.

Every monster trick is used in this movie. You have the Gremlins popping up in the foreground, others where they are stalking people in the background, and others where they drop into the frame and make us jump out of our seats. The movie itself becomes very graphic, like the part where Billy’s mom, played by Frances Lee McCain, stabs a Gremlin with a kitchen knife, microwaves another, and kills another in a blender, and when Kate tells Billy why she hates Christmas. Ebert said in his review, “Her story is in the great tradition of 1950s sick jokes, and as for the microwave scene, I had a queasy feeling that before long we'd be reading newspaper stories about kids who went home and tried the same thing with the family cat.”

“Gremlins” was called another “E.T.,” but it’s not. It actually falls into another tradition. When you put it on the scale of Serious Film Criticisms, it’s a reflection on the myths in our movies: Christmas, families, monsters, retail stores, movies, and even the boogeyman. This is a difficult, amusing B movie where the monsters are eating not only the defenseless town, but the years of defenseless clichés. I would advise not to go if you still believe in Santa Claus.

I know everyone might be thinking why I decided to review “Gremlins” this month when I should have saved it for December as a Christmas movie review, but I think it fits more for Halloween. If you want to watch it around Christmastime, be my guest. Definitely watch this movie if you haven’t, but bear in mind, it’s a really crazy movie. If you remember when I said that “Temple of Doom” was rated PG but was pushing an R rating, “Gremlins” also had that same problem. However, thank Mr. Spielberg for creating the PG-13 rating after that.

But what can be said about the sequel, “Gremlins 2: The New Batch,” released in 1990? Frankly, it’s average, kind of stupid, but is also in the same vain as the first one. Like I said how the first movie was like a reflection on movie myths, like Christmas, small towns, and things that will jump out and give you a fright, it was a superior B movie and a lot of fun. The sequel is a reflection on sequels and, like a handful of sequels out there, it’s a dull imagination on the original. It does have some laughs and some of the special effects are nice, but the movie crammed too many gremlins in here and didn’t really have a story line.

Before I continue, I would just like to remind everyone that Gremlins are the dangerous alter-egos of the cuddly, friendly creatures called Mogwais. They’re cute and look like household pets that you would want, except there are two rules which are never get them wet and never feed them after midnight. When you do feed them after midnight, they turn into little monsters like the ones you saw in “Alien,” and when you get them wet, they multiply faster than a rabbit proliferates.

In the first movie, Gremlins were terrorizing a small town in Kingston Falls, N.Y. In the sequel, Billy and Kate have moved to the big city, where now they got jobs working for a man named Daniel Clamp, played by the great John Glover. Clamp, who looks like a mutated combination of Donald Trump and Ted Turner, if you could do that, owns cable networks, financial concerns, and a giant, automated tower which was built so tall, planes that pass make quite a sound in his office. His corporate symbol, which I have to admit is funny, is a flattened globe between the clamped teeth of the letter C.

Clamp wants to evict the owner of the shop in Chinatown, played by the late Keye Luke, (the shop where Gizmo came from) because Clamp wants to build a Chinatown trade center. But when the owner dies and a bulldozer comes in and tears the shop down, luckily Gizmo escapes and is taken inside Clamp Tower by Don Stanton (who plays a double role in this one), where he gets wet and the others are fed after midnight, spawning a vicious breed of Gremlins. Frank Welker comes back in here voicing Mohawk, and Tony Randall voices the Brain Gremlin. This time we have different types of Gremlin, like a Spider Gremlin, a Female Gremlin, a Bat Gremlin, a vegetable Gremlin, a "Phantom of the Opera" Gremlin and even an Electric Gremlin.

Ebert is right when he says, “At about this point, if not sooner, the movie abandons all pretense of telling a story, and becomes a series of gags. Some of them are funny, some are near-misses, some fall flat, and who can debate what's funny, anyway?” I will say that I did enjoy Christopher Lee in this movie as Dr. Catheter, who is a disease collector and gene manipulator. The great Robert Prosky does a great job as Grandpa Fred, the host of one of Clamp’s television programs. Glover, who can play a great villain easily in a comedy as well as in a drama, has a lot of fun with this role. Also, Hulk Hogan makes a cameo appearance in this movie. Also, just like in the first movie, Kate tells Billy why she is afraid of Abraham Lincoln because of what happened to her on Lincoln's Birthday, which this time is played for laughs.

Eventually, the movie becomes very predictable. We’ve seen the first movie, we know the Gremlins are going to pop up and scare everyone, and we know that there will be a similar gruesome scene (if you remember the mom microwaving the Gremlin in the first movie, that gets topped with a Gremlin being put through a paper shredder). We know that Billy and Kate are going to try and convince everybody about the Gremlins, and we know that this sequel was only made to cash in on the first movie. Ebert ended his review by saying, “It's brainless summer fun, but you know what? I'd just as soon think, even in the summertime.”

In the end, if you want to watch the sequel, be my guest, but like I said, it’s not as good as the first. For years I have been hearing about a third movie being possibly made, but now I am hearing that they are talking with Spielberg to get the rights to reboot the franchise. I don't see why you should reboot it, but if you plan to get Howie Mandel back to voice Gizmo in the remake, then I'll be fine. Well, thanks for joining in today. Stay tuned tomorrow for the next entry in “Halloween Month.”

The Shining

Today we’re going to get into the really scary stuff. This day will be dedicated to one of the greatest directors who ever lived, Stanley Kubrick, and one of the greatest films that ever came on screen, “The Shining,” released in 1980. In all of the possible way imaginable, Stanley Kubrick gives enough space. Each carefully collected border of “The Shining” is designed to breathe aggression into its area. From his deep focus angles on the difficult extensive, light office where struggling writer Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) loses his sanity, to the iconic camera shots following his son Danny (Danny Lloyd) down endless corridors.

Kubrick fans will say that he put together the most accurate look on outer space when he made “2001: A Space Odyssey,” so I guess it would come as no surprise to everyone when he used the same soundtrack some 12 years later in “The Shining.” Emma Dibdin said in her review of the movie, “The remote, snowbound Overlook Hotel might just as well be a spaceship; existing as it does in an impenetrable vacuum that makes either coming or going close to physically impossible, its inhabitants left to stew in their own neuroses.”

After all these years of this movie being around, “The Shining” still holds up very well today with its bone-chilling horror. Few of the horror classics are able to not be called “dated,” but Kubrick’s limited special effects, psychological harshness and relative disinterest in the horror genre was a big help to him. For anything supernatural in the movie, this is a story about a struggling family with a former alcoholic jerk to us debating on him seeing people in the bar, and it’s just as frightening now as it must have been when it was first released.

Stephen King hated Kubrick’s adaptation on this novel, so much so to call Nicholson’s performance for being over the top that it took away all of Jack Torrance’s character dimensions. It’s true that this performance is one of the scariest performances ever on screen, and one that Nicholson will be forever known for. Even when Torrance was being interviewed as the caretaker for the hotel during the winter, he had that look like he was going to go nuts. Dibdin specified that “the point isn't to create suspense around the possibility of violent madness, so much as to set it up as an inevitable destination.” At the point when the hotel owner, played by Barry Nelson, warns Jack that the previous caretaker went crazy and murdered his family with an axe, we have no idea where he’s going with this.

Dibdin mentions, “And so Nicholson's perma-maniacal turn fits right into this sense of predestined doom; his Jack is not an everyman destroyed by circumstance, but a powder keg.” The question that you will be asking is whether you want to see this as psychological (like when he’s naturally unstable and inclined to violence) or supernatural (look at the scene when Philip Stone’s character Grady says, “always been the caretaker at Overlook” and is required to do the same violent act).

This is what Dibdin said about the re-release of the movie, “Certainly looking at the new footage, which was always included on the US release but cut in Europe, it's the psychological reading that holds up. There's more backstory all around on the Torrance family; a child psychologist examines Danny after his first vision, we hear more about both Jack's violent episode and his drinking problem, and Shelley Duvall gets more time to play notes besides shrieking hysteria. In fact, Duvall's oft-maligned performance holds up spectacularly well and Wendy isn't anywhere near as shrill or inept as you remember her.” That’s right, Shelley Duvall plays Jack’s wife. Also, Scatman Crothers, the same man who voiced Jazz from the Transformers cartoon and Hong Kong Phooey, is in this movie as the chef.

The parts which still are scary to this very day are ones that don’t even further the plot at all, like the blood coming out of the elevators, REDRUM being written on the door (which is Murder spelled backwards), the ghost of the twin girls, played by Lisa and Louise Burns, Nicolson’s famous cutting the door with an axe and saying “Here’s Johnny!,” even the music which adds to the scare value. With 2001, Kubrick didn’t use a lot of the electronic score for “The Shining,” but instead used the Eastern Europe classical music to create an equally irresistible sense of hostility. Didbin said in her review, “ghostly strings segueing sickeningly into industrial rumbling and whistling drones.”

Like the film itself, it’s a harsh, disturbing and occasionally pretentious combination that succeeds on a strange kind of beauty thanks to perfect construction. Whether or not you want to watch the re-cut, “The Shining” remains one of the most intuitively disturbing films made.

I know this will come as a surprise to everyone, but I wasn’t scared by this movie. I was laughing the entire time when I was watching it, but if you get scared, I understand. You should definitely check this film out, as it still holds up very well today. I would rate this film with a solid 10, hands down, as it is one of the best in the genre.

Stay tuned tomorrow to see what I will review next for “Halloween Month.”

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Next up in "Halloween Month" is the 1975 film that is considered a classic, but I didn't get when I watched it, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." What's strange is that this was a stage production that could have been best left alone if it remained a stage production and wasn't adapted into a movie. The choreography, the compositions and especially the cast's attitudes are evident of a stage atmosphere. With this said, the laughter and the need for the audience only would make sense if the cast were on stage as opposed to watching it in a movie theater.

Still, the movie does have its moments and does do a good job. Like I probably already stated, it's just one of those movies that is hard to explain, and Roger Ebert said that you would have to use a handful of hyphens to explain it. The movie is about a pair of newlyweds, Janet and Brad (one of the most famous actresses Susan Sarandon and Barry Bostwick), who walk into a palace after getting a flat tire in the rain. They apparently walk right into people doing the time warp dance where the annual Transylvanian Convention is being held. The ruler of this palace is the ever scary looking Dr. Frank N Furter, who is, as he puts it, a transvestite from the planet Transsexual in a galaxy called Transylvanian (the famous song from this movie).

This stuns the newlyweds, which you can't blame them for, and before you know it, Dr. Furter reveals his new creation, who is macho man named Rocky Horror, played by Peter Hinwood. Ebert even stated in his review, "He has some experiments in mind that would have appalled the original Dr. Frankenstein, not to mention Janet and Brad." Meanwhile, the couple is introduced to the other residents in this palace, including a hunchback named Riff Raff (Richard O'Brien), his sister Magenta (Patricia Quinn) who is his lover and other members that are just too eccentric to even mention.

Ebert said in his review, "As we recall from the original "Frankenstein," not to mention "Young Frankenstein," not every monster turns out to be a success." What he means to say is that Dr. Furter had a couple of patients that are still lurking around the palace, including a biker named Eddie, played by rock star Meat Loaf, who breaks through the walls because he seems to have something against doors and you might look at him thinking of Hulk in leather. Janet and Brad seem to get into the convention and before you know it, everyone seems to be getting in line to be with Rocky Horror.

Dr. Furter is played by Tim Curry, who had this role in London and Los Angeles. You could say that he is the best part of the movie, but that's probably because he is having a lot of fun with this role, as he does with every role that he plays. He's also the only one that could hold his own, which is more than you can say for the other actors playing Transylvanian residents that just seemed to be pulled on screen during the musical numbers and look like they are in the wrong movie. Who cares, until the climactic moment where everyone is thrown into outer space, Dr. Furter keeps you entertained, even if you are crept out by his appearance.

Overall, like I have already said, I don't really get this movie, but if you like it, than by all means you seem to understand something that I'm not. Whatever the case might be, if you want to check this out, be my guest, but I don't really recommend it. Stay tuned tomorrow to see what I will review next for "Halloween Month."

Willy Wonka (Charlie) and the Chocolate Factory

For today’s entry on “Halloween Month,” I think I will review another one of my all time favorite movies, the 1971 classic, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Everyone might be wondering the same thing like they must have with “The Wizard of Oz.” There is some stuff in here that does have a scare value in it.

I agree with the late Roger Ebert when he said in his review:

Kids are not stupid. They are among the sharpest, cleverest, most eagle-eyed creatures on God's Earth, and very little escapes their notice. You may not have observed that your neighbor is still using his snow tires in mid-July, but every four-year-old on the block has, and kids pay the same attention to detail when they go to the movies. They don't miss a thing, and they have an instinctive contempt for shoddy and shabby work. I make this observation because nine out of ten children's movies are stupid, witless, and display contempt for their audiences, and that's why kids hate them. Is that all parents want from kids' movies? That they not have anything bad in them? Shouldn't they have something good in them -- some life, imagination, fantasy, inventiveness, something to tickle the imagination? If a movie isn't going to do your kids any good, why let them watch it? Just to kill a Saturday afternoon? That shows a subtle kind of contempt for a child's mind, I think.

This is just an introduction to an undeniably fact: “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is quite possibly the best film of its kind since “The Wizard of Oz.” It claims to be a family movie, but it’s not entirely: Delightful, funny, scary, exciting, and most importantly, an authentic work of imagination. “Willy Wonka” is without a doubt an indisputably and wonderfully spun fantasy that works on every level, and it is fascinating because, like any classic fantasy, it is fascinated with itself.

It’s based on the famous Roald Dahl children’s book, and it was published by the Quaker Oats Company as a test in providing high-quality family entertainment, which it accomplished. It doesn’t cut corners and go for poor shortcuts like Disney. The cast is top-notch (Comedian Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, the CEO of the chocolate factory, Peter Ostrum as Charlie, the protagonist we all root for, and Jack Albertson as his Grandpa Joe who is his chaperone when he goes to Wonka’s factory), a wonderful production, and legitimate imagination.

The story, like all good fantasies, is about an incidental journey. Willy Wonka is a world-renowned chocolate manufacturer, and he hides five golden tickets in his chocolate bars that will win those five winners a trip to his chocolate factory and a lifetime supply of chocolates. Each ticket goes to a kid, who is required to have an adult chaperone with them, and Charlie (the poor newspaper boy who supports four grandparents (Franziska Liebing, Ernst Ziegler, Dora Altmann, and Albertson) and his mother, played by Diana Sowle) wins the last one.

The other four kids you will instantly hate once you see them, and they call come to a sad, but you know what would happen to them, end. One (Michael Bollner) falls into a chocolate lake and is sucked into one of the pipes and shot into the bowels of the factory. Another (Denise Nickerson) eats a gum that plumps her up and has to be taken to get squeezed, a spoiled girl (Julie Dawn Cole) falls down a shaft, and the last one (Paris Themmen) is clumsy enough to try Wonka’s new teleportation invention, and is shrunk down to six inches. Will the taffy machine bring him back to his actual height? If these fates seem scary enough to you, think about how all the great children’s books are a little scary, from the Grimm Brothers to Alice in Wonderland to Snow White, even the Mother Goose ones. Ebert says to everyone, “Kids are not sugar and spice, not very often, and they appreciate the poetic justice when a bad kid gets what's coming to him.”

Also, look at the man, played by Günter Meisner, who talks to each winner after they get the golden ticket and the famous boat sequence in the tunnel where Wonka starts singing, then talking, then finally shouting with scary images in the back.

All of this aside, it’s a great movie for you to watch if you haven’t seen it yet. I have to give this film a solid 10 since it’s one of my favorites.

However, much like with “Planet of the Apes,” Tim Burton was the victim of making another horrendous remake, which I had the misfortune of seeing in the theaters back in 2005. The story of Willy Wonka was already done, and done right. The original, like I pointed out, was a classic but aside from Gene Wilder’s memorable performance, I could see room for improvement. However, Burton’s remake misses the mark and isn’t an upgrade, especially since he dragged one of the most beloved actors, Johnny Depp, with him.

This remake, titled “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” is the story of Willy Wonka, the weird candy man, whose teeth look like the ones from the Crest Whitestrips commercials. His skin is even whiter than his teeth. I wonder if Michael Jackson was Depp’s makeup artist in this, because he looked creepy. After this movie came out, everyone was comparing how Johnny Depp looked like Michael Jackson in this movie, especially since Depp looked like he was enjoying watching the Oompa Loompas dance around. I think I gave away that Depp is playing Wonka in this remake, the owner of the best chocolate factory in London. No one goes in, but chocolate goes out. Until one day when Wonka decides to run a contest where five children have to find golden tickets in chocolate bars to win the chance in getting into the factory. One of them is Charlie Bucket, played by Freddie Highmore, a poor child of high proper nature.

So the five winners enter in the factory, which Joshua Tyler describes it as “not so much a factory as it is an eternally edible Neverland.” Willy Wonka is a hideous looking guy and the boss of the Oompa Loompas, all played by Deep Roy. Things start getting freaky when all the kids (Philip Wiegratz, Jordan Fry, Julia Winter, and AnnaSophia Robb) start to disappear, and Wonka looks like he is enjoying it.

The problem is that screenwriter John August translated a huge chunk of the Roald Dahl’s novel but didn’t get any of the magic. Tyler says, “Instead, the script inexplicably becomes lost in a Freudian exploration of the irrelevant history of Willy Wonka through disjointed flashbacks.” Those flashbacks tell the audience that Wonka hates his father, played by the great Christopher Lee, but isn’t this movie supposed to be about Charlie? It would have been acceptable if Wonka was an interesting character, but Depp’s version of the character makes him look like a statue that stands around looking creepy. Tyler even described him as, “When he speaks, it's as if he's a robot being run by remote at the hands of an Oompa Loompa with Down's syndrome.” He’s not only creepy, he’s stupid, and none of the intelligence of Wonka we got from the book and on film that we loved is found here. Depp is wooden and lethargic, hiding beneath his hat as if the costume itself is enough to give someone who should be a lively and magical ringmaster.

By the end of the movie, Burton completely forgets about Charlie and the chocolate, and instead leaves it to Wonka to complain about his father. It’s a good thing the Oompa Loompas are hilarious with good song numbers and great dance moves. Tyler said in his review, “The film is split up and stilted; it's only the promise of more Oompa Loompa that makes it bearable.”

Maybe I’m being too hard on the movie, because it does have its moments. You’ll find a funny line or two in Wonka’s imagination. The line “Don’t touch that squirrel’s nuts!” is that kind of throwaway line you’ll probably say the next day out of pure random. Also, when he’s not overusing the CGI, Burton still has that unique visual style. Even though some of the production design looks interesting, it’s also motionless, as the characters barely get to interact with it. Come to think of it, the fat kid does eat the grass. Mostly this remake is based on underdeveloped characters standing around not even reacting to while the reactions of other things happen around them. Despite occasional moments of fun, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is lost and that can’t be excusable.

Well, it’s a good thing I got that remake out of the way. Stay tuned tomorrow to see what I will review next for “Halloween Month.”

Little Shop of Horrors (1960 and 1986)

For the second entry in “Halloween Month” I thought that I would look at “The Little Shop of Horrors.” I’m not sure how many people know this, but there is a 1960 black comedy version, even though I already know that a lot of people are familiar with the more popular 1986 musical. But how is the 1960 version? Here are my thoughts:

Charles B. Griffith wrote a handful of screenplays for Roger Corman, but he found his niche when he discovered his talent in black comedies, which in turn gave birth to “The Little Shop of Horrors.” Jonathan Haze plays Seymour, who is an employee at Mushnik’s flower shop on skid row. He has a crush on his co-worker Audrey, played by Jackie Joseph, and manages to interest her when he creates a plant he named “Audrey Jr.” Things turn out horribly wrong when the plant is thirsty for blood, which causes Seymour to go out and bring corpses back to the shop for “Audrey Jr.,” who keeps saying “feed me!” (Griffith voices the plant). There are a handful of strange coincidences, like when Seymour accidentally kills a man when he needs some blood. Also, the movie only has several jokes that it constantly uses over and over again, like Seymour’s mother (Myrtle Vail) is a hypochondriac, meaning she eats medicine for every meal, and one of the shop’s customers (Dick Miller) eats flowers. The dentist (John Herman Shaner) appears for a long sequence, but he does very little for the film, and two cops (Wally Campo and Jack Warford) are also in for once in a while and narrate the film in a deadpan clip. Mushnik, played by Mel Welles, is the typical Jewish stereotype, whose only concern is money. Jack Nicholson has a cameo appearance as a guy who loves going to the dentist, and thanks to Roger Corman, he launched his career into the famous actor we all know today. Jeffrey M. Anderson was right in his review when he said, “Aside from all this surface nonsense, there's something interesting about the film (perhaps all the emphasis on eating and mouths).” Corman gives the movie a good feeling and it moves at a pretty quick pace making it harmless and fun.

So if you haven’t seen this version, definitely give it a watch. It’s not a bore to watch, but actually an interesting movie that you should see for Halloween.

But what can be said about the more famous 1986 musical version? You really want to know my thoughts? Ok, here it is:

Roger Ebert admitted, “At a time when so many movies show such cold-blooded calculation, here's one heedless enough to be fun."Little Shop of Horrors" arrives with enough baggage to make it into a thoroughly timid project - what is less likely to make a fresh movie than a long-running stage hit? - and yet the movie has the offhand charm of something that was concocted over the weekend.”

This isn’t only a musical comedy, but also a variety show of sorts: Cameo appearances are made by comedians Bill Murray, James Belushi, and John Candy, and Steve Martin almost steals the show as the motorcycle-riding dentist. But at the core of the movie is a basic likeness, an innocence that goes out to the centerpiece of the movie, which is the man-eating plant Audrey II.

The plant all of a sudden arrives at the flower shop window, crashing on Earth from another planet. It instantly starts to grow, look around for itself, attract attention, and get an appetite for human blood. It also changes the lives of the three workers of the flower shop: the shop assistant, Seymour (Rick Moranis), the salesclerk, Audrey (Ellen Greene), and their boss Mr. Mushnik (Vincent Gardenia). Ebert mentions, “Suddenly, they have the sort of fame thrust on them that is usually reserved for lottery winners and people who survive freak accidents.”

There are all kinds of people with ideas of what to do with the plant, and others who want nothing to do with it. The movie uses those people as their material for kind satire and large comedy, and there’s the feeling that the movie is funny with just about anything it thinks up. There is the famous romance between Seymour and Audrey, who must get her away from her fiancé, the dentist, who also gives her cold stares.

Meanwhile, Audrey II, voiced by Levi Stubbs (who also voiced Mother Brain on “Captain N: The Game Master”), grows at a fast rate, feasting on the blood of both Seymour and the other corpses he brings to the plant. This fast growth of the plant was obviously one of the highlights of the stage show this movie was based on, and the movie’s Audrey II, designed by Lyle Conway and directed by the great Frank Oz, is a phenomenon of technique. The plant actually does sound like it has a personality and is amazingly succeeded during the musical scores.

Moranis has developed a personality in this movie, which is somewhat surprising like with the success of Audrey II’s design. Ebert mentioned, “After being typecast as a nerd on SCTV and in such limited and predictable films as "Strange Brew," he emerges here as a shy, likable leading man in the Woody Allen mode.” The movie sometimes makes his role look really simple. But he has a lot to work on for the show and has most of the conversations with the plant, and without him the movie may not have been worth the watch.

Greene repeats her New York and London role as the human Audrey, and by now the wide-eyed blond has become second nature. Her famous song, “Suddenly Seymour,” has the boldness of a Broadway show-stopper even while deflating it with satire.

The show is also narrated by a musical commentary given by a Supremes-looking trio (Tichina Arnold, Tisha Campbell and Michelle Weeks), that go around the flower shop’s inner-city neighborhood with a message of hope that looks as though it’s optimistic, inspired as it is by the human-eating plant, but fits right in with the movie’s light-heartedness.

All of the imaginations of “Little Shop of Horrors” are succeeded with a cool, relaxed charm. The movie doesn’t milk the jokes or insist on its skillful special effects, but dedicates its energies to appearing unforced and delighted. The laughs, when they are in the movie, are hilarious (such as the payoff to Martin’s huge number), but the quiet romantic moments are allowed to have their shy innocence.

Ebert ended his review by saying, “This is the kind of movie that cults are made of, and after "Little Shop" finishes its first run, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it develop into a successor to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," as one of those movies that fans want to include in their lives.”

In the end, this is one of those times where I like the remake over the original, if you would like to call this a remake. If you haven’t seen these movies, I would say check them both out, but you don’t have to see the original first to get the remake. You can watch the remake and get the story just fine, and may have a more enjoyable time with it than the original.

Check in tomorrow for the continuation of “Halloween Month.”