Dick Tracy (1990) - Comic to Movie #16

"You know, Tracy, for a tough guy you do a lot of pansy things."

Director 
Warren Beatty

Cast

Warren Beatty - Dick Tracy

Al Pacino - 'Big Boy' Caprice

Charlie Korsmo - The Kid

Madonna - Breathless Mahoney

Glenne Headly - Tess Trueheart

Dustin Hoffman - Mumbles

William Forsythe - Flattop

Charles Durning - Chief Brandon

Seymour Cassel - Sam Catchem

James Keane - Pat Patton

When Disney, via Touchstone Pictures, released the movie "Dick Tracy" in 1990, it was promoted everywhere. The movie, directed by Warren Beatty, was treated like the next big blockbuster following Tim Burton's "Batman" which came out the year before. The movie has an all-star cast with Beatty taking the lead role. And it has a soundtrack starring Madonna. Surely that's enough to make a huge hit. 

The yellow trench coat wearing, no nonsense, crime fighting, chili eating detective was created by cartoonist Chester Gould. The comic strip "Dick Tracy" premiered in the Detroit Mirror newspaper on October, 4 1931. 

In the strip, Tracy faces a wide-ranging rogues gallery of distinctly strange gangsters like Flattop, Itchy, the Stooge, Shoulders, Pruneface, Johnny Ramm, Nails, Little Face, Influence, Mumbles, 88 Keys... the list is long. These villains each have strange and unique appearances, quarks, and distinct peculiarities. Characters like these show that crime is just as ugly on the outside as it is on the inside. 

Not only does Tracy sport his famous yellow coat and Fedora, he also wears a two-way wrist watch which he uses to communicate with the police department.
Incidentally, I started this broken chain of "comic to movie" movie reviews with the early Dick Tracy film, "Dick Tracy, Detective" (1945). That movie is the first of a four-part installment of film-noir pulp style films. It's followed by "Dick Tracy vs. Cueball" (1946), "Dick Tracy's Dilemma" (1947) and "Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" (1947) which stars Boris Karloff. 
I've played with the idea of reviewing these other films.  And now that I'm throwing in this "Dick Tracy" movie, I'm leaning towards foregoing commentary on those early Tracy movies. Time will tell.
As I've previously mention on this blog, the comic-based movies I initially wanted to review for this thread are still hard to come by. Some, I have to pay for through streaming services. I don't want to get into that habit. Others I just can't find. Earlier adaptations such as Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, and Flash Gordon are multi-episode serials. I found a bunch of those, but I just need time watch them all. So, once again, I'm straying off my list (and I do have a handwritten list) of "not-so-popular" or "off-the-radar" comic book movies to blog about.
"Dick Tracy" is a movie I've liked since I first saw it back in 1990. I even dressed as Dick Tracy for Halloween that year. I was in second grade at that time. Mom packed my lunches back then in my Dick Tracy lunchbox. And I still have the Dick Tracy action figures which came out in time for the movie. They're all proudly displayed on a bookshelf at home as they somehow survived being thrown away. 
I've talked about this movie before on this blog where I tossed a few talking points around rather than give it a proper critique.
The film starts as a young street kid (Charlie Korsmo) rummages through a garbage can outside a warehouse looking for food. 
He hears a commotion inside, and sneaks in to see what's going on. He stumbles upon a group of mobsters playing a game of cards.
As he spies on them, possibly hoping to get his hands on some of the cash they have on the table, a car crashes through the doors and showers bullets onto the unexpecting card party. 

Warren Beatty in "Dick Tracy."

Once they're all dead, two gangsters, Flattop (William Forsythe) and Itchy (Ed O'Ross), get out of the car, tommy guns still in hand. They both work for crime boss, Al "Big Boy" Caprice (Al Pacino). 

The Kid, as he's later called, escapes without harm into the night. 
The massacre is part of Big Boy's ultimate goal to take over small businesses in the city, and grow in power. Taking out rival gangs and making sure police and officials are kept in his back pocket is crucial. 
Next, he kidnaps rival crime boss, "Lips" Manlis (Paul Sorvino), and his girlfriend Breathless Mahoney (Madonna). Lips owns the popular night spot, the Club Ritz, where Breathless works as a singer. 

Big Boy has them taken down to the docs where he forces Lips at gunpoint to sign over the Club Ritz to him, and then bumps him off by giving him "the bath."
It's not as pleasant as it sounds.

With one rival gone, Big Boy declares all of Lips's territory now belongs to him, and everyone who works for Lips is now working for him. 
Dick Tracy begins investigating the whereabouts of Lips. He starts with interrogating Flattop and Itchy. He also finds evidence that places Breathless Mahoney at the docs where Lips was killed.
Tracy tries to persuade her to testify against Big Boy. She's torn, however. Breathless falls in love with him, but is worried what Big Boy will do to her if she testifies. 
Also, Tracy stumbles upon the Kid as he steels a man's watch inside a diner and tries to run off. 

He follows the boy down to a ramshackle little shed where he presumably lives with an abusive bum who goes by "the Tramp." 
Tracy beats up this bum after he pushes the Kid around. The Kid soon warms up to Tracy and sees him as a hero 
Outside of work, Tracy wants to start a family with his girlfriend, Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly) but can't get himself to propose. She, however, thinks Tracy cares more about his job than about her. Being a cop is extremely demanding.

Since Big Boy can't buy off Tracy, he ruthlessly does what he can to get Tracy out of his way - permanently. 

A mysterious mobster with no face (literally) appears on the crime scene and hatches a plan to get Tracy out of the way. 

"The Blank," as he's called, gets to Big Boy's piano player, 88 Keys (Mandy Patinkin) in order to talk to Big Boy on his behalf. After some persuading, Big Boy goes along with the Blank's scheme. The plan is to kill the corrupt District Attorney, John Fletcher (Dick Van Dyke), and pin it on Tracy who'll then end up in jail.

Tracy continues to pursue Big Boy. And when he puts Big Boy's right-hand henchman, Mumbles (Dustin Hoffman), under the interrogation light, he finds that Mumbles has a lot to say. It's just a matter of understanding what it is he's saying.
The big selling point for this movie was its huge all-star cast such Al Pacino, Warren Beatty, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, William Forsythe, Dick Van Dyke, and Paul Sorvino. There's also an array of notable cameos -Catherine O'Hara (Texie Garcia), James Caan (Spaldoni), and Kathy Bates (Mrs. Green). 

There's no other comic-based movie I've seen that matches the atmosphere and style of "Dick Tracy." 
You can pause any moment in this movie, and it looks like a comic panel with all its vibrant colors, creative framing, mood, and stylized dialogue of the 1930s and 1940s. The use of light and dark also gives the film its true comic book feel. This movie has no dull scenes. Not one! 
The matte drawings, and the universe this story exists in, is amazing and impressive. There's a lot for the eyes to take in, scene by scene. It's like a film noir that takes advantage of the best modern production quality that Disney could offer at the time. 

It's soundtrack adds to that element. The opening musical score, composed by Danny Elfman, is a regimental commanding piece complimented with radio chatter about brazen gang activity taking place throughout the city. No one is safe out there. 
Where the movie lacks with most audiences, I think, is with the story. It's a bit lackluster but it does fit in with the types of stories found in the Dick Tracy comic strip. I don't think it transitions well enough onto a film platform. 

It's not a bad nor even an uninteresting story. It simply doesn't jump out and grab audiences like other crime movies. There's some action, and a huge gun fight in the last act with tommy guns going non-stop. But it's not enough. 

Many of the characters aren't fleshed out well enough, either. While there's no back stories (not that there needs to be any), and Dick Tracy is already well established within his world, a lot of the characters aren't as interesting as they could be. For instance, 88 Keys, the piano player at the Club Ritz, plays a pivotal role in trying to get Big Boy Caprice to go along with the plans of the Blank. But he's a completely forgettable character. He's simply there because someone has to be. 

Mandy Patinkin and Al Pacino in "Dick Tracy."

The most lively among them is Pacino. He plays his character as unpredictable, and as one hell of a loudmouth. He misquotes historical figures and spews out verbose lectures. Yet Pacino pulls off an intimidating villain rather well. 
In one scene were Big Boy calls all the crime bosses of the city together to partner up and take out Tracy, he grows frustrated the more they question him. He starts slamming the table as his voice grows louder to the point where he's shouting. 

"You get behind me, we all profit. You challenge me, we all go down! There was one Napoleon, one Washington, one me!"

Madonna is the biggest mistake in the movie. Not only is her performance lazy and boring, but she brings nothing but trash to her performance. I understand her character is supposed to be a gorgeous club singer. But even a gorgeous club singer can have class. Madonna has none. She simply works to flaunt herself and be as sexually deviant as Touchstone will allow her. She's the major stain on this otherwise good movie. 
I think the storyline and character development are the reason why the Dick Tracy hype quickly faded into footnote shortly after the movie's release. Many of the characters are only memorable because of their humorous appearances and weird quirks. 

As much as I love this movie, I would love to see a new film based on the famous detective.  

As much as Tim Burton's"Batman" holds a special place in my heart, I honestly think "Dick Tracy" is a comic book movie that's more impressive.

Despite what may be lacking, "Dick Tracy" remains one of the truest comic book movies out there. 

Dick Tracy comic stripped published on
July 23, 1979 by Chester Gould.

Don't fast forward this one: If a movie is going to swear, it needs to keep it real...

Mark Wahlberg as Stuart Long in the film "Father Stu."

I recently wrote a review for the biopic "Father Stu", released April 15 in time for Easter. 
While I thought the movie is one of the best religious pictures I've seen, others were less favorable because of the amount of profanity in the film. How can that be tolerated? It's a religious film!
As I noted in my article, "Father Stu" tells the story of amateur Stuart Long, who grew up with no religious background, a distant alcoholic father who became so after the death of Stuart's brother, Stephen, at age six. 
So, needless to say, there's swearing in the film because the real Stuart Long cursed and swore. He was probably a master at it. 
Like Stu in his later life, I too am a Catholic. I'm certainly not a great at being one.
Having been raised in the city of Oakland, California, swearing was all around me throughout life. I'm guilty of it myself. Old f-ing habits die hard, for f--k sake!
For me, even from a religious standpoint, swearing is spitting. It's severity, or sinfulness, depends on how it's used. An f-bomb stings when it's hurled directly at somebody as opposed to dropping one after you stub your toe, or getting a jury summons scheduled the same week as your long-awaited vacation. Even then, it's a gross habit and does nothing good for the swearer. 

Some people are bothered by our society's arsenal of dirty words, and that's completely understandable and worth respect. Others don't seem to mind. In those cases, it is what it is. Swearing has become inconsequential in today's society. People just blurt out their obscenities like its confetti. Yet, there are many pockets of places where it's still frowned upon. 

Mark Wahlberg and Jacki Weaver in "Father Stu."

So, I understand the dismay some religious groups and individuals have at watching the movie "Father Stu" about a convert to Catholicism, that's laced with profanity. 
But it needs to be in there. It's a biographical picture, and that's who Stuart Long was before he converted. 
If a movie is going to depict a real person, and that person swore a lot, then it's important for a biographical story to keep things real. The movie is trying to convey reality, and do so in a way for the audience to relate and become invested in it, even if elements are unpleasant to watch and hear. 
If a character, based on a real person, is a drug using ex-con, and an all-around mean son of a bitch, it would take me out of the story if they never used any profanity but rather spoke lines like "Gosh darn it, you big dumb, dumb head" in intense situations. 
How can the audience take the story seriously if a character, who obviously doesn't care much for what comes out of their mouth, has dialogue that doesn't fit their personality. 
Or, if they come from parts of the country such as New Jersey, like in "Jersey Boys" (2014) with young Catholic Italians swearing here and there, where language like that is commonplace, then obviously it's going to be included.
Sure, some movies might over do it. The movie "Goodfellas" (1990) comes to mind. But, then again, the characters are all pretty much Italian mafioso. So, again, it's expected. There sure is a lot of it, though, in that movie. It's not pleasant to hear. Then again, the characters are unpleasant as well.
I have to add that one of the best scenes I've seen in the movie involves profanity. 
In the 2010 biographical film, "The King's Speech" about King George VI and his speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helps him overcome his terrible stutter during his ascension to the throne in 1936, one the best scenes involves a string of "such language."

After Logue hears the king use the word "bloody," a common vulgarity in the U.K., he tells the king, "Vulger, but fluent. You don't stammer when you swear."

"Oh, bugger off!" the king replies. 

"Is that the best you can do?" 

"Well... bloody bugger to you, you beastly bastard."

"Oh, a public school prig could do better than that."

"Shit. Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit!"

And the words keep coming, and coming, and coming, without a stammer. 

"Defecation flows trippingly from the tongue!" Logue later says. 

I know a lot individuals are adamantly, and admirably, opposed to swearing. And that's fine. It turns me off when I hear others use it over and over again. I'm certainly not endorsing it, nor trying to pursued people to just accept it. 

But sometimes, a movie needs colorful language for the sake of realism. What needs more consideration is whether or not a movie should be made in the first place. That's the bigger issue. In "Father Stu's" case, the answer, thankfully, is "yes," swear words and all.

Ella Cinders (1926) - Comic to Movie #15

"It's a darn shame, the way they treat you." 

Director

Alfred E. Green

Cast

Colleen Moore - Ella Cinders

Lloyd Hughes - Waite Lifter

Vera Lewis - Ma Cinders

Emily Gerdes - Prissy Pill

Doris Baker - Lotta Pill

The American syndicated comic strip "Ella Cinders," introduced June 1, 1925, is the creation of American screenwriter Bill Conselman and cartoonist Charles Plumb.

If anyone hasn't noticed, it's a play on the name "Cinderella." In this case, it's Cinderella for the early 20th Century.

In the strip, Ella Cinders is a young, attractive, and modest girl with big innocent eyes and black shoulder length hair cut in a bob. Ella doesn't initially flaunt her beauty, which progresses through the years of the comic's history. 

She lives with her step family made up of Myrtle "Ma" Cinders, and her step sisters, Prissie and Lotta Pill. 

Prissie is bitter and cold while Lotta is a rotund gal, and still just as mean. Ella is reduced to all the housework around the house at the unsympathetic demands of her step-family.

In the strip, her boyfriend, Waite Lifter, and her brother, Blackie, take her side as emotional support for the poor treatment she gets at home. 

Ella eventually wins a beauty contest, which results in a job at a movie theater. This plays as the "fairy godmother" part of the Cinderella story. It's the opportunity to leave the dire situation she's initially in. 

Ella and Blackie move to Hollywood where she works hard to make a successful life for herself. 

The comic strip ran until 1961. 

And that's the basic premise for the 1926 movie "Ella Cinders" based on the strip. 

In the film, Ella Cinders (Colleen Moore) lives with her step ma (Vera Lewis), Prissy (Emily Gerdes) and Lotta (Doris Baker) in the town of Roseville. 

Her one friend is the ice man, Waite Lifter (Lloyd Hughes) who questions how she can stand living with her horrible step family.

The Ciders hear of a contest being put on by the Gem Film Company in which a winner will receive an all-expense paid trip to Hollywood to appear in a film. 

Ma Cinders, of course, wants to enter Prissy and Lotta. Ella wants to enter the contest as well at the encouragement of Waite. 

To enter, she must send the company head shots of herself which will cost a grand total of $3 to take.

As this is 1926, and money actually had value back then. Three dollars was like...I don't know...a bajillion dollars for people in those days, or something close to that.

Anyways, she babysits the neighbors kids for three nights to raise the necessary cash.

Everything goes according to plan. When Ella goes to have her headshots taken, she's bothered by a persistent fly which causes her headshots come out cross eyed and ridiculous. 

Nevertheless, the photographer submits the pictures to the contest. 

The day of the contest judging arrives, which includes a big gala party. 

Ma and her two daughters attend, but Ella is told she can't go. 

Waite finds Ella crying on the front porch and encourages her to go to the party anyways. 

As she has nothing to wear, he tells her to grab something out of her sister's closet. 

So, she does. 

At first, everything goes well at the party, and her step family doesn't spot her. 

Colleen Moore as "Ella Cinders."

When Ella approaches the judges table, they see her and rip off some of there clothing in anger for her taking their clothes.

She's also embarrassed at the cross-eyed pictures.

Ella leaves the party in tears, not noticing one of her shoes falls off in the middle of the ordeal. 

And, wouldn't you know, Waite finds her shoe.   

Ella packs up her stuff and heads straight to the unemployment office. 

Unexpectedly, she encounters her ma there who promises to punish Ella severely.

At home, the contest judges arrive to let Ella know she won, much to her ma's chagrin.

Despite the bad headshots, the judges like her unusual pictures as they want someone who can make audiences laugh.

So, Ella heads off to Hollywood.

Almost as soon as she steps off the train in Hollywood, Ella finds out the entire contest was a fraud. 

With this major setback, Ella is faced with two options. She can either go home with her tail between her legs. Or, she can stay in Hollywood and turn this loss into a gain.

"Ella Cinders" is the first Colleen Moore film I've seen, and it made me a fan. Moore fits the role of Ella Cinders impressively well. The film makes sure to exhibit Moore's charm and talent to the fullest.

She has a lot of character behind her sincere and doleful eyes.

Moore is almost like a female Charlie Chaplin who describes his Tramp character as "childlike, bumbling but generally good-hearted...who endeavors to behave with the manners and dignity of a gentleman (or lady, in Moore's case) despite his actual social status." 

In "Ella Cinders," Moore's character, like the comic strip, is kind-hearted and undefiant despite the unjust treatment she receives on a daily basis. Yet, she doesn't reconsider leaving her cruel family when the opportunity presents itself. Ella welcomes the freedom with open arms, and doesn't let the opportunity go to waste.

But Moore can convey emotion impressively well without words - sadness, infatuation, silliness, disappointment, helplessness, determination. 

I have to add here that silent films in general impress me more than most modern films. Actors need pure talent to convey emotions to the audience without speaking. I'm convinced many silent film actors can out act a lot of todays actors any day. They still manage to inspire modern actors and filmmakers, which is certainly no surprise. 

In one scene, Cinders crams over a book on how to be a talented success in Hollywood on the night before she leaves. 

She reads over a page about how an actor should work their eyes to capture different emotions. One of the instructions says crossing one's eyes will capture attention. The shot changes to a comedic routine with Moore performing some sort of eyeball aerobics with each eye moving in a different direction. I was left dumbfounded. I couldn't tell if this is a split screen effect, or if Moore actually pulls off these eyeball maneuvers herself. Either way, it deserves to be as iconic as Chaplin's dance of the dinner rolls from "The Gold Rush." 

My favorite part of the movie takes place when Ella falls asleep on a train car she has all to herself. While she's asleep, a group of Native American Indians come aboard, dressed in their customary attire and headdresses. 

An Indian family sits with Ella and begin smoking cigars. 

As the smoke wakes her up, she's surprised to find the entire car, that was vacant moments ago, filled with Native Americans in all their regalia.

The father of the family sitting next to her gives her a glaring look, and then offers her a cigar. 

Not to be rude, she accepts and starts smoking it. It's clear cigar smoking isn't an activity she's ever indulged in. But the sick look on her face as she puffs away so as not to be rude is hilarious. Each time he looks over at her, she perks up and keeps puffing like she knows what she's doing. 

Based on what little I know about the comic strip, the movie adaption really captures the style and humor of the source. 

Some of the classic tropes in Cinderella are changed to something more fitting for the 20th Century.

When an embarrassed Ella runs out of the contest judging, she leaves her shoe behind. 

Waite finds it, and chuckles to himself as if to tell the audience, "you think you know where this is going."

Later, when she's off to Hollywood, Waite gives her a parting gift - a brand new pair of nice dress shoes.

Also, the "fairy godmother" character is replaced by the opportunity to go to Hollywood, as well as Ella own will power.

The movie's director, Alfred E. Green makes a cameo as the movie director in this movie. 

Green later went on to direct some well know movies such as "The Jackie Robinson Story" (1950) and "The Eddie Cantor Story" (1953).

The other, more notable cameo, is that of silent film star Harry Langdon. 

According to imdb.com, Moore recalled famed director Frank Capra directing her scene with Langdon. Capra sat in the directors chair for some noteworthy pictures like "It Happened One Night" (1934), "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) and "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946).  

When Ella arrives in Hollywood, the film shifts from satirical to drama, and ends up a bit underwhelming by the end. Regardless, I still found this movie adaptation of a by-gone comic strip entertaining, memorable, funny, and worthy of continual attention despite its age. It's definitely a movie I had a fun time watching.

It's a great satirical take on the rags-to-riches premise of Cinderella.

"Ella Cinders" is the earliest film I have found so far that's based on a comic. And I'm really glad I took time to watch it. I hope this movie, and Colleen Moore, continues to obtain the attention and recognition it deserves.

Batman Returns (1992) - Comic to Movie #14

"But when it comes down to it, who's holding the umbrella?"

Director 
Tim Burton

Cast
Batman/ Bruce Wayne - Michael Keaton
Catwoman/ Selina Kyle - Michelle Pfeiffer
Penguin/ Oswald Cobblepot - Danny DeVito
Max Shreck - Christopher Walken 
Michael Gough - Alfred Pennyworth
Pat Hingle - Commissioner Jim Gordon

I want to continue watching and reviewing more obscure, less talked about movies based on comic books and comic strips. This subgenre I started blogging about has been in a sort of limbo, on and off again, on my blog. And a handful of movies I've included are rather popular despite how bad they are. 
Most of the "comic-to-movie" movies I want to watch and review are simply difficult to obtain. At this point, I'm taking what I can get. But I haven't given up on finding those hard-to-come-by movies.
The 1992 Tim Burton film "Batman Returns" is a sequel to his hit 1989 movie "Batman." 
"Batman" has a special place in my movie-loving heart. I saw it with my oldest brother at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, Calif., back when it was released.
I recall the theater exploding in cheers at the scene when Batman flies his Batwing (or Batplane) through the cloud cover causing it to silhouette against the moon before flying back down to attack the Joker as he releases noxious "Smilex" gas on Gotham City.
I was seven-years old at the time. The movie turned me into a little bat fan boy. In fact, the first CD I ever purchased (probably with my mom's money, of course) was the orchestral soundtrack to "Batman." I bought it new for $12 at Wherehouse Music at the Southland Shopping Center in Alameda, Calif. I still have that CD and it still plays. 
"Batman Returns," release June 19, 1992, is also one of few movies in my lifetime, up to now, that I was fanatically eager to see. So much so, I had dreams about it before actually seeing it. 

Back then, obviously the option to log onto the internet and look for any leaked images or trailers didn't exist. You had to go to the movies and hope a trailer for a movie you wanted to see would play before the feature film. Or you had to wait for a trailer to air on television. Occasionally, some popular films would gain their own TV featurette.
I recall some morning talk show claiming they were going to show an "exclusive clip" of "Batman Returns" later in their program. I watched the entire boring talk show just to see this one clip. And that clip was the scene in the film where Batman meets Penguin for the first time. We got to see first hand the new villains Batman would square off with, in all their reimagined glory. 
Just days before the movie's release, my family and I had were on a trip in Southern California to visit friends. 
During this trip, we visited Hollywood Blvd., and walked passed Grauman's Chinese Theater.
The front of the theater was decked out in Batman imagery, with a giant poster of the movie draped above the theater entrance. Barricades surrounded the front of the theater where celebrity hand prints are. And a red carpet was rolled out. The premier of "Batman Returns" was taking place that evening. 
Michael Keaton had placed his hands in cement the day before - June 15, 1992. I took a picture of all this, including the wet cement with Keaton's prints. Sadly, I have no idea what became of those pictures. 
I don't recall the last time I watched "Batman Returns" before watching it the other day. 

After seeing the recent Batman film "The Batman" I wanted to watch this sequel again. 

The new Batman film has the caped crusader, played by Robert Pattinson, taking on the Penguin, also known as Oswald Cobblepot, played beautifully by Colin Farrell. It also stars Zoë Kravitz as Selina Kyle/ Catwoman. Sitting there in the theater watching this happen all over again took me back to "Batman Returns." 
The film starts on a dark and very uncomfortable tone. 

Danny DeVito as Oswald Cobblepot/ The Penguin

On Christmas day inside the Cobblepot mansion, Esther Cobblepot (Diane Salinger) gives birth to a new born baby boy off-screen while her husband, Tucker Cobblepot (Paul Reubens) waits patiently, gazing out a window, watching the snow fall gently against the night sky as his wife screams from labor pains. 

As screams of the new born baby join those of Esther's, Tucker rushes into the bedroom and wails in horror. 
The scene cuts to the couple sipping martinis while starring out into the snowy, freezing cold night. 
As they turn, a black crate with a small window sits in the middle of the floor next to a gorgeous Christmas tree. The child inside shakes the crate trying to get free. 

Two small gloved hands then reach out to snatch the family cat and pull it inside. 

Cat screeches mix with the sounds of a grunting child. 

Soon, Esther and Tucker take their child for a hasty stroll. They push their child in its carriage along an icy path towards a stream. When they get to a stone bridge over that stream, they look around to make sure they're alone. The then dump the basket with their first born child over. 
They watch as the basket floats into the dark chasm of the sewers. One last childish screech is heard before the basket is gone from site. 

After a while, a family of penguins - leftovers living underneath the abandoned Gotham City Zoo - discover the basket. 
The story cuts to 33-years later. Rumors of a hideous "Penguin man" living in the sewers are circulating around Gotham City. The newspapers are running stories on people who claim to have had sightings of this alleged Penguin person. 
Meanwhile, millionaire business owner Max Shreck (Christopher Walken), has plans to build a power plant in Gotham City. He claims his power plant will be able to supply the city with more than enough electricity. His dirty little secret, however, is that his proposed power plant will suck power in, stockpile it, and allow Shreck to take control of the entire city.
Shreck meets with Gotham City's mayor, (Michael Murphy) whose generally opposed to Shreck's outward plan.
Shortly after their meeting, Schreck gives a speech outside a department store he owns. It's quickly interrupted when the infamous "Red Triangle Gang" attacks, destroying businesses and threatening the citizens of Gotham. 
In no time, Batman shows up to take on these criminals. But little does anyone know, amidst all the chaos, that Max Shreck is kidnapped and taken into the sewer.
There, he's confronted by the Penguin himself, whose real name is Oswald Cobblepot. 

His hands are deformed and look more like flippers. He takes care of the penguins living below the abandoned zoo. He keeps an arsenal of weaponized umbrellas. And he's also the leader of the Red Triangle Gang.
Cobblepot asks Shreck to help him come out from under the streets of Gotham City and reemerge with a high social standing. He blackmails Shreck with incriminating evidence previously disposed of if he doesn't assist.
"Remember Max - you flush it, I flaunt it," Cobblepot says.
Later, Shreck's secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) accidently discovers Shreck's secret files that expose what his true plans are with the power plant. 
Though she swears she'll keep them a secret, Shreck pushes her out his office window several stories above the ground. 
Moments after her body hits the pavement below, and her last breath dissipates in the winter air, a bunch of feral cats run up to her body start nibbling. This somehow brings Kyle back to life, and also gives her some kind cat fetish.
She heads back to her lonely apartment and goes crazy (literally). In her fit on feline lunacy, Kyle makes herself a cat costume, and takes her cat nonsense to the streets.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle/ Catwoman.

Shreck and Cobblepot come up with a plan to lift him out of the sewers and gain the trust of Gotham City.
Cobblepot saves the mayor's baby from one of the Red Triangle Gang members - an attempted kidnapping that they set up to take place during a mayoral speech.

After doing so, pretty much everyone in Gotham City is willing to welcome Cobblepot into the community.
Once this part of the plan is accomplished, Cobblepot spends hours at the Hall of Records giving the appearance that he's researching his childhood, and trying to discover who his parents are. 
Like Shreck, he also has an underlying plan - to kidnap all first born sons in Gotham City as an act of revenge for what his parents did to him.
In no time, Shreck pushes Cobblepot to run for mayor, which he easily agrees to do.

But Bruce Wayne remains skeptical of the Penguin. His first encounter with him is also his first encounter with Catwoman just as she destroys one of Shreck's department stores. 

In no time, Catwoman and Cobblepot partner together to destroy Batman in order to easily carry out both of their evil schemes. 
There's one line in the movie that still cracks me up.
As Batman is highly skeptical of Cobblepot's desires to look into his roots, Alfred asks him "Why are you now determined to prove that this Penguin is not what he seems? Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?"
I have to mention, though it's been mentioned thousands of times before, that Cobblepot's parents have acted together before in an earlier Tim Burton movie - Pee Wee's Big Adventure (1985). Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger star as Pee-Wee Herman and Simone in that film. 
I was 10-years old when I saw "Batman Returns" with the same brother that took me to see "Batman." And I recall being impressed by the movie, but not as much as I was with "Batman." 

To begin with, Gotham City doesn't have the same feel as before, and I noticed it way back then. Shots of Gotham City in the first "Batman" were filmed at an outdoors at Pinewood Studios. For "Batman Returns," the movie was shot on two huge soundstages at Universal Studios. Gotham City feels more confined and compact compared to part one. 
While the first film is known for placing a darker, grittier Batman in the public's eye, which it successfully accomplished with its well-written, captivating story, "Batman Returns" tries to keep that image going but with a lot more of Tim Burton's style and imagination.

The first "Batman" offers some color with Jack Nicholson's Joker which contrasts brilliantly with Batman's shadows. This move has none of that. It's just dark all around, even though it takes place during the Christmas season. Nothing pops out. 
Warner Brothers executives gave Burton more freedom to be more, well, Tim Burton in this sequel. And it shows. Unfortunately, I think he inserts itself too much which diminishes the story. In other words, we get more Burton, but with plot points that are too often weak. 
"Batman Returns" isn't necessarily a bad movie. I love seeing Batman go against two villains at once. And the premise of Oswald Cobblepot running for Mayor is derivative the 1966 Batman TV series, season seven, episode two called "Hizzonner the Penguin" and the following episode, "Dizzoner the Penguin" in which the Penguin runs for mayor of Gotham City. As a lover of the campy T.V. series, I love this part of the story. 
It was also a premise in the third season of the series "Gotham" with Robin Lord Taylor as Penguin - a series I particularly enjoyed watching.
Still, the writing seems hasty, especially when it comes to the villainous Catwoman. Her origin story in the film is simply strange and, for lack of a better word, too "Tim Burton-y." Catwoman is one character "The Batman" did right. 
In "Batman Returns," before she becomes Catwoman,  Kyle is already a woman on edge thanks to her busy work schedule, apparent loneliness, and underlying frantic nature. 

After falling to her death, to be resurrected by nibbling kitty cats, her personality splits. She goes from a frumpy, lowly secretary to a femme fatale who suddenly knows how to fight and use a whip. If she already knew how to fight, she didn't use her skill when she was grabbed by a deranged a member of the Triangle Gang, brandishing a stun gun, earlier in the movie. 
Not only is she a poorly developed character, but her motives as Catwoman are unclear.
In the comic books, Catwoman does flip from being a vigilante who helps Batman in her own way only to flip elsewhere and turn to burglary. She helps Batman in the newest film. She also helps Batman in Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" where she's played by Anne Hathaway.
Pfeiffer's Catwoman hints at both sides of the character, but in a convoluted way. When the audience is officially introduced to Catwoman after she takes out a would-be mugger, she pins the mugger's victim to the wall and scolds her for expecting Batman to save her. Nevermind that the poor victim never mentions Batman nor her expectations that he would come to her rescue. 

Batman (Michael Keaton) takes on the "Red Triangle Gang"
in "Batman Returns."

"I am Catwoman! Hear me roar," she says before backflipping her way off screen. 
When we see her next, she blows up one of Shreck's department stores, gets into a fight with Batman in a rooftop battle scene, and then is suddenly partnering up with Cobblepot to destroy Batman. Why? Is it because they had one fight? Or, is it because she wants to be replace the male vigilante hero in Gotham City with her female kitty self?

She tells Cobblepot, "Batman napalmed my arm, he knocked me off a building just when I was starting to feel good about myself. I wanna play an integral part in his degradation." That's the only motive she gives. This villainous side stems from little. Honestly, there's one line that really boils down Catwoman. After she goes crazy in her apartment, makes her cat suit, puts it on, and becomes the femme fatale I mentioned earlier, she says out loud to her pet cat, "I don't know about you, Miss. Kitty, but I feel so much yummier." Yet, she's not happy as the movie progresses. Catwoman is all around nonsensical and poorly developed. 

Danny DeVito as Penguin really steals the show, despite the constant nasty black crud that coats his nasty teeth and drips from his mouth. That has Tim Burton written all over it.
DeVito puts in a lot of energy and unforgettable character into the Penguin. He's perfectly cast thanks to his energetic personality. 
His Penguin character is a pitiful one. His impulsivity is driven by loneliness, anger, greed, rejection, and a desire for revenge. He's also drive by sexual frustration as he makes clear in one scene where he says, "I could really get into this mayor stuff. It's not about power, it's about reaching out to people - touching people - groping people!" He also tries to mack on Catwoman, but who wouldn't?

With all this motivating him, his anger and desire for revenge intensifies. He's never been loved, so he doesn't return what he never received. He's not crazy like the Joker was in "Batman."  
At first, after visiting the graves of his parents, the press are at the cemetery to bombard him with questions. Reporters refer to him as "Penguin." 

Cobblepot replies, "A penguin is a bird that cannot fly. I am a man. I have a name. Oswald Cobblepot."
Later in the film, after Batman shatters Cobblepot's public image, he returns back to the dank, cold sewers where he started with no way out yet again, thanks to Batman. He intends to exact his revenge on Gotham City, with more vengeance than before. 

One of his gang members calls him "Oswald." 

He shouts back, "My name is not Oswald! It's Penguin! I am not a human being. I am an animal! Cold-blooded!" 
The movie is quickly void of suspense. The moment where things start to become suspenseful and intense is when the Penguin unfolds his plans to kidnap and ultimately kill all of the first born sons in Gotham City. We then get a scene of his Red Triangle Gang taking children out of their homes and placing them into cages. That's quickly thwarted by Batman. As the Penguin sits in his sewer, waiting for the children to be brought to him, he's given a note (literally) written by Batman telling him the kids aren't coming. And, poof - the suspense is gone.

His plans change quickly to arming his pet penguins with little rockets which he sends out to the streets of Gotham to blow things up - more of what we've seen already.

We end on a fight between Batman and Penguin, with Catwoman soon joining in to really get her revenge on Shreck.

"Batman Returns" is an entertaining movie with memorable visuals, fantastic makeup, superb special effects, and some decent and memorable dialogue. 
With its story that's sacrificed in parts to make room for Burton to insert his visualizations and imaginings, it's clearly weaker than "Batman."

 

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story (1993)

"The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering."

Director

Rob Cohen

Cast

Jason Scott Lee - Bruce Lee

Lauren Holly - Linda Lee

Robert Wagner - Bill Krieger

Luoyong Wang - Yip Man

Ric Young - Lee Hoi-chuen

Sterling Macer - Jerome Sprout



Martial arts expert and actor Bruce Lee died in 1973 at the young age of 32. The circumstances behind Lee's death is a topic still discussed especially among fans and students. 
The 1993 biopic "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story," based on the book "Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew" by Lee's wife Linda Lee Cadwell, alludes that his death was mysterious. It has become a bit of an urban legend. 
Firstly, as far as biopics go, I've mentioned before on this blog that they generally seem easier to get involved in when they focus on one aspect of a subject's life rather than cover their entire lifespan in two-hours, give or take. While watching someone's whole life depicted on film has the potential to be  entertaining, it can easily miss the mark of showing audiences why the subject is worthy of a biographical movie in the first place. Or the multiple life events depicted might delude that specific point. It could also be breezed over because of time restraint. I suppose it all depends on the subject, what their life was like, and who's writing the movie. 
"Dragon" focuses mainly on Lee's adult life. 
The story begins as Lee's father, Lee Hoi-chuen (Ric Young), a former Cantonese opera singer and actor, awakens from a dream in which a demon pursues his son Bruce. 
His father enrolls young Lee into Chinese martial arts under the instruction of Yip Man (Luoyong Wang). When Bruce (Jason Scott Lee - no relation to Bruce) is a young adult, Lee Hoi-chuen insists he must leave Hong Kong and head back to America. Part of this is due to the demon that torments the Lee family. 

Luckily, having been born in San Francisco as his father often performed operas in the city, Lee has an American birth certificate which will allow him back in the U.S. 
This rags-to-riches biography follows Lee's early days in the Bay Area working a dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant, going to college, meeting his wife Linda (Lauren Holly), teaching martial arts to anyone who wants to learn regardless of race and background, becoming a father, and opening a Jeet Kune Do Martial Arts Institute in Oakland. 
We follow Lee's rise to fame beginning with his role as Kato on the television series "The Green Hornet."
Soon after, Lee finds he's very popular back in Hong Kong where producers want him to star in martial arts movies.
He takes on his first major lead role in "The Big Boss." 

"Dragon" concludes as Lee is wrapping up filming on his first Hollywood motion picture "Enter the Dragon." 
The goal of the movie is to portray Bruce Lee the person rather than the celebrity. 

Jason Scott Lee as Bruce Lee,
filming a scene for "Enter the Dragon."

The human side of Lee is spontaneous, humorous, and loves life. He's also deep, contemplative, scholarly, and extremely talented. Outside of his fame and notoriety, these qualities are captured well in the film thanks to Jason Scott Lee's performance.
The racism Lee encounters in his time spent in the Bay Area is heavy-handed. It seems everyone he encounters living in the Bay Area is racist. Lee's fellow students at the university are racist. Hollywood producers are racist. (that part is believable.) The maître d' at a random restaurant is racist. Even some in the Chinese community are portrayed as racist. I'm sure Lee sadly encountered prejudice and racism as his career grew. 
At the same time, Lee doesn't let these despicable attitudes hinder him. In one scene, he claims "emotion can be the enemy." 
Even in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bay Area's population consisted of a variety of individuals from different parts of the world. And they were intermingled. I grew up in Oakland from the 1980s through the early 2000s. The rampant racism portrayed as existing in the Bay Area is laid on thick - perhaps too thick.
In the final act of the film, he has an argument with Linda who wants to move out of Hong Kong and back to the States with their children, and she wants Lee to go back with them. Lee gets angry and yells at her claiming opportunity in America is for white people only while Asians are publicly mocked. 
"Here I am somebody, I'm special," Lee says. "Back there, I'm just another two-bit, know-nothing dishwasher from a fishy-stinking restaurant." But by this time, Lee has gained considerable fame and appreciation in the states.
When it comes to the demon pursuing Lee and his family, from what I've previously read there's no evidence to suggest that he had reoccurring hallucinations or dreams of a demon.
However, the Lee's before him believed their family was cursed. His father suffered the loss of his first born son. He even dressed young Bruce as a girl during the initial years of his life in an attempt to fool this demon believed to be tormenting the family. 
The demon is an integral sub-plot in the film. But it becomes a little confusing after one scene in which adult Lee goes to visit his martial arts teacher, Yip Man, while he's working in Hong Kong. He tells his teacher about the demon he keeps seeing.
"We all have inner demons to fight," Yip Man says. "We call these demons 'fear', and 'hatred', and 'anger'. If you don't conquer them, then a life of a hundred years is a tragedy. If you do, a life of a single day can be a triumph."

While filming a scene for "Enter the Dragon" Lee is confronted by the demon one last time. The demon sees Lee's son, Brandon and attempts to go after him instead. This leads to a fight between it and Lee, where Lee comes out victorious.

But, the movie suggests that this demon was the cause of Lee's death. The closing scene has a voice over from Linda telling the audience that  Lee died days before "Enter the Dragon" was released after falling into a "mysterious coma."

"There are many people that want to know the way he died, I want to remember the way he lived," she says.

Various sources point to cerebral edema as the cause of Lee's death as he often suffered from headaches near the end of his life. 

The website www.historyvshollywood.com claims Lee's alleged mistress, Betty Ting Pei, gave him a painkiller for a headache which may have led to an adverse reaction that ultimately led to his death.

Incidentally, Bruce's son, Brandon, died 37 days before the release of "Dragon." 

Like his father, he also died young at the age of 28.

Is it supposed to be left to the audience to determine how Lee died? This part of the movie feels muddled. 
Nevertheless, "Dragon" balances between a martial arts movie on one side, and a biographical depiction on the other. The fighting scenes are well choreographed and entertaining to watch. 

Jason Scott Lee and Lauren Holly.

What's not mentioned in the film is that Lee's first movie appearance is the 1941 film "The Golden Gate Girl." He was three-months old at the time. Since then, he's appeared in 21 films. 
The movie's soundtrack, though, is repetitive. Every time something successful happens, the same triumph tune plays. By the final act, it's almost laughable. 
Overall, the movie is entertaining and intriguing, despite the inaccuracies it contains.

While Lee suffers from various situations that nearly ruin him, including a severe back injury and the racism of those who cross his path, he still comes out with worldwide success. Any anger or hatred he carried with him isn't depicted much save for a few instances of yelling and self-pity. 

"Dragon" aims to pay reference and respect to Lee. It pretty much accomplishes that goal, while giving the audience insight into the person, Bruce Lee. 

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

"Why is everything here completely pointless?"

Director

Tim Burton

Cast

Johnny Depp - Willy Wonka

Freddie Highmore - Charlie Bucket

Helena Bonham Carter - Mrs. Bucket

Noah Taylor - Mr. Bucket

Julia Winter - Veruca Salt

Jordan Fry - Mike Teavee

Philip Wiegratz - Augustus Gloop

AnnaSophia Robb - Violet Beauregarde

Deep Roy - Oompa Loompas

"I like the other one" my six-year old son said after watching the 2005 Tim Burton movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the first time over the weekend. It's currently streaming on Netflix. Though I don't care for this movie, I wanted to show it to my kids and see their reactions.

"So do I," I replied. 

"Yeah! [Willy Wonka] looks like a girl," my daughter said. 

"I think it's his hair," I said. "His stupid hair." 

Everyone can be a critic. It's easy!

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake of the story first told by writer Roald Dahl in his book of the same name. 

It was first adapted into a film in 1971, under the title Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with comedian Gene Wilder playing Wonka, and former child actor Peter Ostrum as Charlie Bucket. The earlier film, directed by Mel Stuart, had Roald Dahl himself writing the screenplay. 

Despite that, Dahl was unhappy with the final production, especially with the decision to cast Wilder in the lead role. 

I have no problem, generally, with movie remakes. As I've mentioned over and over, remakes are as old as the movie industry. A lot of our beloved classics are technically remakes - The Wizard of Oz (1939), Dracula (1931), The Maltese Falcon (1941), Ben-Hur (1959), His Girl Friday (1940), Scarface (1983), Ocean's Eleven (2001),... the list of remakes is long. 

So, a remake, or rather a reimagining in this particular case, to the classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is certainly understandable. Especially as the original film is not as close to the source material as it could be. And many of its elements are rather dated.

I'll add here that, generally speaking, I don't care as much as others might about how close a movie is to the book it's based on. As long as they respect their source material, they're stories told by other people.

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" as told by Mel Stuart, or Tim Burton.

Surely everyone, and I mean everyone, by now knows this story. 

A candy maker named Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) places five golden tickets into five random chocolate bars. 

The recipient of each ticket is invited to tour Wonka's chocolate factory, which has since been closed off to the public for years. 

The world goes frantic over these golden tickets, which are all discovered by five lucky children, Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) being the last kid to find one. 

Charlie comes from a very poor family. His father works in a toothpaste manufacturing company screwing the caps onto the toothpaste tubes. 

All four of his grandparents also live in their modest caricature of a shack. 

When Charlie finds the last of the tickets, he invites his Grandpa Joe (David Kelly) to go with him to Wonka's factory. 

Grandpa Joe used to work in the factory. However, candy making competitors would send spies into Wonka's factory to steal his recipes. This spelled financial peril for Wonka, so he sent all his workers home for good and closed his factory off to the public. 

Urban legends about whose making Wonka's candies, and what kinds of candy Wonka is baking began circling outside the factory. 

When the lucky ticket finders arrive at the factory, the tour they receive is certainly beyond their expectations.

What makes Burton's version unique is the backstory behind Wonka that's included in the story. The audience has insight into his early motivations to start producing candy, and how he came across the Oompa Loompas who help produce his delicacies.

The relationship between young Willy and his father, Dr. Wilbur Wonka, DDS (Christopher Lee), is also an integral part of the story. 

While the story seems to shift between Charlie and his family's struggles, to Wonka struggling with his inner-turmoil thanks to the rocky relationship between he and his father, the performances are terrible. 

Johnny Depp is certainly a talented actor. And to his credit, he has portrayed a vast array of different kinds of characters. One can't say Depp always plays the same kind of role in his movies. My personal favorite of Depp's roles is Gilbert Grape in the1993 movie What's Eating Gilbert Grape. 

His role as Willy Wonka is completely strange, to put it simply. 

Despite the backstory we're given, his Wonka is a complete enigma. I can't put my finger on what he wants his Wonka to be. Is he a man-child? Is he feigning his emotions? Is he torn inside? Is he genuinely happy? Does he intend to be mysterious? Does he actually hate children? Is he an alien? I have no idea. 

The obvious persona Depp's Wonka has is reminiscent of Michael Jackson inviting children to play at his Neverland Ranch. It's unappealing to say the least.

Wilder's Wonka is welcoming, elegant, kind at times, unsympathetic at other times, and borderline insane here and there. He's unpredictable, and it's intentional just as soon as he appears on screen. Wilder wanted his version of Wonka to be unpredictable, and he pulled that off beautifully thanks to his performance. 
I appreciate Burton's attempt to recreate the Wonka character, and make Wonka his own. But Depp's Wonka is inconsistent. He wants children to join him in his factory. But when they arrive, he acts like their a nuisance. It boils down to a bad performance on Depp's part.

Burton's version of Charlie Bucket is portrayed as absolutely flawless. He's so squeaky clean, Charlie is left being completely unrelatable. I mean, he's so perfect, I'm surprised Burton's movie doesn't end the story with Charlie rising from the dead to redeem us all.

There are good kids, but no kid is flawless. Whether a child is a good child can be determined by how they deal with their shortcomings, and work to overcome them. This is what distinguishes Charlie from the other kids in the original 1971 version, making him the better choice for a successor to Wonka.

The original Charlie is a good kid, but he still acts like a typical kid. He's self-indulgent in one scene where he buys some Wonka chocolate and begins stuffing it in his mouth. 

Later, he grows jealous of the others finding the tickets before he does, knowing his chances are slim to none.
In one scene in the original movie, Charlie goes to visit his mother at work to tell her the third ticket was found. He can't hide his frustration, disappointment, and self-pity. 

"Well in case you're wondering if it'll be me, it won't be. Just in case you're wondering, you can count me out," he tells her.
His mother reminds him that there's a "hundred billion people in this world, and only five of them will find Golden Tickets,"
"Even if you had a sack full of money you probably wouldn't find one," she says. "And after this contest is over, you'll be no different from the billions of others who didn't find one."
Charlie, like a typical kid, becomes conceited at this remark.
"But I am different," he says. "I want it more than any of them."
Feeling her son's frustration at the chance of a better life being so close yet so far, she tries to offer him words of encouragement.
"Charlie, you'll get your chance. One day things will change," she says.
Charlie lets his disappointment and despair take over.
"When? When will they change?"

That's when his mom breaks into the song "Cheer Up, Charlie," which I always fast-forwarded when I was a kid.

Later in the original, the other children disobey Wonka's rules one by one, resulting in some disastrous result for each of them.

Charlie is no different. He and his grandpa steal some soda that makes them lighter than air, after Wonka distinctly tells his visitors not to take any as it's not ready to consume. 

Wonka calls Charlie and his Grandpa Joe out on it in the end. And when he does, Grandpa Joe calls Wonka a swindler, among other things.

Charlie defies his own grandfather just to own up to the mistake he's made. Despite his flaws, this is the honesty and integrity that Wonka wants in his successor. This is why he gives Charlie his factory.

The newer Charlie is so perfect, he doesn't overcome anything, or learn any kind of lesson. Instead, the film ends with Charlie helping Wonka reestablish his relationship with his father. So, Wonka is the one that needs help. Not Charlie. It's a part of the story that seems like an afterthought. 

Burton's Charlie just takes the tour, looks innocent and cute, watches the other kids get picked off one by one, and then gets his reward. Boring! Nothing for audiences to take away except the candy scenes.
The scenery, which is impressive at times, is rather Tim Burton-y. It looks as though Burton pulled it out of German impressionism films - a style common in early horror movies from the 1920s. While that's typical of Tim Burton films, especially his darker ones, it just doesn't fit in this whimsical story. 

Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket.

To give the film credit, its portrayal of Mike Teavee is better than the original. 

The 1971 Mike Teavee (Paris Themmen) seems to be the second-best child after Charlie Bucket. He's no precious angel and does break a rule here and there. His only downfall lies in the hours of television he watches. But out of all the children, nothing much stands out about Mike other than his love of television, and that he's the kid who's zapped through Wonka's television camera and broken into millions of little pieces that are reassembled on a TV screen. Themmen isn't bad in the role. 

He doesn't strike me as a bratty child like the others. He just watches too much TV, and the blame for that, of course, is with his parents. 

"What do you get from a glut of T.V.? A pain in the neck and an I.Q. of three. Why don't you try simply reading a book. Or could you just not bear to look? You'll get no commercials," the Oompa Loompa's sang in the '71 movie. It's still a valuable lesson. 

Tim Burton's Mike (Jordan Fry) is updated as he plays too many video games as opposed to watching too much TV. 

He's rude and sarcastic, and simply fills in his space among the children much more than before. Having spent so many hours in front of his video games, this Mike isn't impressed by anything he sees in the factory. I think this characteristic is more subtle in Themmen's portrayal. 

Towards the end of the movie, when he's the only child left with Charlie, he boards the glass elevator with Wonka, which goes to any and every spot in the factory. 

Less than thrilled with the awe-inspiring experience, he blurts out, "Why is everything here completely pointless?"

Fry plays him as a kid you want to dislike. 

Incidentally, Charlie's response to this question is the only thing Wonka seems to take an interest in as far as Charlie is concerned. 

"Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy," Charlie says.

It's a statement as dumb as Depp's Wonka. It sounds deep, but is just meaningless.

Candy has a point as a means of enjoyment, as a gift of gratitude, as an expression of love, and as a memorial to childhood. 

And this is the statement that makes Wonka finally notice Charlie? Stupid!

The songs in the original are still remembered. They're household songs at this point.
While I don't remember any of the songs in the new movie, even with the understanding they're pulled straight from Dahl's book, I appreciate how composer Danny Elfman, whose music is heard in a lot of Burton's films (Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas to name a few) made the song segments unique.
The Oompa Loompa's sing each song in a style unique to a decade. One song is performed in a 1960s hippy style. Another song is performed in the style of a 1980s heavy metal hair band.
That's pretty clever.

And while the Oompa Loompa's from the 1971 are much more imaginative and memorable, actor Deep Roy deserves applause for portraying each individual Oompa Loompa in Burton's film. 
And finally, the look of Wonka's Everlasting Gobstopper actually looks like candy in the new film. They look like enticing sugary jawbreakers. Gobstoppers in the original look like painful instruments of torture if a child put one in their mouth. I often pictured its tips protruding from a kid's neck if they happened to accidentally swallow one.

I respect and appreciate that the remake is trying to be its own film, different from the first. That's especially true as the movie explores Wonka's history as far back as his childhood, and his relationship with his father. 

In a 2005 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Burton said the original film is "sappy." 

Well, that's hilarious considering his version of Charlie Bucket is sappier than Charlie from the original. 

What's also funny is that Burton's film ends up being about Wonka in the end, but Charlie's name is in the title. Stuart's film is about Charlie, but Wonka's name is in the title.

The remake could have certainly been a good movie. Tim Burton obviously has a different image for Willy Wonka. Bad decisions got in the way to pull it off well. The wrong people got their hands on the material, told a story that's as muddy as melted chocolate, with performances that are less than appetizing. 

The message, though simple, gets through clearly in the original. Be a good child and obey the rules. Ok, fine. 

Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

In the new movie, I really don't know what the message is. Should we have the simplicity of a child, and the mind of an adult? And as the movie really ends up being about Wonka, is the message for adults, or for kids?

While I don't have a problem with movie remakes, I think Gene Wilder's comments, quoted in a 2013 Entertainment Weekly article sums up the overall experience of Burton's movie.

“It’s just some people sitting around thinking, ‘How can we make some more money?’ Why else would you remake Willy Wonka? I don’t see the point of going back and doing it all over again.”

Yes, in this case, they had it right the first time.

Stan & Ollie (2018)

"Well, that went well."
"It certainly did!"

Director

Jon S. Baird

Cast

John C. Reilly - Oliver Hardy

Steve Coogan - Stan Laurel

Nina Arianda - Ida Kitaeva Laurel

Shirley Henderson - Lucille Hardy

Rufus Jones - Bernard Delfont

Danny Huston - Hal Roach

John Henshaw - Nobby Cook

When I heard that the movie Stan & Ollie was in production and set to be released in theaters back in 2018, I thought it was about time. There really aren't any biopics about the comedy team, Laurel and Hardy.

The only other one I know of is a 2006 TV movie called Stan, based on a radio play of the same name. It tells the story of Stan Laurel's last visit with Oliver Hardy as he's on his death bed. 

Jim Norton plays Stan Laurel alongside Trevor Cooper as Oliver Hardy. 

It's a warm story that's certainly worth watching if you can find it. 

There's also a reboot (of sorts) from 1999 called The New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy: For Love or Mummy. I haven't seen it. Maybe I will at some point. Anyways, it's certainly no biopic from what I can tell. But it's the only other movie I know about that has actors playing Laurel and Hardy. Bronson Pinchot (Perfect Strangers) plays "Stanley Thinnius Laurel" and Gailard Sartain (Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail) plays "Oliver Fattius Hardy." 

When first watching the trailer for Stan & Ollie back in 2018 when it first aired, my initial impression was that it looked like the long-overdue biographical movie the famed comedy pair needs so new audiences could be introduced to these pioneers of comedy. 

I've mentioned Laurel and Hardy on here before. In fact, my first review on this blog was their 1932 feature length film Pack Up Your Troubles.

I'm very familiar with these two. Having seen the majority of Laurel and Hardy movies - silent and talking - produced through the Hal Roach Studios (one exception being the 1939 movie The Flying Deuces in which Hal Roach loaned them to RKO Radio Pictures) I've recently turned my attention to another comedy duo, Thelma Todd and ZaSu Pitts (the latter was replaced by Patsy Kelly) who made shorts for Hal Roach during the same period. They're not as well known nowadays. With the research I'm doing on these women of comedy, with actual books and watching as many, if not all, of their movie shorts as I can find, that post will be up later in the year.

But Laurel and Hardy play a huge role in the movie watching part of my life. They laid the foundation for my appreciation of the classics. 

During my teenage years, my dad and I even attended regular Laurel and Hardy movie showings over in San Francisco, put on by the Laurel and Hardy Appreciation Society "The Sons of the Desert." Once a month, they would play a string of Laurel and Hardy films, and other movies from the Hal Roach Studios in a San Francisco theater. Those were a lot of fun to attend..

And on my writing desk at home sit two cold cast music boxes of these guys. 

When it comes to biographical movies, I think it's generally better and safer if the film focuses on a certain aspect or event of the subject's life or career rather than cover their entire span or the majority of their life. 

Some films do a good job covering a subject's entire life. Others turn out convoluted and boring 

The 2004 film Ray about rhythm and blues singer Ray Charles covers a majority of his life. However, having been a blind musician, there's a human interest element in his life story. The movie shows the audience how he managed to rise to his level of fame as a piano player and musician without having sight. The focus is certainly on his music. 

It's a great movie, and one I recommend. 

Steve Coogan (left) as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly (right) as Oliver Hardy

The 2019 film Judy focuses on the later years of Judy Garland's life as she dealt with substance abuse, with several flashbacks to her earlier work with MGM. That, too, is an entertaining and interesting story.

The 1992 biopic, Chaplin, covers the entire life of silent film comedian Charlie Chaplin. As a result, it looses focus of the reasons Chaplin became as legendary as he is. The movie focuses on so many aspects of his public life. It also focuses too much on his private life, starting from his boyhood all the way to his Academy Award in 1972. Too much is covered. I'll save that review for another time.

The film Stan & Ollie starts off in 1937 as Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) are in the middle of making their feature film, Way Out West. The attention to detail in this opening scene is remarkable.

During production, Stan refuses to renew his contract with Hal Roach (Danny Huston) as he believes neither he nor Oliver are being fairly compensated for being as successful as they are.

Oliver, meanwhile. is still under contract with Hal Roach Studios. 

With that being the case, the studio pairs Oliver with another one of their star comedians at the time, Harry Langdon (Richard Cant). Together, they star in a feature comedy film called Zenobia. 

Laurel and Hardy join together again after the production of Zenobia. But Oliver skips out on a meeting with Fox Studios which Stan is present for. This results in the pair loosing out on a deal with Fox. And Stan holds a grudge against Oliver for years after. 

Sixteen years go by. Laurel and Hardy haven't made a movie since Atoll K, released in 1950. So, they set out for a tour of the U.K. and Ireland's music halls. 

During this time, Stan is trying to get them roles in a comedy adaptation of Robin Hood. 

As the tour begins, audience attendance to their stage appearances is dismal thanks to poor publicity on the part of their producer, Bernard Delfont (Rufus Jones). 

But the more promotional public appearances Laurel and Hardy make, the more interest grows among the general public. 

Soon, they're performing in front of sold-out audiences. 

At one point, old bitter emotions bubble over inside Stan, and the pair have a fight to the point where they won't speak to each other.

During an appearance to judge a beauty contest, Oliver has a heart attack and is forced to stay in bed. 

Delfont attempts to have Stan carry out the rest of the shows with another comedian, Nobby Cook (John Henshaw). Stan initially agrees, but moments before the first show without Oliver, he can't bring himself to do a performance without his old partner. After their U.K. tour, Laurel and Hardy never perform together again.

Even after Oliver Hardy died in 1957, Stan continued writing material for themselves until his own death in 1965. 

My dad owned a collection of Laurel and Hardy movies on VHS, distributed by Video Treasures.

Each tape had a short segment before the feature presentation in which Stan Laurel's daughter, Lois Laurel, would narrate home movies and photos of Oliver and her father.

I was intrigued by these short segments which showcased the pair simply being themselves on-set or at home. 

This was all before YouTube and special features on DVDs. 

There's one tidbit of information Lois said in one of these short segments that stuck with me. 

She said that her dad and her "Uncle Babe" Hardy were such good friends, and that some people who knew both of them well would describe their friendship as being as close as brothers. 

So, being as close as brothers, she said they never fought with each other. 

Maybe that's true. I still find it hard to believe. Sometimes a verbal fight can strengthen a relationship like fire strengthens steel. Obviously a fight isn't the ideal way to go about it. But arguments occur to some degree or another with the closest of friends. It gives each person a clearer understanding of each other. 

In his book The Silent Clowns, author Walter Kerr describes Stan as being stubborn and arrogant when it came to his career. 

"At least nominally, Laurel was a star from the beginning. As a star, he was a bantam cock, pushy, agitated, agile," Kerr says.

The fight Laurel and Hardy have in the movie is a crucial scene. 

It begins when they're joined by their wives for an opening night party at the Savoy Hotel as their performance at the Lyceum Theater is sold out. 

As they meet and greet guests, there's some tension between their wives, Ida Laurel (Nina Arianda) and Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson). 

Ida references Oliver's "elephant movie" which stirs up old bitter emotions. She's referring to the movie Zenobia.

Soon, he and Oliver get into an argument over the matter as Stan considers Oliver's role in the movie as a betrayal even though it happened 16 years ago.

Their argument gradually becomes personal as it shifts from Oliver staring in a film without Stan, to their friendship itself.

"We're friends because Hal Roach put us together. And the only reason we stayed together was because the audience wanted it," Oliver says. "I have real friends. And yes, we play golf, and we go to ball games, and we have sauerkraut on our bratwurst."

"People will remember our movies long after you finished your hot dog," Stan says. 

Then, Stan spills his feelings out. 

It's important to mention that between the two of them, Stan did all the writing for their films. Oliver preferred to play golf rather than write.

"You know something... you're just a lazy ass who got lucky 'cause you met me," Stan continues.

"Lucky? To spend my life with a hollow man who hides behind his typewriter? You're not real, Stan. You're hollow. You're empty."

Stan stares crestfallen at Ollie.

"I loved us," he says. 

"You loved 'Laurel and Hardy' but you never loved me." 

Stan gets in the last word.

"So what?" 

As Oliver walks away, Stan throws a dinner roll at him which hits him in the back of the head.

The pair refuse to talk to each other during the next few public appearances.

The emotions are strong in this scene. And Stan's point of view as far as their career goes is loud and clear. You can see it in the eyes of both Coogan and Reilly.

"I'll miss us when we're gone," Oliver later tells Stan as they're about to go out on stage one last time.

"So will you," Stan replies.

Rather than make a film that quickly showcases them going through the production process of their more well known films, one by one, such as The Music Box, Way Out West and Bonnie Scotland, the movie focuses on their last hurray. That being their final tour together. It's enough of a story to portray how much they depended on each other. 

Together, Laurel and Hardy made 107 movies - 32 silent movie shorts, 40 talking shorts, and 23 feature-length films. The 1921 silent movie The Lucky Dog is their first appearance on screen together. Putting Pants on Philip (1927) is their first official "Laurel and Hardy" movie. Unaccustomed As We Are (1929) is their first speaking film. They later used the same premise of this film for their 1938 feature film, Blockheads. 

Reilly captures Oliver Hardy's polite, soft-spoken cordial manners and demeaners well. Reilly is such a unique actor, who's versatility is incredible to watch. While watching him perform as Oliver Hardy, I forgot I was watching Reilly. Part of that may be thanks to the body suit and heavy makeup he wore to appear as heavy set as Oliver Hardy was. But most of that is thanks to his acting. 

While both Stan and Ollie seemed to be very likeable people off screen, Oliver, being a native of Georgia, certainly possessed that true hospitality southerners are famous for. 

And Reilly captures that characteristic of Hardy superbly.

During the tour, Oliver is low on his funds. He turns to horse racing to remedy the problem. 

After placing a bet on a particular horse, he later checks the paper to see if he came out lucky. 

Sadly, he didn't.

In frustration, he crumbles up the newspaper and slams it into a trash can. He doesn't realize that a group of children are standing a few feet away looking at him in admiration.

He happens to turn towards them and pauses a moment in surprise. Rather than yell at them, he smiles and wiggles his fingers as a wave, and fiddles his tie just as he used to do on screen. 

It's a small detail, but there's something charming about this small scene. It captures Oliver's personality well.  

In an interview with Dick Van Dyke from November, 1974, TV personality Dick Cavett discusses Stan Laurel's influence on Van Dyke and himself. Cavett mentions how Stan spoke with a bilateral sibilance. That is, he would repeat the "s" sound in some of his words. 

Stan (Steve Coogan) comforts Oliver (John C. Reilly)
as he recovers from a heart attack.

Coogan portrays Stan with much reverence and attention to details. I picked up on Coogan speaking with a similar bilateral sibilance. 

Both actors play their parts with an apparent amount of respect for these comedians who came before them, and laid foundation for today's comedy.

Stan & Ollie is a well made biopic, produced with a lot of reverence for its subject matter. It balances drama and comedy very, very well. Underneath its great story, excellent casting choices, details, and acting, there's a lot of appreciation and love holding it strongly together. It sets a standard for how biopics ought to be made.