One last post before we go...

Well we're movin' into our new house on Monday and our internet's gonna be down for as long as a week or two so I thought I'd update this pig. Besides, it's been more than a month since my last post and I was afraid that I was gonna turn into Joe if I didn't post something!




First off; here's our new house for those of you that may have missed the pics on email.












Yes, it is a little crooked. It's the picture, though, not the house.


Honest.












Remember my last rant about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Of course you do... it's right below this one ya yutz! Well Lori recently got me a copy of the book for Father's day and I read the whole thing to Susie over the course of about a week. Now, having read the fershlugginer thing, I have to say...

The book's total shit too! I was shocked. I've always loved Roald Dahl's work and couldn't believe that the book that's considered to be his crowning achievement is largely garbage!!!



I suppose maybe my perception is colored irretrievably by my childhood memories of the movie with Gene Wilder but I'd like to think to think that I have the capacity to be impartial on this one. After all, I knew that the Star Wars prequels were destined to be dissappointing for me because (news flash!) I'm not twelve anymore. There was just no way that Georgie Boy was gonna be able to make a film that affected me in the way that Star Wars (that's right... Star Wars! None o' that Episode IV: A New Hope garbage!) did because twenty years had passed.



But Charlie/Willy predate that period considerably and given that the book came first I hoped that I would find that it was Dahl's outlook on it that had changed and that the book would indeed be just as good (though not necessarily the same as) the movie.



Boy was I wrong!



So I suppose I owe Tim Burton an apology for the vast amounts of acid and general hate I spewed forth in his direction from various orifices (mmmmmm... there's an image!). Sorry Tim. Your movie is, indeed, extremely faithful to the book. In fact I would have to say that the Burton version of C and the C F is one of the best examples I can think of of a movie that follows the book in virtually every way.



But...! My opinon on the film remains unchanged. Sorry Tim but that's the way it goes. You were slavishly faithful to a book that stank; a book that pales in comparison to the 70's film version. The earlier movie has heart and humor and lessons galore while the new one (like the book) is full of an "aren't these people awful?" sentiment with virtually no redeeming qualities whatsoever.



And as a last aside to Mr. Dahl: Double... NO!... Quadruple shame on your withered soul for disparaging a film that so clearly improved on your own work! Whassamattah, Roald... jealous that you didn't think of some of that dialogue of Willy's in the Wilder version? Sure most of it's not original but Willy himself is a creature of pop culture so why shouldn't he speak in literary references? Particularly since the dialogue you gave him was so unmemorable and pedestrian!



Dahl was credited in the earlier film as the screenwriter so I'll have to assume that a number of the improvements over the book are his (Slugworth and the Everlasting Gobstopper subplot, etc.) but for him to badmouth the film due to its dialogue being improved by a highly respected producer with decades in the business is just ludicrous. It's not often that I come down on the side of a suit but this is one exception I'm glad to make.



FIN



Coming up next post: Do all 107-year-old houses make all those creepy noises?