View Full Version : Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
What a great movie seriously. Tim Burton has furthed solidified himself as one of my favoirte directors. From the movies awsome looking sets to its story i loved every second of this movie. I actually found it more entertaining than War of the Worlds. I recomend everyone to go see this.
So whats everyone else's opions on this movie?
i loved it...follows the book very closely with minor changes...all in all very entertaining...johnny depp wonderful as willy wonka...
blibblobblib
07-16-05, 09:18 PM
I CANNOT WAIT to see this. I love the Wonka...and the Burton aint that bad either.
Uncle Rico
07-17-05, 02:05 AM
Once again a disspointment to my summer movie fun. I wanted to see this movie more than anything this year and it let me down. I wont write a long review ill just say this: The oompa loompa songs were horrible and i dreaded each one. The Backstory of Willy took away from his mysterious sinister creative personality (although i did like depp playing wonka). The movie was great up until that first song by the loompas. then it went downhill. I think if they would have eliminated the whole family elemant of the movie (which made it seem way too much like a childrens film even though i know the book was a childrens book i had expected this movie to be a little darker). So the film was good ill say except for Wonkas backstory and the ompa loompa songs.
Son Of A Preacher Man
07-17-05, 02:33 AM
I can't wait to see this especially after all the good reviews.
Though I am slightly worried about how Johnny Depp portrays Willy Wonka. I've seen the little bits of him in the commercials and I think he looks like and acts like an idiot.
the backstory was not in the book and added, but i enjoyed that...explained a lot about how the factory was started...however roald dahl wrote the songs that the oompa loompas sang every time another child had gotten into trouble...
all-starballer
07-19-05, 05:22 AM
Is this better than the original version
well, i liked it better...i can't speak for other people...
dillskies88
07-20-05, 01:17 AM
I thought it was decent but it was nowhere near the original in my opinion. Depp tended to get on my nerves with his voice and the way he acted. Also the few minor changes kinda semmed weird since i've seen the original quite a few times. Also the oom pa loompa songs were horrible in my IMHO. But the visuals on this movie were great and it was nice to kick back and watch an enertaining movie. All in all nice film. But like Susan said, you can't speak for everyone.
Is this better than the original version
Oh yes....very much so. It's much more entertaining. :yup: And I just love the Ooompa-Loompas :p
the backstory was not in the book and added, but i enjoyed that...
I took the kids yesterday and we all really enjoyed it. We were even giggling afterwards repeating some of Depp's lines. And, I love the little boy who plays Charlie.
I liked the backstory too susan. :)
I haven't yet seen this, how close is it the Charlie and the Chocolate factory. I used to watch that all the time when I was a kid.
I haven't yet seen this, how close is it the Charlie and the Chocolate factory. I used to watch that all the time when I was a kid.
not sure what you mean...if you mean is it close to the gene wilder film i would have to say yes and no....yes, some of the instances are the same, the sets, the plot and characters are the same with minor changes...however this charlie and the chocolate factory is much much closer to the book than willy wonka was....
i hope this helps
Henry The Kid
07-24-05, 10:31 AM
Johnny Depp was, in all honesty, horrifyingly creepy to me. I think he miscalculated this role a little. Still, the movie overcame that flaw, with a much more visually interesting take on the factory, interesting songs, and an immensely likeable character in Charlie.
The lack of backstory worked in the first one, because we didn't have as much of an attachment to Charlie, and we could believe that Willy Wonka would randomly decide the winner based on giving a piece of candy back. It wouldn't have worked here.
TwentyOne
07-24-05, 11:45 AM
I thoguht this movie was great, i saw it twice already. I was a little unsure about how Depp portrayed Wonka at first, but after seeing it i think he did a great job. This is a perfect example of a movie where the Burtonesque style really did a lot for it. Good stuff.
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 http://www.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050711/160_ap_willy_wonka_depp_050711.jpg http://www.middle-east-online.com/pictures/big/_8228_micheal-jackson-18-12-2003.jpg shockingly alike and they have the same soft wierd voice and mannerisms.
all i can say is read the book and check out benny and joon....
dolarhydecb
07-26-05, 11:22 AM
Of all the movies this summer, I have not yet been able to see this one and I have heard many mixed reviews about it. I just wanted to know if it is worth the money to go or just wait for dvd. So many movies come out in the next few weeks anyways and I'd have to cut one of them to check this out. This did get two thumbs up, (but that's probably because it applied to a large audience)
Sexy Celebrity
07-27-05, 09:33 PM
I thought that Michael Jackson and the Chocolate Factory was Tim Burton's best film to date.
LordSlaytan
07-28-05, 03:14 PM
I was pretty surprised I liked it as much as I did. I thought Depp and the boy did well, and the sets were wonderful. I'll try to jot down more later, but right now I need to drown a bag of kitties.
Ciao
Have you seen the original Batman Sexy celebrity?
I was pretty surprised I liked it as much as I did. I thought Depp and the boy did well, and the sets were wonderful.
I'm glad you liked it. :)
It took me awhile to get used to Depp's make up though, but it grew on me by the end. I guess it gave him that subtle edge he wanted. But, he did remind me of....
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/125/003_AMELIE.jpg http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MMPO/503574.jpg
They could be twins...or at least brother and sister. :p
LordSlaytan
07-29-05, 11:12 AM
I'd say blasphemy if Depp weren't so damn beautiful.
MrZeldaFan
07-29-05, 12:19 PM
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory... never seen it yet, but I hope it will be good. And many people said it's a remake of the 1971 version.
both films are similar, but there are enough differences where i wouldn't consider it a remake
Johnseprish
07-29-05, 03:22 PM
Sorry. Just didn't like it. Johnny Depp is no Gene Wilder.
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
hahahahahahahahahhah
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
hahahhahahahah
Can't wait to see this one. :yup:
Charlie and the Chocolate Chocolate Factory isn't a remake. It's a total opposite. It's based on the book on the same name.
Plus, you can't obviously compare Depp to Wilder. Impossible.
The_Butcher
07-31-05, 12:23 AM
I have not seen this movie but, you know, i'm having a change of heart due to the way some people are putting it.:D They are not circus freak, singing migets, they are just people of abnormal size.:D
P.S- Similar to Gwen Stefani, but with migets as your slaves instead of Asians.:D And the look alike too!;)
-TheButcher
SamsoniteDelilah
07-31-05, 01:32 AM
Saw this this afternoon and I really liked it.
It's got that Elfman aesthetic of creepy sterility.
Depp is terrific and I disagree with the comparisons to Jacko - I think he created a character based on the script here and while they're both pale with dark hair, I think the similarity ends there. He still looks like Audrey Tatou to me, though.
Freddy Highmore is so adorable, I want to eat him with a little silver spoon.
The supporting cast was fantastic, even the kids. I can't quite figure out who Helena Bonham Carter was reminding me of... it's bothering me. :/
ZombIe=LoVeR
07-31-05, 06:08 AM
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
hahahhahahahah
ROFL yeah that's the coolest part of this movie and its predecessor
cant wait to see it
hayward
08-02-05, 07:06 PM
Depp is ****ing bitchin'
lilsamuraijoe
08-02-05, 07:43 PM
Yeah. He gives you the total feel of someone who hasn't been out in a long time...
blibblobblib
08-02-05, 08:13 PM
I. Loved. It.
TheUsualSuspect
08-20-05, 04:37 PM
First of all, let me say that this film is nothing like the original, there were so many things that were not in this film that were in the original, which made the film seem very short. Through out the whole film you know what is going to happen and when you don't see it you kind of feel let down, but then the film goes on after the ending of the original and you get new material on the screen.
This film has BURTONS style written all over it, the opening score, the Buckette's house, evening the references to his other films are in here. (Peewee, Edward). It's always a treat to see a Burton film because his sense of style is always "twisted" and unique.
The music other then Elfman's score was sung by the Oompa Loompas and they were short and only happened after a child was disposed of. Of course it was funny to see that little guy sing and do the little dances, but I still say that the original Oompa Loompas were great and should never have changed. I never read the book, but in the movie it shows the back story to the Oompa Loompas, living in some kind of jungle, it was neat to see that.
In saying that, this film, unlike the original which centered on Charlie, deals more with Wonka. Going to the jungle or Loompa Island and finding the Oompa Loompas, hell even going as far back as to show Willy as a child and his father the great Mr. Lee, or as someone said in the audience. "Holy Sh*t, it's Dooku". As stated before this film is full of references to other movies and one is 2001: AOS, in the TV room (the big white room) it has 2001 on the screen and I know that I was the only one in that theater that knew what it was.
So Depp as Wonka eh, well this is the part that scares me, he was freaky. Not like the original Wonka at all. He sounds like a child, looks pale and acts like a child. Depp was quoted as saying that the inspiration was a game show host locked up for 20 years and then finally let out and I believe it. He was great, had the right funny/scary/weird sense and look to him. Of course Wonka and Depps performance is the most weird part of this film, that doesn't take apart from the fact that the film itself is weird, it goes up there with any Lynch or Cronenberg film as being F'd up. Not in an I don't understand way, in a this is F'd up way.
Which film do I prefer, hard to say cause the original is a classic and I never read the book, but as good as the film is there were some parts that I could of done without. Mainly one being Burton showing the other children leaving the factory. Agustus is covered in Chocolate, Violette is still blue, and I won't tell you about the other two, but what I liked about the original is that you never knew what happened to them, if those Oompa Loompas really did take care of those kids or if there were something darker going on in that factory. All in all, the kids did the job of acting like kids and the parents did the job of acting like parents, so nothing special there.
Depp's performance, the sets, comparing to the original and Burton behind the camera are the reasons to see this film, but if you loved a lot of things about the original....like Slugsworth, the floating/burping, Wonkas office, then you'll end up being disappointed because they are not present in Burtons film.
8/10
Once again a disspointment to my summer movie fun. I wanted to see this movie more than anything this year and it let me down. I wont write a long review ill just say this: The oompa loompa songs were horrible and i dreaded each one. The Backstory of Willy took away from his mysterious sinister creative personality (although i did like depp playing wonka). The movie was great up until that first song by the loompas. then it went downhill. I think if they would have eliminated the whole family elemant of the movie (which made it seem way too much like a childrens film even though i know the book was a childrens book i had expected this movie to be a little darker). So the film was good ill say except for Wonkas backstory and the ompa loompa songs.
You my words. Those oompa loompas(I won't even capitilize them now) were the worst ide I've ever seen.
Is this better than the original versionno where near as good as the original.
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?
LordSlaytan
08-26-05, 07:08 PM
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? :)
Yes i totally agree with everything you said.
And let´s just enjoy this visual gift:)
Darkness&Horror
08-30-05, 11:18 PM
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 http://www.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050711/160_ap_willy_wonka_depp_050711.jpg http://www.middle-east-online.com/pictures/big/_8228_micheal-jackson-18-12-2003.jpg 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
It is only starting here tomorrow http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/4.gif
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.
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:eek: 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...:Dso cool.
xsickboyx
10-30-05, 05:15 AM
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.:mad: this was a dissaponting movie
blibblobblib
10-30-05, 03:45 PM
Wonka looked like a petifile.
A petifile? He molests pets?!
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!
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.:mad: this was a dissaponting movie
looked like a petifile?? what does a petifile look like for you?
A petifile? He molests pets?!
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!
:laugh:
James_Sparrow
11-05-05, 12:47 AM
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.
midnight star
11-10-05, 11:21 PM
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.
James_Sparrow
11-11-05, 12:20 PM
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
11-11-05, 03:12 PM
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
11-11-05, 04:49 PM
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!
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
11-13-05, 06:51 PM
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.
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
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.
Anomaly_X7
12-12-05, 07:13 AM
Hated it!!!
I love the original, and was excited to see this new version but, found out it didn’t hold a candle to the original. Even with the CGI, which really wasn’t all that impressive, it never came close to being good or even half good. I hated just about everything this movie threw at me, the ompas, Depp as Wonka was a bad choice, The flash backs were terrible and unnecessary, I thought the acting was sickening with the exception of the kid that played Charlie. The songs were bad bad bad, and that little weird laugh of Depp's was annoying to say the least. It should have been darker and Willy Wonka should have been maniacal and mysterious with a dark edge. The factory itself was not all that interesting just a bad rehash of the original film. I found myself wondering why I was still watching it at one point, but I don't like to stop a movie once I start into it. Then came the ending, which was probably the worst part of the entire film. I am so glad I deiced to rent it instead of buying it. I feel bad enough I wasted my time with it, at least I didn’t blow 20$ like I did on "The Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy". I have to give it two thumbs down in the toilet; sorry all you that liked it but I have to say it was a huge let down to me.
sorry all you that liked it
How considerate! :rolleyes:
Although I really liked the original as a child, it strayed from the book quite a bit, even if the detours were mostly exclusionary in nature. Also, I see a complaint about the songs in the new film, but yet no complaint about the excruciatingly bad "Cheer up Charlie" from the original. I would rather have my beard caught in the gears of a trans-continental bus than hear that song again. How about the song Wonka sings while people are in the edible room? Terrible. Meanwhile, especially after a second viewing, I LOVE the new oompa tunes, and think they are ingeniusly written. Burton pokes enough fun at the songs in the film itself to let us know they ARE a bit goofy, but that they are supposed to be.
Each film has it's pros and cons, but I find I have trouble sitting through the original these days. I like the psychadelic overtones of the original, but it plays flat today, and the films just looks so dated, because of these art design oddities that were cool then, but are simply dated and cornball today. I feel Burton injected tounge-in-cheek homage to both the old film and the time period it was made in to bring new life and a fresh vibe to the new flick, while retaining some of the original trappings.
One thing I will agree on, is that the flashbacks were sort of unnecessary and ham handed, but I think Burton had something to say about family, and this was his chosen device. As for the acting, I like it, across the board. Depp is over-the-top, but acts more like the Wonka I had envisioned while reading the book as a child. Burton also included some of my favorite parts of the book, like Chocolate Mountain, and the Indian Chocolate Palace, while removing some of the scenes from the first film that didn't play like the book. The fizzy lifting drink was just sort of an aside in the book (which involved an oompa loompa, not the Buckets), and not a main plot device. The stealing of the fizzy drink by the Buckets was a total fabrication that was part of the tacked on theft storyline in the original film.
"Burp!! Burp, you silly ass!" - Wonka to an Oompa Loompa
Darth Stujitzu
12-12-05, 01:00 PM
I just didn't get it.
I love Burton and Depp, but this is one collaboration that I just didn't get into, it was a little too weird for me.
Not one of their better efforts, Sleepy Hollow is still one of my favourite collaborations between Burton and Depp, but unfortunately Charlie just didn't engage me enough.
I think I liked the film because there was such a conflict between the silly, light-heartedness and the moody darkness lurking just beneath it. It's an uncomfortable mixture, but it reflects well Roald Dahl's original vision (Tim Burton notwithstanding). I love it that the film messes with audience cues. Some scenes start funny enough, and you find yourself laughing; but by the end of the scene, things start to move toward disturbing (and even horrifying), and you feel like an idiot for having laughed. A stroke of genius on Burton's part, I'd argue.
What some people hated, I rather liked. I thought the flashbacks were interesting, picturesque, and necessarily stylized. I really like the child versus adult perspective theme, and how many avenues regarding that theme you can find and follow throughout the picture.
I'd say more, but I've gotta run...
stevo3001
12-18-05, 08:58 PM
The original was the more solid film in many ways, but it was ruined for me by a pervasive look of 70s cheap chintzy crappiness, even in the putatively wondrous chocolate factory. Therefore I always remember it as vaguely depressing.
I thought Burton, imaginative stylist that he is, would be perfect for giving the story the gloss it so badly needed. And he did; this one looked fantastic.
And yet it was no better than the original. The story felt tired, there was little zip to the dialogue. Depp was pretty good, and the matching Beauregards were pretty funny, but I doubt any of the characters will linger long in my memory. Wonka was a somewhat different character now, but generally, this was a rehash, and that's disappoiting from a man who tried to infuse his previous remake, Planet of the Apes, with a unique life of its own.
And yet it was no better than the original. The story felt tired, there was little zip to the dialogue. Depp was pretty good, and the matching Beauregards were pretty funny, but I doubt any of the characters will linger long in my memory. Wonka was a somewhat different character now, but generally, this was a rehash, and that's disappoiting from a man who tried to infuse his previous remake, Planet of the Apes, with a unique life of its own.
To be fair, though, translating the book is a pretty rigid affair. It isn't like there's much room for deviation. And I'm thinking that the ones who will be committing Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to memory will be today's younger viewing audience.
stevo3001
12-22-05, 04:32 PM
To be fair, though, translating the book is a pretty rigid affair. It isn't like there's much room for deviation. And I'm thinking that the ones who will be committing Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to memory will be today's younger viewing audience.
Yeah, many elements would need to stay much the same.
I would say that there would have been plenty of room for new imagination in some still pretty important details, for example, the faults & fates of the other children.
I did like this movie, it wasn't great, i thought all the children were great, i loved the Busby Berkley feel to the musical numbers :D
ecardica
02-14-06, 01:02 AM
I loved this movie! Although the Oompa Loompa songs in this one left something to be desired :( Johnny Depp was amazing in it though, the kid who played Charlie not so much.
I liked this movie accualy. although I didn't really like how the used just one person to play all of the Oompa Loompas. I thought that the songs they sang were entertaining, just very strange. I liked the set they created in this one. Its definatly more twisted, and the squirel scene they used I thought was funny, especialy because it was somthing that you didn't expect. it fit so well into the story and the new kind of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory,world.
however I wasn't that fond of the habits that Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) had this time around. I also didn't like the costumes in this one. but I liked almost everything else.
I liked this alot more than the original, and I loved the original.
First off, Depp really did a good job here. Whereas Wilder really made a subtle madman, Depp presented it more out front and made for a much more understandable character. Also, he was a lot more humorous. Wilder was very bland, in my opinion.
The oompa loompa songs were very lame. The attempted hair metal-esque song made me cringe. I think the original gave a much more ample soundtrack, oompa-wise.
Lastly, gotta say that the story was built very well and never really strayed off onto any tangents. It left a great setting and a very good character space. Even thought the log cabin ending was rather warm and cute.
John_Doe
04-07-06, 11:49 AM
Hated it!!!
I love the original, and was excited to see this new version but, found out it didn’t hold a candle to the original. Even with the CGI, which really wasn’t all that impressive, it never came close to being good or even half good. I hated just about everything this movie threw at me, the ompas, Depp as Wonka was a bad choice, The flash backs were terrible and unnecessary, I thought the acting was sickening with the exception of the kid that played Charlie. The songs were bad bad bad, and that little weird laugh of Depp's was annoying to say the least. It should have been darker and Willy Wonka should have been maniacal and mysterious with a dark edge. The factory itself was not all that interesting just a bad rehash of the original film. I found myself wondering why I was still watching it at one point, but I don't like to stop a movie once I start into it. Then came the ending, which was probably the worst part of the entire film. I am so glad I deiced to rent it instead of buying it. I feel bad enough I wasted my time with it, at least I didn’t blow 20$ like I did on "The Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy". I have to give it two thumbs down in the toilet; sorry all you that liked it but I have to say it was a huge let down to me.
I was expecting it to be a little scary buy the only thing that was scary about it was how closely depp looked like Michael Jackson, Re-makes are rearley good
Thursday Next
04-07-06, 12:47 PM
Saw this for the first time last night and didn't like it. It was ok at the start, but went downhill. Depp was creepy as Wonka, as well as creepily like Jacko in places, as has been pointed out. Anyway, a far cry from the avuncular but slightly unhinged Wonka of the books. And why was he reading off a card? The Buckets were all right, so were the other kids (except Veruca), but I didn't like the oompa loompas or their songs. There were some nice touches, like when the young Wonka is walking past the flags (even if that did seem to belong more to The Simpsons than Charlie...). The ending "but Willy Wonka got something even better, a family" was vomit-inducingly awful, even for a kids movie.
thefreedvds
05-12-06, 11:10 PM
I thought the original was a lot better. However, I did see this in IMAX and the graphics and effects were great. Johnny Depp was an interesting choice to play Wonka. I have to agree with Thursday Next that Depp was kinda creepy.
Sotto_Voce
05-15-06, 11:30 AM
My choice for worst film I saw in 2005. Srsly.
I came so so so so close to walking out of this, and I NEVER do that. What a terrible misfire.
screentoclose
05-26-06, 04:56 PM
7/10
The film was ok but not the best from Johny Depp. I was suprised about the two German acteurs in the movie. The film was sometimes funny but I think it never will take place between my other DVDs
KnicksRIP
07-21-06, 04:13 PM
I just saw this film and thought it was dreadful. I don't know how you can really compare this to the original film (well, I mean, I know HOW you can do it, but I don't know WHY you would do it). They are such different films: the original was a true family film with a warm spirit (despite some lousy music); this one is an aseptic mess of CG and false sentimentality. Depp's Wonka is thoroughly unlikeable, although I think that was sort of the point. I enjoyed Highmore and the one playing the grandfather, but felt that they were given too little to do in the film. Otherwise, a poorly paced and poorly acted effects piece.
TheUsualSuspect
07-21-06, 06:13 PM
I just saw this film and thought it was dreadful. I don't know how you can really compare this to the original film (well, I mean, I know HOW you can do it, but I don't know WHY you would do it). They are such different films: the original was a true family film with a warm spirit (despite some lousy music); this one is an aseptic mess of CG and false sentimentality. Depp's Wonka is thoroughly unlikeable, although I think that was sort of the point. I enjoyed Highmore and the one playing the grandfather, but felt that they were given too little to do in the film. Otherwise, a poorly paced and poorly acted effects piece.
It's not ment to be compared with the original film, rather what it is based on...the novel itself. Burton's version is more "true" to the source that that with Wilder.
KnicksRIP
07-21-06, 07:42 PM
It's not ment to be compared with the original film, rather what it is based on...the novel itself. Burton's version is more "true" to the source that that with Wilder.
Oh, I know that. Just going off of previous posts.
Gideon58
03-26-14, 05:16 PM
Didn't really care for this movie for a myriad of reasons...yes, I know it's truer to the original book than the '71 version, but that doesn't necessarily make it a better movie. Depp's interpretation of Wonka seemed to be a cross between Michael Jackson and Carol Channing, but I don't blame him entirely for that, Burton has to take some of the blame. The Wonka character comes off in this film as hating children and I found that very troublesome...Gene Wilder's Wonka had a keen eye for bad children, but I never got the impression that he hated children. I hated most of the children (Mike Teevee was particularly repulsive) and I found it kind of creepy that all of the Oompah Loompas were all played by a single actor. The one thing in this film that I preferred to the 1971 version? Freddie Highmore as Charlie...liked him a lot better than Peter Ostrum in the '71 film.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.