Movie: Charlie And The Chocolate Factory

[Soulstation1]

anyone see this?

it actually received decent reviews

it's gonna be a miracle if it's better than the original

ss1

[BruceH]

Well, seeing how bad the original was, this could be quite bad and still be better than that.

[Alexander]

I'm a fan of the novel, and I've always hated the Gene Wilder version, so this one can't be worse.

[Adam]

I'm fascinated by how many people hate the first version. I love it, and I know a lot of people who do. It's bizarre and charming, and Gene Wilder is spot on. But there are lots of people who don't like it at all.

Now, I have not read the book, so I don't have that comparison to raise my hackles.

[Jazzmoose]

I'm a big fan of the original as well. Best starring role Wilder ever had. Although I'd rather see him in Bonnie & Clyde...

[chris olivarez]

Reviewers usually are pretty harsh with remakes and generally with good reason but I read a review today where the critic preferred Depp over Wilder and the Burton version over the original.

[Soul Stream]

Saw it today. Pretty underwhelmed. Revamped the end, which was just plain bad imho.

I'm a huge fan of the original and thought Gene Wilder's performance couldn't be beat. Today I found that to be proven true. Johnny Depp's portrayal trys to be quirky but leaves out the utter humanity that Gene brought to the part.

Gene Wilder rules Johnny Depp drools on this one. Burton really missed a huge opportunity here. Very underwhelmed by the look of this one which is surprising given I usually love Tim Burton's visuals. Thought he'd be a kid in a candy store, so to speak, with this remake....but it's one of his lesser efforts in the end.

Burton swings back and forth between trying to recreate the original movie and make something of his own. He fails on both attempts.

And the oompa loompa's musical interludes are horrible and borish. Or, just plain bad to put it simply.

[wolff]

My 16 year old and his GF saw it at midnight last night. All I could get out of them was, "We liked it". Not a good sign....

[Brad]

I thought the original was great. Imparted a very good message. I saw an interview with Johnny Depp tonight where he said he deliberately did not look at the movie again. Just relied on the book, which is also great.

BTW, another great Dahl book is the Witches, about a boy who stumbles into a witches convention. Really great.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Brad

[Kalo]

Just saw it. My 11 year old nephew was in town, so I went with him. He thought it was "the best film ever."

I have to say that I was underwhelmed. It was more faithful to the book than the previous film in some ways, and less so in others. For instance, they used the book's lyrics for the oompa-loompa songs, but tacked on a gratuitous back story for Wonka as well as a bogus Hollywood "therapeutic" ending. Depp's performance was miscalculated in an attempt to do something different than Wilder. (By the way, Dahl's choice to play Wonka was Spike Milligan.) The visuals were garish and generally unappealing. The kids's performances were lackluster. The lyrics of the songs were borderline inaudible. And the whole thing was too damn long.

They did get some things right, notably the scene with the squirrels.

Not that I liked the Wilder version either. As a fan of the book, I recall being quite disappointed by the film when it was first released.

Just hard to please, I guess.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Kalo

[Guy Berger]

I just saw it. It wasn't bad. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I was 11. Two things worth mentioning: as good as Depp is, I think Mike Myers would have been PERFECT for the role of Willy Wonka. Second, the movie included one of the funniest nods to Kubrick that I've ever seen.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Guy

[BERIGAN]

The Gene Wilder version is wonderful (In his early films, I love the way he gets so angry, so fast) willing to give the Burton version a chance, but Depp looks a bit too much like a dead man, and sees without a soul unlike the Wilder version...we'll see.....

[BruceH]

Just saw it. My 11 year old nephew was in town, so I went with him. He thought it was "the best film ever."

I have to say that I was underwhelmed. It was more faithful to the book than the previous film in some ways, and less so in others. For instance, they used the book's lyrics for the oompa-loompa songs, but  tacked on a gratuitous back story for Wonka as well as a bogus Hollywood "therapeutic" ending. Depp's performance was miscalculated in an attempt to do something different than Wilder. (By the way, Dahl's choice to play Wonka was Spike Milligan.) The visuals were garish and generally unappealing. The kids's performances were lackluster. The lyrics of the songs were borderline inaudible. And the whole thing was too damn long.

They did get some things right, notably the scene with the squirrels.

Not that I liked the Wilder version either. As a fan of the book, I recall being quite disappointed by the film when it was first released.

←

Yep, this one's going to be easy to miss.

[Noj]

I wonder if they'll ever make a Great Glass Elevator movie. I want to see Vermicious Knids smashing their buttocks to a swollen purple against its indestructible surface.

Loved the Dahl books, great reading for kids. I used to laugh out loud reading them. I agree with Brad about The Witches, another funny book.

I'll see this Depp incarnation at some point, and I bet I'll like it. I love the Wilder version.

[Jazz Kat]

The 70's one sucked, this one probaly sucks. I don't go to the movies, nor watch much movies. Pass the wine.

[Alexander]

I wonder if they'll ever make a Great Glass Elevator movie.  I want to see Vermicious Knids smashing their buttocks to a swollen purple against its indestructible surface.

Loved the Dahl books, great reading for kids.  I used to laugh out loud reading them.  I agree with Brad about The Witches, another funny book.

I'll see this Depp incarnation at some point, and I bet I'll like it.  I love the Wilder version.

←

What made Dahl so much fun was the cruel streak that ran through his books. Read a book like "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" or "James and the Giant Peach," and you'll notice that most of the really funny bits involve people getting hurt or even killed (Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker getting run over by the peach while the Centipied cries out "Oh, what a glorious bump!"). That same British streak of sadism animates the Harry Potter books today...

[BERIGAN]

The 70's one sucked, this one probaly sucks. I don't go to the movies, nor watch much movies. Pass the wine. 

←

Congrats! You are like every 80 year old in the world.

[Tjazz]

Wow, stuff for kids sells very well:

The Harry Potter book and this movie sold millions over the weekend.

No wonder Madonna puts out kids books.

[Guy Berger]

The 70's one sucked, this one probaly sucks. I don't go to the movies, nor watch much movies. Pass the wine.  

←

Congrats! You are like every 80 year old in the world.

←

[J Larsen]

Haven't seen it in a very, very long time, but I recall the original being okay except for the overly pedantic parts about parenting and child behaviour. Also, I recall some of the child actors being absolutely unbearable.

I'll pass on the remake. *Maybe* on dvd, if someone else rents it.

[Big Wheel]

I saw the original on video at the age of about 5. The scene with the girl blowing up like a blueberry scared the bejeesus out of me. I think I'm scarred for life.

[Free For All]

I saw the original on video at the age of about 5. The scene with the girl blowing up like a blueberry scared the bejeesus out of me. I think I'm scarred for life.

←

So do you now have breakfast issues?