Reviews

If this film won the Lumiere Award for Best French-Language Film, then what kind of garbage is coming out of France these days??

The subject matter is an important one -- how the African economies are kept as economic hostages by the international organizations that are supposed to be helping them, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. About 40% of the governmental budgets of several African nations go to payment of Western debt, while their people suffer from disease, dehydration and illiteracy.

... but the subject matter was treated in the most dry manner that could be conceived by man -- dryer than the Sahara that surrounds the country of Mali in which this film takes place. More monotone and action-lacking than any documentary I've ever seen (and I'm a fan of the genre), one "witness" after another comes forward in this "trial" that is "captured" on film that condemns the World Bank & IMF. Some critics may site the colorful visual asides within the film, but they were out of place and had no complementary soundtrack when they were on the screen. They belonged better in a coffee table book than in this film.

Even the characters in the film say something like "This trial is boring" and "When will it be over?" Everyone in the theater laughed. Were those people on the screen reading our minds??

Danny Glover had a brief appearance in this film. It is a televised movie within "Bamako" and it was set within Morocco or Mali. It was also more ridiculous than any spaghetti-Western I've ever tried to avoid. The only redeeming part of these five wasted minutes was where a Caucasian bad guy accidentally shoots an African woman carrying a baby and shows no remorse whatsoever. Perhaps it was to symbolize the insensitivity of the World Bank and how it is unintentionally killing Africans.

And one last technical parting shot, the subtitles were difficult to read with so much light colors on the screen and not enough black outline to the subtitles themselves.

I've already summarized the movie for you. Don't be fooled by the hype. No need to see this film. You'll never get these two hours back in your life.

Granted that the 1971 classic had poor special effects and bad make-up, the advances in technology did not advance the cause of the story -- it just made it weird-looking. The 1971 version had characters that were likable or dislikable. In 2005, the characters were almost all despicable, except of course for one... who was infallibly perfect. In 1971, Charlie did commit a sin (he stole) which made him more human. It was his act of contrition that made him truly lovable. On the other hand, in 2005, we do get glimpses into what made Wonka into the man he is today.

The music? How can you teach a lesson when you can't even make out the words?? In 1971, every child came out of the theater singing the lyrics. 2005's over-orchestration made that impossible.

And by the way, why were hundreds of miniaturized Joe Pescis employed to make this film when thousands of midget-actors are out of work??

Note to Tim Burton: if you're going to use special effects, get the lighting right! Otherwise it's just a distraction that hurts my eyes.

The 2005 "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is a movie, I guess, you have to see once. The 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" is a movie you'll want to see many times.