DRAWMA KINGG Movie Reviews

Tag: film-critic

  • WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY 1971 Movie Review – A critical analysis of mixing chocolate by waterfall

    Sometimes revisiting old classics can be scary. Was it actually good? Was it horrible? Watching through a critical lens may give you a very different opinion of a film on a rewatch. It turns out Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory WAS and IS excellent! It is a total masterpiece on many levels and a movie that any kid or adult would probably enjoy. What really stood out to me is that it is genuinely both funny and interesting throughout.

    First example of substantial funny: The scene where the scientist was asking his computer where the remaining golden tickets were located. I’m dyin’ laughing by the end of this scene. It was just a really funny bit they came up with that was basically like it’s own little stand alone skit. Another part I actually laughed at was when his teacher is calculating percentages based on how many chocolate bars each student opened. When Charlie reveals how many he opened, the teacher exclaims “Well I can’t figure out just two!”

    There are a number of other interesting things I noticed in my rewatch of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. One is that I think he reveals that the secret to his success is that he mixes his chocolate by waterfall. The problem with this is it looks to be an unsanitary way to make chocolate. Other scenes also make me suspicious that Wonka has built this difficult maze of rooms to move through solely for the purpose of warding off health inspectors.

    In a way, the plot eventually becomes: Is Willy Wonka good or evil? His actions are bizarre and he does not seem to be concerned for anyone’s safety. He blames the children for what they do wrong and takes no responsibility for himself. There are also these 4 moments that communicated to me that he is truly unhinged in some way:

    1: On the boat he shows them horror images, starts singing, transitions to poetry, then just screams. Oh, you were just joking, Willy? Heh heh, I guess?

    2: He makes the most out of place peculiar comment near the end of the film. “We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams. Come along”

    3: “Stop. Don’t. Come back.” He appears to say sarcastically. OK, now you are not even trying to warn anyone properly of all the dangers.

    4: The objects in his study at the end are all just half an object. He must have purposefully split them in half as some kind of representation of himself. It’s as if he is half a person or feels like half a person, or maybe has some kind of split personality. I’m just throwing some ideas out there, but I think it conveys a very intimate place in his mind when we see the environment in his study at the end.

    Here’s where the film must be interpreted. The only information we have that the other kids were safe at the end is merely a statement from Wonka. We must take his word for it when he has already proven himself untrustworthy. After the credits roll, what happens next for the characters is one of two very different things. Either Charlie moves into the factory, the other kids are home safe, and everyone lives happily ever after OR Willy Wonka is now on the run as a criminal! Charlie and his family have trouble moving into their new home because it is a crime scene. Additionally, the factory is discovered to be an unsafe and unsanitary maze that is now a hazard to the city. I guess one other possibility is that Wonka gets off scot-free because of the contract he made everyone sign at the beginning. 

    The second interpretation makes me very sad for Charlie and his family so I choose to believe the good natured ending. But even so, Willy Wonka was still kind of evil for what he put everyone through wasn’t he?

    Final thoughts: 10/10 Crowns if you are overlooking the obvious problems from a modern day lens. I am giving it this high of a rating because I feel Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’s quality level completely justifies the status it has as a top level classic. The movie is funny, exciting, fantastic, has great acting, has an enjoyable plot, and keeps you on edge the whole time trying to determine if Wonka is good/evil/sane/trustworthy. I don’t know if they intended the ending to be open to interpretation, but I don’t trust Willy Wonka’s word by the end of the film. It almost seems more likely that he’s an unhinged evil genius over an eccentric businessman, but each viewer must decide this for themselves!

  • THE PHANTOM 1996 Movie Review – A superhero that Slammed Evil before Batman and Superman

    Now I know some of you are thinking – “The Phantom doesn’t count as a classic!” OK, you win that argument. Moving on… This movie is one of my top 10 personal favorites. Wait, that doesn’t sound right. It’s gotta at least be in my top 5000 superhero movies of the last 30 years though. Yeah that sounds like the right category for it!

    Unlike most SO-CALLED PEOPLE, I like The Phantom. That is not even a joke or a lie. It holds a special place in my heart from the 90’s. However, I would be lying if I said I LOVED the movie or that it was a cinematic experience worth everyone’s time. But c’mon, with a tagline like “SLAM EVIL!” how could this movie go wrong?

    The character of The Phantom predates both Superman and Batman. He is a contender for the argument – “Who is the first superhero?” along with Zorro and some other costumed crime fighters. Who better to play him than Billy Zane?! it would probably be impossible to lead a movie with this many varying tones unless you were previously a cast member on Twin Peaks. Billy, Kristy Swanson, and Catherine Zeta-Jones are definitely the highlights of the film. The beginning of the movie is pretty rocky and lackluster, but it really picks up and becomes much more entertaining once Zane, Swanson, and Jones have their first scene together. Honestly, I think these actors could’ve carried this movie to a great place if there was a better director. I feel like the director must not have been a fan of the comic, because he did not seem to have a good vision of how to present this character on screen.

    What are some of the good things in this movie? My favorite scene is when Phantom’s doggie and horsey meet up in the forest, make some noises and gestures that show they can communicate with each other (horse-dog language), then go off on a hero/buddy mission to save Phantom and Buffy. Kristy Swanson’s character kicks a lotta butt, so we were one character name away from getting a Phantom/Buffy The Vampire Slayer superhero team up movie. There was also one scene where the director actually impressed me with the clever way he put it together. The villain does something very bad to another character, but it happens off screen. The dastardly act was just implied to the audience, which kind of made it MORE terrifying than actually showing what happened. This might have just been a way to avoid the censors, but it came across as artistic and well done.

    Ending Explained: Phantom explodes the bad guy.

    Final Thoughts: The Phantom is very close to having the components it needed to work. I think it would have succeeded with these improvements:

    1 – The costume didn’t look very good and desperately needed a redesign.

    2 – The cinematography was bad. Personally, I would have liked a darker atmosphere, but it definitely needed something different than what we got.

    3 – Different director, please!

    I really like the casting choices for the main characters. Catherine Zeta-Jones character particularly had a cool enemy turned ally arc. I thought she was perfect for this role. Unfortunately, a great cast can’t usually save a movie from a bad choice of director. But hey, I’ll trade parallel universe great versions of The Phantom for the one with posters and merchandise that encourage you to “SLAM EVIL!”

    Nostalgia rating: 7/10 Crowns

    Critical rating: 4 or 5 out of 10 Crowns

  • 28 YEARS LATER 2025 Movie Review – Ending Explained

    28 Years Later really is a different beast than I was expecting. It felt like a slice of life virus movie. Compared to other 28 Later movies, there was arguably quite a lot of drama here! If you know anything about dis Drawma Kingg so far, you know I am AT LEAST a moderate fan of drama!

    The good: Oddly, my favorite part about the movie is the pacing. It seems to move just at the right pace to keep you engaged in the experiences the main character is having. The acting, in my opinion, was very good IF I am allowed to voice my opinion on whether acting is good or bad in a movie of pictures that move. The directing and the camerawork were both exceptional. For someone that feeds on the dramatic flair, these are not the usual things I praise in a movie.

    Now, let me explain. I was enjoying the film while watching it. It even won me over after a rocky start with the odd intro scene. This is my super extra nonchalant express method of segueing into the next SPOILER paragraph:

    I won’t ever be able to talk about 28 Years Later without talking about Da Sandwich! The beginning and end involve this Jimmy character that seemingly has nothing to do with the rest of the film. He is a boy that survives an attack during the intro and is NOT the boy that is the actual main character. Then at the very end, we have a complete tonal shift to the Adidas Parkour People. Jimmy from the intro is now the leader of these people that do jump flips in what looks like Adidas style comfy clothes. The final scene feels drastically out of place in an otherwise well-made drama. I have imagined a conspiracy theory where the producers told the filmmakers that the initial movie didn’t wrap around like a bow properly and then forced them to add Da Sandwich (perhaps they called it this TOO) scenes at the beginning and end. Just don’t quote me on my imagination’s machinations. Usually, I love sandwiches! Unfortunately, this time Da Sandwich was the worst part.

    Ending Explained: Father and son live, mom not so much. Intro boy now leads a team of Adidas Parkour People.

    Final thoughts: 8/10 Ish, if the first and last scenes about Jimmy were cut from the master (film masters still work that way!). 6/10 ish as the movie played to me at the theater. The slice of life angle of the film is probably what I enjoyed most about the third 28 Later movie. Overall, it wouldn’t be a bad choice for an outing at the theater with some friends and sum snaxxy snax. That is, assuming I hadn’t spoiled it for you already. Drawma Kingg out.