Originally posted by SlipknoT
This Movie Looks horrible, The CGI looks Terribly overdone, On Top of the fact that I hate Johnny Depp, It looks like he Is going to butcher the part, And Worst of all it looks like its going to cater perfectly to the 13 Year old marylin Manson Mall Goth Kids Obsessed with Tim Burton...
Originally posted by dawsey28
Not bad, not bad. A little too weird, but not bad. Some unrealistic stuff going on in there, but that was to be expected. Some parts were just kind of lame. Overall a good entertaining movie, though.The Uumpa Lumpa songs were a little difficult to understand.
Very good movie. And the Oompa Loompa songs were based on those in the book.
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Apart from Ed Scissors and Sleepy Hollow, I have enjoyed little of Burtons work. He misunderstood Frank Millar's take on Batman and would have been better off opting for the definitive Schwartz/Austin take. Ed Wood and Mars attacks had moments but moments a movie does not make😄
"Beetlejuice" was colorful, and I enjoyed it, personally. "Batman", as I've said before, if anyone's to blame, wouldn't it be Sam Hamm, the screenwriter? I don't know why everone tacks its follys on Burton when all he did was direct what he was given. "Batman Returns" was very rich in the way of social commentary. "Ed Wood" I thought was a stroke of genius in every aspect, especially casting.
Burton's a very artsy director, I enjoy his twisted view of things.
Would you consider Burton's version a musical?
I don't think it is. There is very little singing in the new movie. I can't remember any other than the very short Oompa Loompa songs and the Willy Wonka song sang by the puppets before they go in Chocolate Factory.
Someone at another forum is trying to convince me that it is.
just got back from watching Charlie and the chocolate factory. I guess it was ok. Nothing near the original. First off, i have to say that i couldnt stand depp's character. He was ok for the first half hour, but it apeared as though they tried to hard to make his character seem eccentric. Near the end it felt as though i was watching a gimmick rather than being introduced to a character. The movie as a whole was fine though, but nothing special. Nothing special at all. This is definently not burtons best work, A little better than his horrid remake of planet of the apes, but through the entire moive i kept wishing i were watching the original. I know i shouldnt compare the two, becuase burton did do a damn fine job at making the remake a totally different movie. I never once felt like i was watching a remake, just a different version. Maybe it's because i diddnt like depp's performance, but i cant recommend this movie for anyone, it was quite dry.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"Beetlejuice" was colorful, and I enjoyed it, personally. "Batman", as I've said before, if anyone's to blame, wouldn't it be Sam Hamm, the screenwriter? I don't know why everone tacks its follys on Burton when all he did was direct what he was given. "Batman Returns" was very rich in the way of social commentary. "Ed Wood" I thought was a stroke of genius in every aspect, especially casting.Burton's a very artsy director, I enjoy his twisted view of things.
I feel the very same way, I've admired his work for as long as I can remember and I also thought Big Fish was a unique and enjoyable film in its own right. Corpse Bride could be promising...
Saw it, hated it. Didn't like the gay Michael Jackson performance by Depp. Didn't like the actors. Didn't like the Loompah songs, didn't like the Loompah's either. I didn't like all the back-story; something’s are better left to the imagination. Only part I liked was the squirrel scene, I think it was one of the largest scenes without Depp. And the only parts that made me laugh were the ones with the grandparents. There was nothing special about the actors playing the kids. I definitely thought the original kid actors were better and had more personality. Don’t get me wrong, Johnny Depp is great and I typically like Burton’s films. However, this is one movie that probably should have never been made.
Why does Hollywood insist on recreating classics? New technology and more money does not = a better movie. It’s not a guaranteed formula for a great flick. Usually classic movies are made when they don't have large budgets because they are forced to do things more creatively and better. I doubt anyone would disagree that the original StarWars movies are better than the new ones. Same is the case here. You have a movie that has been going strong for 34 years and counting.
Screw it. For all of you who like the new movie, more power to you. But I have the original, and no shitty remake is gonna take that away.
The new movie definitely ends up in the brown trout bucket. I will never see it again.
The original movie is obviously a classic. It has withstood time and has been watched and loved by many generations. The original movie was truly classic. I don't understand the need to remake a classic film. I'm sure there is a director or producer out there who doesn't like Gone with the Wind. Does that mean he should go out and remake it? Why? Obviously the original is still classic and loved by many. But I guess this point is moot as it happens, even though it doesn’t make sense to me.
And while I understand both versions of Wonka are based off of the book, I agree with Morning_Glory, I didn't find any sort of Originality in the new film. Sorry, it seemed just like a rehash of the first film with worse acting, a bad portrayal of Wonka from Depp, and the same story. Sure they added a few different scenes, removed a couple others, and put Charlie's father back in it. So what? I don't see how that makes it original.
Oh yeah, and people keep saying, "It's closer to the book." That may be so, but even if someone else recreated the Lord of the Rings and made things more like the books, that doesn't mean the "newer" movies will be better. Movies based on books are always altered for the big screen, this is nothing new. Say anything to the contrary is justifying bad movie because it's closer to the book.
Let’s take a more extreme example. Suppose next year another movie based on CatCF comes out that’s even closer to the book than Burton’s, does that make it a better movie? It’s a ridiculous statement.
*Note* Murray, this post wasn't directed specifically at you. 🙂
Don't get me wrong. I liked the version with Gene Wilder much better.
And I am also not a big fan of Tim Burton recreating the film.
I thought the movie, Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory did a good job translating the story to the big screen. All of the important parts were pretty much the same (geese being an exception).
I was just trying to explain how it is not a remake.
dawsey28,
I understand, and I respect your opinion. I guess it bothers me the most that Burton and Depp have been insulting the original film, and to what gain? In my opinion, if someone is going to bad mouth a classic they better back that up with a very good movie. What I saw in the new movie didn't justify the making of it. Perhaps the money will in the end. While this is the way of the world, money, it is very sad. I think Burton would have been better off making something else entirely. But money is the way of the world. I doubt this new film will replace the original. Gene Wilder, in my opinion, gave a ingenious performance that will continue to live on in the timeless classic. Whether TB’s version will have staying power, time will tell.
All this has done was made me think twice about seeing any Tim Burton films in the future. It's bad form to recreate something and bad mouth the original. Very bad form, it’s down right petty.