Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[AndyWan Kenobi]

I personally loved how weird an unlikeable Depp's Wonka was. It made me like him all the more, strangely. I think the ending makes up for it a little (which I won't spoil here for those who haven't seen it), in a sort of "Grinch"-like way.

 

[Krazedmuppet]

I loved it. I love the old one too. It seems that where one movie lacked, the other was good, and vice versa, If the 2 were combined, it would be awesome. Though I really don’t know who’s Wonka I like better, I mean Depp was very good (LOVED his laugh) but its pretty hard to beat Wilder. I love the line in it "Everything you see is eatable, even Im eatable, but that would be considered Cannibalism, which is not looked good upon some cultures" I Laughed so hard! also the "Good Morning Starshine! the Earth says hello!"

 

[Krazedmuppet]

Everything was pretty much the same.

I have no idea why Tim Burton decided to do this movie, but I wish he didn't. It was just an awful movie.


ryan

Well. They do say its more close to the book than the other. But the reason they are about the same is, well its the same story, some of the same lines, cuz they went so closely off the book. This movie, just how it is in the book, is Burtons style. It made $, Im sure he had fun, thats why he did it.

 

[That Announcer]

My review of the new film: 2 1/2 s out of 4 s

This new version of the Roald Dahl classic stays very true to the book, and this is both good and bad. Good, because it's essentially like transferring a book directly to the big screen; bad for the same reason.

The new movie did not deviate enough from the original book to be little more than a BBC serial presented in one piece with really good production values. The original version of the book was more like a true adaptation in that the stuff that didn't work was changed, vetoed or replaced with other, more filmic stuff. As such, I liked this new version, but I still prefer the original.

Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Straight up, I'm going to say that the high point of the film were the Oompa Loompas. Their songs did not drag; the acting by Deep Roy was classic; and Danny Elfman's vocals worked perfectly. These little buggers brought a smile to my face every time they came on, and the smile stayed after they had their number overwith. If for nothing else, see the film for these guys, and I guarantee you'll laugh. Hard.

Next on the list of good things: the production values. The sets are magnificently designed (some, including myself, would say not as well as the original), and wonderful to look at (especially in the IMAX where I saw the film). After that, the development of the grandparents was something I really liked, and Grandpa George had some of the funniest parts to the entire film.

However, that's about where the good parts end. The children are bland, faceless little goobers who display very little acting talent. There is no Julie Dawn Cole or Paris Themmen in this version; it's almost like they hired those really bad actors you all had in your school drama class. Freddie Highmore also exhibits these bland qualities, and so I did not like that aspect. Grandpa Joe is significantly worse than in the first film, and shows very little character. For someone who's supposed to jump out of bed and act frantic, David Kelly acts like he's zoned out on Ritalin for the entire movie. Perhaps it's the cabbage soup.

Johnny Depp, unfortunately, provides one of the movie's low points. His take on Wonka fails so miserably you could hear Gene Wilder yelling about it (you actually could; he disliked Depp's performance). Wonka here appears as a plastic department-store mannequin with the voice of a Disney World tour guide. He has no personality or drive like Gene Wilder showed originally. Something inside me suspects that he was hired solely on the value of being Johnny Depp, and being Johnny Depp, that means he brings "star quality" to the film. Well, I wouldn't have picked him. As a matter of fact, I would have screamed at him if I was the director and he tried to audition with this personality. Bad, bad, bad.

Overall, "Charlie" is a highly disappointing film, especially when compared to the genius original. I'd see it at matinee rates, and then just for the Oompa Loompas. I still say that Deep Roy's $1,000,000 salary was the best money spent on this movie.

-TA

 

[MuppetsRule]

I couldn't have said it better myself, That Announcer. Well put.

 

[chestermcdragon]

this one is moe accurate

 

[BEAR]

My review of the new film: 2 1/2 s out of 4 s

This new version of the Roald Dahl classic stays very true to the book, and this is both good and bad. Good, because it's essentially like transferring a book directly to the big screen; bad for the same reason.

The new movie did not deviate enough from the original book to be little more than a BBC serial presented in one piece with really good production values. The original version of the book was more like a true adaptation in that the stuff that didn't work was changed, vetoed or replaced with other, more filmic stuff. As such, I liked this new version, but I still prefer the original.

Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Straight up, I'm going to say that the high point of the film were the Oompa Loompas. Their songs did not drag; the acting by Deep Roy was classic; and Danny Elfman's vocals worked perfectly. These little buggers brought a smile to my face every time they came on, and the smile stayed after they had their number overwith. If for nothing else, see the film for these guys, and I guarantee you'll laugh. Hard.

Next on the list of good things: the production values. The sets are magnificently designed (some, including myself, would say not as well as the original), and wonderful to look at (especially in the IMAX where I saw the film). After that, the development of the grandparents was something I really liked, and Grandpa George had some of the funniest parts to the entire film.

However, that's about where the good parts end. The children are bland, faceless little goobers who display very little acting talent. There is no Julie Dawn Cole or Paris Themmen in this version; it's almost like they hired those really bad actors you all had in your school drama class. Freddie Highmore also exhibits these bland qualities, and so I did not like that aspect. Grandpa Joe is significantly worse than in the first film, and shows very little character. For someone who's supposed to jump out of bed and act frantic, David Kelly acts like he's zoned out on Ritalin for the entire movie. Perhaps it's the cabbage soup.

Johnny Depp, unfortunately, provides one of the movie's low points. His take on Wonka fails so miserably you could hear Gene Wilder yelling about it (you actually could; he disliked Depp's performance). Wonka here appears as a plastic department-store mannequin with the voice of a Disney World tour guide. He has no personality or drive like Gene Wilder showed originally. Something inside me suspects that he was hired solely on the value of being Johnny Depp, and being Johnny Depp, that means he brings "star quality" to the film. Well, I wouldn't have picked him. As a matter of fact, I would have screamed at him if I was the director and he tried to audition with this personality. Bad, bad, bad.

Overall, "Charlie" is a highly disappointing film, especially when compared to the genius original. I'd see it at matinee rates, and then just for the Oompa Loompas. I still say that Deep Roy's $1,000,000 salary was the best money spent on this movie.

-TA

You stated that nicely. Just about everything I felt two. I didn't find the kids to be quite that bland, but if we compare them to the original kids, yes they are lower on the meter. The kid who played Charlie I think actually did well. He just didn't have much to play with in Johnny Depp. I also liked the girl playing Violet. The only kid I actually felt was weak was the girl playing Varuca Salt. She had no spunk, attitude or personality. And you're right Grandpa George was awesome!! He had the funniest lines. All the Grandparents were cool. I am so glad their roles were expanded. Grandma Josephine had wonderful lines and she seemed like such a warm woman who really believed in Charlie. Grandma Georgette (I think thats right) was just bizarre, off the wall and great! "I like grapes" *big grin*. Made me laugh so hard. Slugworth did pretty much nothing in this one. Was he even in the books? Maybe he was just created for the Gene Wilder film and they kind of made reference to him in this one.

 

[That Announcer]

Slugworth did pretty much nothing in this one. Was he even in the books? Maybe he was just created for the Gene Wilder film and they kind of made reference to him in this one.

No, Slugworth was indeed in the books. A villain was needed for the Wilder film, so he was put into use. The original is very little like the book, but it captures lightning in a bottle like this new one can't. And you're right; the grandparents were great (with the exception of the horribly placid David Kelly).

 

[Censored]

No, Slugworth was indeed in the books. A villain was needed for the Wilder film, so he was put into use. The original is very little like the book, but it captures lightning in a bottle like this new one can't. And you're right; the grandparents were great (with the exception of the horribly placid David Kelly).

SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN ORIGINAL WILDER MOVIE:






Actually, Slugworth did NOT appear in the Gene Wilder movie. It was just one of Wonka's employees pretending to be Slugworth. The only thing that wasn't clear was whether a competitor named Slugworth really existed somewhere or whether the whole line of Slugworth candy was really just a division of Wonka candy.

 

[BEAR]

No, Slugworth was indeed in the books. A villain was needed for the Wilder film, so he was put into use. The original is very little like the book, but it captures lightning in a bottle like this new one can't. And you're right; the grandparents were great (with the exception of the horribly placid David Kelly).

Kelly had some okay moments, but he looked like he was just on acid the whole time. He reminded me of Dobby in the Harry Potter movie.