posted
I haven't seen it.......I want to........I don't care if it isn't as good as the original because I didn't like the original that much, too much singing.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but the original was a musical. The only singing in this one, from what I've heard, was singing from the book, i.e. Oompa Loompa chants and Wonka's random rhymes.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
(all I can remember from earlier movie . . . that still goes through my head from time to time! Ha, now it's probably stuck in yours and I'm sure it isn't in the new version!)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw it today on a whim with the kids. They loved it and laughed out loud a number of times. I'm torn. I loved the original. Gene Wilders Willy Wonka was awesome. Johnny Depp plays his character very well, I'm just not sure I cared much for the direction they took WOnka. Depps Wonka was very strange. It was humorous, I enjoyed it pretty much from start to finish but it really just didn't live up to the hype. Pretty weak review I know, but I'm too geeked up about Potter to think straight anyways. To be perfectly honest the movie was only a distraction to keep my mind off of midnight, which is only two hours and thirty three minutes away. Opps, now two hours and thirty two minutes away!
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I just saw it. It's really weird. REALLY weird. As in one of the top 10 weirdest movies I've seen. And yes, there is definitely some singing.
I think Tim Burton just can't help making his movies about, well, himself - or at least all about the examining the bizarre behavior of certain bizarre characters. It's really interesting how different the interpretation Burton takes is from the interpretation given in the original film.
Ultimately the new film suffers from the same problem any remake of a great film suffers - namely that chances are it cannot live up. It's a good movie, but it does not compare to the original.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely loved that film. Wow. I haven't laughed this hard in I don't know how long. The ending really deviated from the book, but the beginning was quite close and over-all it kept very well to the spirit of the book. Depp's expressions in it were just...wow. And I loved how they used the original lyrics to the songs and the logic that is used throughout the entire film is just spectacular.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was awesome and some of the lines that Depp had were just great, like the one about cannibalism. There were parts that I like better in the original, but I don't feel that the new one is lacking because it doesn't have a large number of songs. The only songs in this one are the oompa-loompa songs, and though the new ones are funny, I like the originals better.
Also, please just remember that Burton did not write the script for the movie, someone else did.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oo also, during the credits, Roald Dahl is credited with writing the lyrics for the oompa loompa songs. I thought that was pretty cool. IMDB WebsitePosts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there is one pet peeve I have. I saw an interview where Burton talks about changing the ending. He says they changed it, but they "Stayed true to Dahl's vision."
Um...no you didn't. If you changed his book, you changed his vision of the story. The only way that statement can make sense is if the author says it. Like if OSC says, "The script for Ender's Game is different from the book, but it's still true to the vision I have of the story." Okay then. But don't speak for Dahl. You changed his story, how do you know if he would have approved or not?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just feel compelled to say: the 1971 movie was not "the original". The book that came out in the 60s was. That is all. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem, Puff. I indicated "original film" to differentiate it from the current film in theatres. I never meant to imply that the film was the original original.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really looked forward to seeing this movie, since I love both Dahl and Burton, and think they are quite suited for each other. Then I saw the preview for it, and kinda lost the wind from my sails. In the preview, Depp's Wonka was ALL wrong, kinda like a bizarro-world Michael Jackson. All my excitement turned to an apathetic trepidation towards seeing it. My expectations were lowered a lot.
Nonetheless, I saw it yesterday, and it turned out that my original excitement was on target. Depp's Wonka is indeed a bit creepy, and has none of the fun battiness that Gene Wilder brought to the character, but it works quite well in the darker context of the film. The chocalate factory is wonderful, taking advantage of all Burton's imagination and budget (both seemingly had no limit) had to offer. The Oompa-Loompa songs are probably my favorite part of the movie, much better than the infamous Oompa-Loompa Doopity Do that was the bane of the first film version. That they stuck to Dahl's lyrics improved it much.
The acting was top-notch. Burton an almost uncanny ability to bring out the best in all his actors, young and old, and the casting was quite good. Depp is a very talented actor, who puts everything he has into his roles, and those qualities are not lost in this film. He creates a very convincing Wonka-as-relcuse character, but the problem is he lacks any kind of warmth. I always viewed Wonka as more of a Dumbledore-esque character, reclusive not because he is unfond of human contact, but because he simply can't afford to let anyone in his factory. Freddy Highmore is a VERY impressive young actor (and, I must add, one of the few things I liked about Finding Neverland last year) and he is perfect in the Charlie Bucket role. I truly hope to see him in more films in the coming years.
-
Btw, I saw the French dubbed version. I understood maybe 60-70% of the dialogue, but in the end it didn't really matter. I already knew the story well, and Burton's style is extremely visual, making it quite comprehensible. Still, I would have liked to see it in English, since I like hearing the original actors speaking, and Dahl's Oompa-Loompa lyrics are wonderful examples of his mastery of the English language.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kids and I saw it last night. We all felt the same way about, we laughed during it, and were not sorry we went, but... it just wasn't that great. Not awful or anything, some of it was interesting, but overall it just lacked... something. I guess I can't help comparing it to the book, which was so great, and to the first film. Gene Wilder had a real insouciance that made the role. I love Johnny Depp but I guess I didn't care for the way he approached the character.
Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
and as I sat there in the seat before the picture started rolling
I kept reapeating to myself "I will not compare it to the original movie" "I will not compare it to the original movie"
with that in mind I thought the film was done wonderfully Depp created a perfectly dark Wonka you could just feel the malice as he picked off one child at a time
I loved the oompa loompa songs (in comparison much more than the original, I hope the soundtrack has those one it)
the only thing that I didn't think lived up to Burton's "darker" version was the boat ride
the boat ride in the original movie was terrifying this one reminded me of a Dr. Seuss book
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not care for the old movie. (I loved the book and thought the movie screwed it up. In particular, I hated the Oompa Loompas in the Wilder movie.) I don't know if I'll get to see this one in the theater or not. Those who don't like it as much as the old movie . . . that might mean I might like it better, or that it might be even worse than something I already did not much like.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To tell you the truth, I don't think the "original" movie was any closer to Dahl's vision of the story. One very glaring problem I have with the Wilder version is that Charlie and Grampa "steal" fizzy-lifting drinks, and Charlie almost steals an Everlasting Gobstopper. Those actions kind of brought Wilder's Charlie down to the level of the other kids. It makes him seem less deserving of the reward he gets. It's been a long time since I read the original book, but I'm pretty sure those incidents aren't in it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved the new movie, but did miss the songs from the old movie. I mean come on, who didnt want the black candystore owner to bust out singing, "the candy man can, cuz he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good..."
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was one of the scenes I missed in the new one, with the candy store. Man it just looked so good.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie never stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks in the book. The Slugworth-Everlasting Gobstopper sub-plot was also not in the book. Dahl wrote the screenplay for the 1971 film, but uncredited writers doctored his work until it was somewhat different from what he wrote.
I did like how they kept Charlie pure in this version.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw it and I thought it was absolutely hilarious. I was laughing the whole time. (Not sure if I was supposed to be though....) The only thing that really disappointed me was that during the Oompa Loompa songs the background music was really loud, so I couldn't hear any words but the chorus. I want the soundtrack now. That hospital for wounded puppets was so cute and funny. Not sure I really liked the ending though.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He says that he didn't (or at least, someone told me that he did so that's like, fifth hand info). On the other hand, the review in our local paper had two Jacko references. Whatever he did, I think it works.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the movie yet but am I only the only person who doesn't consider Willy Wonka particularly malicious, only that the little snits (the other children) got exactly what they deserved?
I mean, it's not like he tried very hard to intervene or anything, just it's the fact that if you act stupid, you get what's coming to you. Charlie, as the pure hearted, good child, is spared not because Willy Wonka likes him but because he's not a little snit!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who can possibly make a film out of it?! I'm going to cry over a ruined Dahl! Don't ruin books... Please... It's bad enough with what they did to the Bible in the 50s, but now this?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: "In the preview, Depp's Wonka was ALL wrong, kinda like a bizarro-world Michael Jackson."
Brian, I was searching for a Charlie thread to see if anyome else noticed this! It really creeped me out, big time!
However, the movie was great, and there were some great lines.
I do wonder if Depp used Michael as sort of model for his character.
For that last time, he didn't. He said he used Marilyn Manson, which is a bit odd as Kyo of Dir en grey is much cooler. *must bring Dir en grey into every subject*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very sticky-humid in New Jersey, so to catch a couple hours of relief, I ducked into the cinema. "Chocolate Factory" had its curtain in just a few minutes, and it seems like the kind of movie that wouldn't have too many explosions in it (hate the explosions), so that was my pick.
Wierd and creepy. But if you have read much of Dahl's opus (especially his grown-up oriented stuff) then you know that he is wierd and creepy, too.
I hooted out loud when, after the OompaLoompas did their first song-and-dance number, the factory guests turned to each other and said "Didn't that look rehearsed?"
And the father-son rubber glove scene just crossed the line into some bizarre fetishism thing. All that icky squeaking.
You did notice, I presume, that the OompaLoompas were doing classic Michael Jackson dance moves. I mean, hoch mir nicht a chinick! (don't keep hitting me over the head with it)
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by reader: How did the ending deviate from the book? What was the ending?
Read no farther, if you don't want to know the ending... . . . . . . . . . . . . (OK, I warned you) Charlie takes Wonka to be reunited with his father, whom he has not seen since he ran away from home as a boy, to pursue a life in candy. Wonka learns from Charlie's idealism about the true meaning of family and why family bonds are stronger than all else.
(do I need to fetch a basin?)
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
How about the house moved into the factory? That really creeped me out. Couldn't the grandparents at least have gotten a new mattress?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of who his inspiration was, Depp brought a very interesting light to the Wonka character. Depp is one of the greatest actors of our time when it comes to creating believable-but-just-a-tad-bizarre characters. Edward Scissorhands, Jack Sparrow, Hunter Thompson are just a few of Depp's masterful works. I stand by my earlier comments that I didn't like the Wonka in the previews, but then again I'm not sure if I would have liked Jack Sparrow if I had seen him in a 2-minute preview. Once I saw the movie, I realized that Depp's interpretation works like gangbusters, when paired with Burton's film and August's screenplay. Still, his Wonka lacked the laughter, the joi-de-vivre I have always associated him with.
Btw, I liked the ending--a bit heavy-handed on the family values thing, but it seemed true to the morality in Dahl's tale.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I saw this yesterday and I really enjoyed it.
I really only have one complaint, that is that the movie's title is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" Well, to me it seemed like when it was actually in the factory, there was hardly any screentime for Freddy Highmore in the factory. There was plenty before and after, which I enjoyed, but I wanted to see him more in the factory. It seemed as though he only got five lines in the factory, otherwise it was all about the other children. So, maybe the titles should be switched from the two movies. This one be "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and the older be "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
In the end, with my complaint aside, I really loved the movie. It had some great humor in it. I liked the creepier sort of sense, so... yeah, I liked it.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the original movie was only called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory because Nestle threatened to pull funding if Willy Wonka wasn't in the title somewhere.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absoluted detested the original movie. The deviations it made from the book really ruined it for me and Gene Wilder's Wonka was so unlike the Wonka I imagined from the book.
I'm wondering how many of those who like the original movie read the book before they saw the movie.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes a big difference whether you read the book before or after you saw the movie.
If you read the book first, then the mental images you have of characters and events come from the book and your imagination. If you see the movie first, then your mental images you form as you read will be linked to the images you saw in the movie as well as the description in the book.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be appalled when people would see the movie before reading the book, but I have seen it help some children comprehend the story much better. I still can;t do it, though. Book first for me.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of like the fact that (at least according to IMDB)the screenwriter hadn't seen the first one so he wasn't influenced by it.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This version didn't have "Come with me/to a world/of pure imagination..." in it, thank goodness. Of course, just when I'm celebrating that fact, someone made a commercial with the stupid song in it. *grr*
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the snippets I've seen, Depp reminds me of a bizarre cross between Michael Jackson and Carol Channing. I'm waiting to see if this plays out in the film itself.
quote:In the new Tim Burton version, properly titled Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Warner Bros.), Johnny Depp is not so reassuring. He's a spaced-out, whey-faced child-man with saucer eyes: a blend of Carol Channing and Michael Jackson.
quote:But after little Charlie, along with four infamously monstrous children, wins a ticket to visit Wonka, Burton's confection goes rather flat (right at the point where the Wilder version starts to roll). It isn't the fault of Johnny Depp, whose Wonka is an absurd mix of Carol Channing and Brian Jones--with a sprinkle of Joan Rivers.
A Google search shows this has been a fairly common reaction.
quote:But Jackson isn’t the main model. At the Golden Globes a few months back, Depp joked about wanting to portray Carol Channing at some point, leading to speculation, based on the trailers, that he was using Channing as a source for Wonka. The film bears this out. The grin, the rhythm of speech, the cute little head tilt: all come straight from Channing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
