Change Your Image
amboager
Reviews
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)
Underrated coming of age tale
Bradburys book was a disappointing to me. I don't found it "more adult a terrifying" than the movie. Really the movie is much more polished (style, narrative, characters development, etc) suspenseful and less sappiness.
I think that the movie was lucky to have a subtle, elegant and intelligent distant of ridiculous over-dramatic excess British director Jack Clayton (other claustrophobic dramas -with horror touches- involving (but non exactly for) kids from him: The masterpiece "The Innocents" and "Our Mother's House"). His mise-en-scene ideas are wonderful: an early happy camera movement around the square; a beautiful shot of fire reflecting in Wills glasses; the father-son conversations with (careful) culminating close-ups of their faces; the disquieting,sensitive captation of nightly, lonely streets; the filming and editing of Charles Halloway/Mr. Dark confrontation (genious Jason Robards & Jonathan Pryce) while the kids are hidden down the street; the famous library scene and a lot of other "little" moments (superb Stephen Burum cinematography). Clayton refuses much of the teletubbie metaphysics of the book in favour to lives up the symbolic cardboard characters with real more complex emotions: the "river incident" gives sense (inexistant in book) to father-son emotional paralysis and the weariness, downfall and fear to old age and death of the first one. Clayton also tighten much more the "Jim's wishes to be a mature man" with "his father absence". And in the movie we has more folk characters with emotional "faults": Crosetti desires women, Tetley wants money, Ed dreams with his missing arm & leg and Miss Foley dreams with her missing attractiveness. In book only appears Miss Foley (to cry and receive a more condescending treatment that in the film) and, during a moment, Crosetti (to cry, too
).
SPOILER! Moreover the director repulse the pedestrian didactism of the novels climax ending changing (with the help of his friend screenwritter John -"The Innocents"- Mortimer) the Bad Guys deaths and reducing the Good characters fool dances & singings (Oh, Susanna!. Oh, don't you cry for me!". Come on Ray, please
) to a few Jason Robards movements. Being implicitly didactic can be a good thing (why not?) but trivializing a story with over-the-head messages so that the less intelligent kid reader understand the whole thing, is a very different (bad) one. END SPOILER!
My only problems with the movie are the unnecessary fx imposed by the dumb Disney execs in post-production, above all the green mist. Those fx are a bit excessive but they don't attain to break the intimist tone of the movie. At least the train-carnival transformation was eliminated in last minute
Movie: 9/10 Novel: 4/10
The Night Flier (1997)
Estimable little gem
Despite a certain inevitable TV look and narrative this movie is possibly one of the best horrors of 90's. Mark Pavia delivers a well handled, gloomy and occasionally dirty atmosphere, that put far away his movie from the generally unaesthetically and untidy 90's horror films. Moreover there is a good amount of gore and a correct score.
Although the plot is not very original the movie is resolute in a rather ingenious way, the main character (fairly good Miguel Ferrer job as the tabloid journalist) is not precisely a "Good Person" and there are various perverse ideas behind the script. Very good ending, too.
This movie has to be one of the best Stephen King (sometimes good, generally average or mediocre writer) horror adaptations, only under CARRIE (8/10). Sorry, THE SHINING (6/10) is decent but it doesn't like me much.
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
Interesting but flawed
This movie is really funny thanks to Gene Wilders performance and some production design gadgets. For this is a real pity that Mel Stuart direction be so anodyne. He doesn't has style and he is incapable to provide the movie with style and real atmosphere. A possible fantasy gem is lost. The mise-en-scene is rather bland and flat ala Disney. The strange elements of the story (the subtle "perversity" of Willy Wonka, the boat ride scene, the "insinuations" to different substance addictions ...) seems reduced to like-a-joke ingredients. The movie is to enjoy like a kid for its whole shameless tone but without the cinematographic rigour that could rise the movie to a real artistic value.
Newest Roald Dahls book adaptation is much more incisive and technically professional respecting Tim Burton direction but also it is much less winsome than Stuarts movie. The aseptic CGI effects and horrid musical numbers ruined the possibilities of a pure Sense of Wonder.
Willy Wonka & the Chocolat Factory (1971) - 5.5/10. Charlie & the Chocolat Factory (2005) - 4.5/10.
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)
Underrated coming of age tale
Bradburys book was a disappointing to me. I don't found it "more adult a terrifying" than the movie. Really the movie is much more polished (style, narrative, characters development, etc) suspenseful and less sappiness.
I think that the movie was lucky to have a subtle, elegant and intelligent distant of ridiculous over-dramatic excess British director Jack Clayton (other claustrophobic dramas -with horror touches- involving (but non exactly for) kids from him: The masterpiece "The Innocents" and "Our Mother's House"). His mise-en-scene ideas are wonderful: an early happy camera movement around the square; a beautiful shot of fire reflecting in Wills glasses; the father-son conversations with (careful) culminating close-ups of their faces; the disquieting,sensitive captation of nightly, lonely streets; the filming and editing of Charles Halloway/Mr. Dark confrontation (genious Jason Robards & Jonathan Pryce) while the kids are hidden down the street; the famous library scene and a lot of other "little" moments (superb Stephen Burum cinematography). Clayton refuses much of the teletubbie metaphysics of the book in favour to lives up the symbolic cardboard characters with real more complex emotions: the "river incident" gives sense (inexistant in book) to father-son emotional paralysis and the weariness, downfall and fear to old age and death of the first one. Clayton also tighten much more the "Jim's wishes to be a mature man" with "his father absence". And in the movie we has more folk characters with emotional "faults": Crosetti desires women, Tetley wants money, Ed dreams with his missing arm & leg and Miss Foley dreams with her missing attractiveness. In book only appears Miss Foley (to cry and receive a more condescending treatment that in the film) and, during a moment, Crosetti (to cry, too
).
SPOILER! Moreover the director repulse the pedestrian didactism of the novels climax ending changing (with the help of his friend screenwritter John -"The Innocents"- Mortimer) the Bad Guys deaths and reducing the Good characters fool dances & singings (Oh, Susanna!. Oh, don't you cry for me!". Come on Ray, please
) to a few Jason Robards movements. Being implicitly didactic can be a good thing (why not?) but trivializing a story with over-the-head messages so that the less intelligent kid reader understand the whole thing, is a very different (bad) one. END SPOILER!
My only problems with the movie are the unnecessary fx imposed by the dumb Disney execs in post-production, above all the green mist. Those fx are a bit excessive but they don't attain to break the intimist tone of the movie. At least the train-carnival transformation was eliminated in last minute
Movie: 9/10 Novel: 4/10