Ten Statements About....TIME BANDITS (1981)

"I think the reason I've gotten top billing over you is called...
oh, I don't know, celebrity?"

"Who was that man?"
"That was no man. That was the Supreme Being."
"You mean God?"
"Well, we don't know Him that well. We only work for Him."

1) At the core, this is a children's fantasy, and one of its strengths is how Terry Gilliam makes it a children's fantasy as a child would imagine it, not how an adult would.  Thus it's messy, it's gross at times, it's illogical....and it is sophisticated only to the lengths a particularly bright child can achieve.

2) And let's be honest here; the other strength is Gilliam's incredible attention to detail both visually and story-wise.  I was particularly struck by how the Castle Of Evil in certain shots seems to be made out of Lego Bricks...thus making it something a child can build itself.

3) However, it's not perfect.  It's obvious that Gilliam's script (written in collaboration with Michael Palin) hasn't shaken off his Monty Python sketch structure.  There are moments--like the frequent visits with Palin and Shelly Duvall's lovers--where the film stops so we can get a sketch.  Hell, the whole first half plays out like an extended, star-studded Python episode.  And speaking of that first half....

4) It really could have used some trimming.  I understand that we needed to establish the idea of the time holes and all, but did we really need to spend as much time as we do with Napoleon and Robin Hood?  The Napoleon sequence in particular seems very drawn out.  So does the King Agamemnon sequence, but that one serves the secondary purpose of showing us what Kevin's ideal father would be like before we get the diametrically opposite father figures of Evil and The Supreme Creator....

"What do you mean this is supposed to be a comedy?"

5) While we're on the subject, I like how both David Warner's Evil and Ralph Richardson's Supreme Being are designed as reflections on Kevin's thoughts on what fathers are like.  Warner's is capricious and cruel and prone to punishing for the sake of punishing, while Richardson's is condescending and lecturing to his assistants, making his punishments seem like kindness.  These are both valid ways a child like Kevin might see his own father as being.

6) I find it fascinating that Warner's Evil is obsessed with recreating the world with technology, as opposed to humanity, coming first.  But then, there's a definite luddite-ness to the whole film; it's technology that seems to obsess Kevin's parents to the point of neglecting him, it's technology that tempts the Bandits to their capture by Evil, it's technology that backfires on the Bandits when they're fighting Evil, and it's ultimately technology that ends up delivering Kevin's parents to their fate.

7) As much as I liked Sean Connery's Agamemnon--and I liked him alike--he seems to be in an entirely different movie.  Whereas John Cleese's Robin Hood and Ian Holm's Napoleon are aware they're in some form of a comedy, Connery plays his role absolutely straight.  Even the one moment that could appear comedic, where he does a magic trick for Kevin, is done very seriously.

In its last days, some of the members of Menudo were...
Questionable Choices.

8) I appreciate how everything that Kevin experiences on his adventure can be ascribed to a dream he has inspired by his toys and surrounding and exacerbated by what we learn in the very last sequence has been happening to his house....but attention is never drawn to this fact.  We see the items that might inspire his fantasy in very tiny glimspes so that if we catch it, that's good but if we don't we still get a strange adventure.

9) I totally adore the way Warner has this weird sort of dynamic with his three minions.  There's an active....affection Evil seems to have for these three misshapen lackey, and yet he is incapable of showing that affection except through cruelty and torment.  And the even weirder thing is how much the minions seem to delight in this, to the point that they cheer when they're about to be destroyed.

10) You know, that ending leaves a strange taste in my mouth, especially given what The Supreme Beings says about Kevin's future.  It seems maybe too dark a note to end the film on, even for a film like this that has some really, really dark notes.

Overall...a good children's fantasy that marks a particular moment of development in an excellent director, this film is glorious for its flaws and a compelling watch.

Ten Statements About....WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (1971)

Replace that boat with a TARDIS...and you've got the
bestest Doctor ever.

"Hold your breath. Make a wish. Count to three."

1) You know what's the first thing I missed about the Burton version? The little side skits throughout this version which fill in both Charlies' life and the world of the film as a whole. They're chockful of great performances by great character actors and comedians (my favorite is the one involving a computer programmer played by one third of The Goodies--and Peter Davison lookalike--Tim Brooke-Taylor) and set up the sensibilities of the film...

2) ...and the most remarkable thing about this film, watching it now, is how it seems to anticipate the 'One For The Kids/One For The Adults' structure of pretty much all the kid's cartoons today. Director Mel Stuart and screenwriter Roald Dahl never forget that they have to entertain the adults as well as the kids in the audience

3) Even though I prefer David Kelly's version of Grampa Joe (even when he's bedridden, Jack Albertson looks far, far too spry), the one thing both films get right is the deep bond between that character and Charlie. Especially in this film, where the parents are given much more shading than they do in the Burton version, it's essential we believe in the familial love between the two--and that it's his influence that shapes Charlie's honesty.

4) Another thing that impresses me about the Stuart version--the other kids feel like, you know, kids. I didn't realize how thoroughly grotesque the Burton children are (save for the Burton Veruca, who I knew was a Demon Child from that first horrifying rictus grin of hers) until I saw the more naturalistic versions of the other four children. As such, their behaviors seem more realistically awful, which makes their fates all the more horrific. And speaking of horrific...

5) This version of the film isn't all that far away from being a real horror story--not the least because we never, ever see the other four children after disaster befalls them. All we get is Gene Wilder's assurance that they're perfectly fine, which doesn't work because--

6) In this film, Gene Wilder is terrifying. This is why I prefer Wilder to Depp. Wilder rarely raises his voice, does not engage in any of the overt physical tics and eccentricities that Depp positively wallows in...and as a result, he's borderline menacing. I particularly like how he 'calls for help' as each of these children meet their fate in a flat, dull, calculatedly unconvincing way.

I've mentioned before how I think it's a true pity that Wilder never ventured far outside of comedy...I am once again convinced that if he ever decided to play a villain in a thriller, he would have arguably won an award. He also could have been the greatest Doctor eeeever.

Supposedly, this was a naturalistic response...and it beats
looking at a blue screen.

7) Supposedly, Mel Stuart did not let any of the cast see the Chocolate Room until the scene was shot--and I absolutely love the apparently natural reaction the kids have when they stumble into the room. Given that this was all practical, you have to marvel at the handiwork of Art Director Harper Goff.

8) The weakest moment in this film is arguably the most pivotal--namely, the 'fizzy lifting liquid' scene. It simply lasts far too long for its purpose, and never moves beyond a certain emotional point.

9) I do like how the parents get equal time here. In the best cases--Roy Kinnear in particular as Mr. Salt--it draws up an even stronger case for them being part of the reason why their kids are so awful.

Peter Ostman may not have been a great actor--but he had lots
of great character actors surrounding him, like Aubrey Woods.

10) It's interesting seeing how much of the original script is 'quoted' by the Burton version--although in many cases, the Burton version seems to just want to drop certain references in to assure the audience that yes, theirs is a version of the same movie.

Overall...as I said, I like both equally...but the outstanding performance by Wilder, the clever little skits, and some cool art direction makes this the film I'd chose to show to a kid first. It's the more charming and naturalistic, and would prolly entertain them more.