Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

→ in
Tools    
Page 3 of 5
« First234Last »




criss's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Tu m´
08-26-05
i have seen this film today!
i liked this film a lot, really, i havent seen the original one but i read the book when i was younger and i think it is a very beautiful beautiful story
first if all i´d like to say i liked a lot the actors, mostly Johnny Depp´s look alike and performance! and also Charlie (who i already knew from Finding Neverland, which i also really liked) and his grandpa.
The only think i would change a bit are the "Oompa Loompas" look alike and their dances; i dont know, i would change them a bit, but it is okay.
So I think it is a very visual film, very colorful, and i like it because of that. I like very very much the design, of the inside of the factory. I love it when they are wearing those glasses! I really enjoyed it. As i said, in a visual, artistic way it is a fantastic film i think.



Can i use my imagination?
__________________
If i could laugh, I´d love you; If I could smile at anything you said, We could be laughing lovers; I think you prefer to be miserable instead...("Im your villain", Franz Fedinand)



LordSlaytan's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
The Great One
08-26-05
Originally Posted by criss
The only think i would change a bit are the "Oompa Loompas" look alike and their dances; i dont know, i would change them a bit, but it is okay.
I liked it a lot more than I thought I would, that’s for sure. Visually, it was everything I could expect from Burton…that is his greatest strength…but I felt the same way as you about the musical bits. After the first one’s novelty wore off, I kinda’ wished the numbers were at least shorter…or not involving rock-n-roll. That, especially, felt out of place in the world that Wonka and his magical factory inhabits. I dunno…I didn’t really mind them so much, I just wish they were done differently somehow. It’s hard to think of ways to improve it because it’s so…so…Burton. I can’t get into that guy’s head, let alone be able to mimic his style enough to improve something as Burtonesque. That make sense?
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



criss's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Tu m´
08-26-05
Yes i totally agree with everything you said.

And let´s just enjoy this visual gift



Darkness&Horror's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Registered User
08-30-05
Originally Posted by angle
I think Tim Burton droped the ball on this one. First off it was not the classic good film we were used to (I wasn't expecting it to be the same I mean come on when was the last Tim Burton directed a normal film) but a big pile of garbage. Butron felt the need to explore and explain the reasoning for the madness of Willy Wanka. This to me was half the fun of the original movie. I liked viewing him as nothing more than a crazy guy who has a bad ass chocolate factory and a bunch of singing midget slaves but no, Burton had to mess it all up and explain that they weren't midget slaves but weird foreign midgets who he helped out of poverty and certain extinction. He also had to give a reason for Wankas madness. He couldn't just be sweet and have a bad ass chocolate factory but he had to have a messed up chocolateless childhood and a verbally abusive father who just so happened to be a dentist. All of that aside this was not a movie about a chocolate factory oh no, it was merely a sugar coated version of the Michael Jackson story. Think about it, A grown man has a horrible child hood and an abusive father had his childhood taken away from him so he builds a weird wonderland of a chocolate factory to try to relive his childhood in. Plus he doesn't know how to talk to adults and only befriends kids. This sounds exactly like Michael Jackson. He had a bad childhood and an abusive controlling father, so in his later years builds Never never land (a house with a zoo/amusement park built on it) to relive his childhood in. Jackson like Wanka can't speak to adults and his only friends are kids. To top it all off they look shockingly alike and they have the same soft wierd voice and mannerisms.
Well although I haven't seen the new one the ompa's being almost exticinct was also in the original



ruby07's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Registered User
08-31-05
it was an ok movie. Maybe a little weird though. i was totally amused by the oompa loompas. i think this movie is great for kids.



FelixS's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
I Will Shrink You
10-12-05
I think both films were so close it is hard to pick the best. It just comes down to personal taste. And of course who is your favourite willy wonka, Depp or wilder, both have great qualities for the role. For me Depp is the best. Im a bit freaky and Depps wierd looks are so good. After each child was 'disposed' of he would look at the parent and i thought that was just awesome, it looked like his head was going to turn 360 degrees. Depp just is closer to that pshycotic element of willy wonka and he portrays it brilliantly. The movie was great for me until the ending, i thought "here we go a twist...i know there is going to be some kind of twist...but no. i walked out thinking how sad the film ended on such a bad note. I think that Burton could have at least dressed the narrator oompah loompah as a transvestite or something. but overall this film is a pretty good success. The dolls burning up...so cool.



xsickboyx's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Registered User
10-30-05
This movie was horrible im mean i love tim burton but damn this was his worse movie. Wonka looked like a petifile. But all the damn oompa loompas were the same person. this was a dissaponting movie



blibblobblib's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Lets put a smile on that block
10-30-05
Originally Posted by xsickboyx
Wonka looked like a petifile.
A petifile? He molests pets?!

BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!
__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!



criss's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Tu m´
10-30-05
Originally Posted by xsickboyx
This movie was horrible im mean i love tim burton but damn this was his worse movie. Wonka looked like a petifile. But all the damn oompa loompas were the same person. this was a dissaponting movie
looked like a petifile?? what does a petifile look like for you?



James_Sparrow's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Teh Pwnage
11-05-05
Since the new release on Tuesday I have this film at my house at the moment so I might do a review just to get everyone prepped and ready for Tuesday. Tonight i'm watching devils rejects and that review will be up tomorrow, and then that night i'll watch Charlie and it should be up either that night or, monday morning.
__________________
James Sparrow's Rented Reviews!

The Reaping 7/10
Transformers 8.5/10
Flight of the Living Dead 6/10
The Invisible 6/10
Return to House on Haunted Hill 1/10
Planet Terror 8/10
A Mighty Heart 7/10



midnight star's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
midnight stars are the prettiest
11-10-05
so first of all, its "PEDOPHILE"... second of all, that means to molest or be sexually attracted to children.

i thought the movie was characteristic to Tim Burton's usual creepy style, adding a sinister twist to an otherwise child-like story...the addition of Wonka's background was a bit much...it just made him really pathetic instead of mysterious...Gene Wilder portrayed Wonka as eccentric, which was genius...i felt Johnny Depp's performance, while fitting for his character, seemed effeminite and slightly sinister. Overall, i wouldnt recommend small children watching this movie, as they might cry because Willy Wonka scares them, but i think for Time Burton fans, its a must-see.
__________________
Captain Jack Sparrow: "Weddings? I LOVE weddings!! Drinks all around!!"

*Donkey drinks potion*
Shrek: "So...how do you feel...?"
Donkey: "I don't know. Do I look any different to you?"
Puss in Boots: "Well, you still look like an ass to me."



James_Sparrow's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Teh Pwnage
11-11-05
WHAT!?! Not let small children see this! I would Johnny Depp's portrayel has a smaller chance at scaring kids that Gene Wilder's did. I mean in the original we have the creepy boat ride, and Gene plays wonka with more anger. But Johnny Depp, he's like one big kid so I see no reason why not to let children watch this film.



UrgeOverkill's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
The accusations fly
11-11-05
Originally Posted by midnight star
so first of all, its "PEDOPHILE"... second of all, that means to molest or be sexually attracted to children.

i thought the movie was characteristic to Tim Burton's usual creepy style, adding a sinister twist to an otherwise child-like story...the addition of Wonka's background was a bit much...it just made him really pathetic instead of mysterious...Gene Wilder portrayed Wonka as eccentric, which was genius...i felt Johnny Depp's performance, while fitting for his character, seemed effeminite and slightly sinister. Overall, i wouldnt recommend small children watching this movie, as they might cry because Willy Wonka scares them, but i think for Time Burton fans, its a must-see.
I agree-Tim Burton fans will thoroughly enjoy this film--others? not so much



James_Sparrow's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Teh Pwnage
11-11-05
You people are insane! Just look at the gross of this film! There isn't THAT many Burton fans out there. So it seems alot of people liked it enough to go see it!



Sleezy's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
In the Beginning...
11-11-05
Originally Posted by UrgeOverkill
I agree-Tim Burton fans will thoroughly enjoy this film--others? not so much
There is probably a bigger fanbase for Roald Dahl than there is for Tim Burton. And even people who still don't know that it was a book will likely remember the Gene Wilder version. Remember, those kids have grown up.



midnight star's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
midnight stars are the prettiest
11-13-05
while i dont think it's a problem for children to see this movie, there's a reason why it's rated "PG" instead of "G". i know it's for quirky situations, action, and mild language, but it also deals with more "adult" issues, like extreme poverty and...how should i say...fanatical parents, such as Wonka's father, and i think that makes it less of a childrens movie and more for older audiences. i agree johnny depp's plays a big kid, but it's also kind of strange for an adult to be that much of a child, and burton made it obvious that he had a disturbing childhood, which not many young children would understand. so altho the original was creepy in its own sense, it was still more for children than this film.



susan's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
energizer bunny
11-13-05
roald dahl wrote this story for children....this version was more faithful to the book than the earlier gene wilder original....

what i'm trying to say is that most of the situations in the book are the same as the film except for certain comments and a backstory



Diz
Diz's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Registered User
12-09-05
I was kinda disappointed with this one. The oompa loompa was so obviously one person just cgi into alot of little people. Johnny Depp did a pretty good job and the children were the best part of the movie.

Page 3 of 5
« First234Last »