| User | Post |
MorbidMolly
Posts: 168/171 |
I wasn't dissapointed in the movie at all...untill I watched the original over. I love both movies. I like how in the newer version, it was darker somehow. Probably from Tim Burton's magical touch. Though I wasn't too happy about them changing most of the original story line. But, both movies are freakin' sweet anyways. |
Danielle
Posts: 1602/3359 |
Mike TV was great, even though he was a little punk kid. It added to it, rather than have all the kids me brown nosers.
Having him all 8 feet tall in the end was funny. Got what he deserved.  |
DoTheEvolution
Posts: 14/27 |
I felt Mike TV was the most awesome out of the non-Charlie kids. Even his Oompa Loompa goodbye was great. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1237/1477 |
Yeah, it did. I quite like what Johnny Depp did with the character. He didn't try to pull off Gene Wilder's kindly eccentric chocolate tycoon, which is all the better. Instead, he came off much more like a man-child.
Spoiler:
I mean, he took freaking notes on the various candies! That's the kind of dedication that can only be fostered by serious repression. And the reunion with his father, too...
Oh, and I can imagine Mike Teevee being a good number of users here.  |
Danielle
Posts: 1579/3359 |
Why didn't I comment in here? 
I saw this movie a while ago, a couple days after it came out, and I loved it. Johnny Depp is hilarious with his one liners and every other way he fills that role. I liked how they focused both on Charlie and Wonka in this one, and the ending was nicely done.  Not to mention the kids in this one are much more realistic. More 21st century spoiled brats, it makes it that much more entertaining. The boy who played Charlie is the same kid that played Peter in Finding Neverland, another great Johnny Depp movie. He's a good little actor.
So overall, this movie kicked ass. |
DoTheEvolution
Posts: 5/27 |
Saw this last week and felt that it was as good as the original, and was actually much more of a family film than the original: No scary boat ride? No ascent towards the killer fan?
Johnny Depp is the man though. Don't you forget it. He's no Gene Wilder in terms of comedy, but he's a fine replacement for Mr. Wonka. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1226/1477 |
Bumped because the movie's fucking badass and it needs to be. |
HGanon
Posts: 58/59 |
I've always like Dahl's books, except for the BFG. That one kinda disturbed me. Giants eating kids...
But I can see how they might freak some people out. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4680/5458 |
Originally posted by HGanon
Ziff: What are your imaginings on the book?
For starters, I made my point across here:
Originally posted by Ziff
It wasn't a remake. It was a totally different movie using the same original text 
Then I stated on the point of Willy:
Originally posted by Ziff
I thought this movie had ups over the old one. Mainly, the portrayl of Wonka. This is the way I've always seen him. He is no more than a child who was betrayed and became rude. That is how I see it. 
If you want more, I always thought that the book was very, very twisted and disturbing...Like most of Dahl's books. In fact, I was always downright frightened. I, from a young age, thought that it also had very relevent social commentary concerning workers (hi, there Oompa Loompas) and their representation. Moreover, when I imagined the Glass Elevator mine was far more Victorian in nature, and the other points of the book like the kids were somewhat more hmmm, suited to my imagination. Augustus was disgusting and marked with pimples, Violet was a southern girl (interestingly a girl from Louisiana moved up the week we read it back in good ol' Catholic school who was a fitting personality representation) who kind of had bulgy eyes and those greedy carny hands. Mike was just a jerk that was ignored by his parents. Moreover, we have to look at Ms. Salt. Who was just totally a spoiled rich kid. Demonic, with a high voice that won't shut up about her needs. The factory I always thought was something Gaudi would've constructed. Mind you, I was a twisto as a kid. |
HGanon
Posts: 57/59 |
Ziff: What are your imaginings on the book?
Also, does anyone else here think that a Glass Elevator movie might be on the way? I heard that this movie is doing pretty good, so maybe the sequel might be made. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4667/5458 |
If you want an exact copy of the book, re-read the book. I like to see other people's imaginings of it and see how they go up against mine. |
Rydain
Posts: 633/738 |
Originally posted by Jin Dogan
It sounds like a lot of you who disagree with Ziff first have to read and understand the book first.
I had read the book years ago, but I bought it and read it today to refresh my memory. (Plus, I wanted a copy to keep around the house. It is a good story. ) There is an initial reference to Wonka's "high, fluty" voice and he does tend to babble excitedly, so I can see where those aspects of Depp's character came from. However, the book never tells you whether the high voice was Wonka's normal tone or just used for the initial greeting of everyone. Wonka does greet the children politely (although that could be interpreted as sarcasm...still, he was not outright rude like Depp), but he doesn't use slang and he never sounds like a refugee from the short bus. He is eccentric and excitable and prone to go off on tangents, but he seems to be intelligent and together, whereas Depp is apparently clueless or drugged half the time. Honestly, when rereading the book, the most Wonka-esque actor who came to mind was Robin Williams. He's done endearingly wacky interacting with children roles very well before (Mrs. Doubtfire, Rainbow Randolph in Death to Smoochy), and he can go careening off into la la land while still making sense. I think I would have preferred Williams as a more twinkly, animated, book-like Wonka. |
HGanon
Posts: 56/59 |
I read the book many times, and it still seems as though Wilder was better. Maybe when this one's out on video I'll pick it up and see more of Depp's performance. |
Ramadan Roy
Posts: 685/816 |
It sounds like a lot of you who disagree with Ziff first have to read and understand the book first. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4654/5458 |
Originally posted by O.G.
Originally posted by Ziff
I thought this movie had ups over the old one. Mainly, the portrayl of Wonka. This is the way I've always seen him. He is no more than a child who was betrayed and became rude. That is how I see it.
I didn't like the exclusion of the introduction song...That's what angered me. The Oompa Loompa songs ruled HARD though.
Because of they way that wonka acted, they thought that burton used Micheal jackson as what the charater should act like and looks like.
dont even compare it to the orignal.
Okay.
"I don't care"
Oh, and brainiac...
"It wasn't a remake. It was a totally different movie using the same original text"
Welcome to the world of critical comparison and contrasts :o |
HGanon
Posts: 55/59 |
I haven't seen this movie yet, and I don't think I want to. I really love the book, and this movie looks horrible. Johnny Depp as Wonka? Gene Wilder's seems more accurate. He was tall, looked old, and looked alot like the illustrations of Wonka in the book. He also seemed to have the same personality. In the book, Wonka cares about bringing imaginations to reality thorugh his candies, and teach the kids lessons about getting through life-even if it means letting them shrink themselves. Johnny Depp's seems more maniacal, like he doesn't care about the kids at all. But then again, this is a Tim Burton film. He barely looks like Wonka as well.
I think that the original, while not totally accurate, is closer to the theme of the story. About a poor boy who gets the chance to enter a magical factory, and meet the crazy, but equally magical owner, WIlly Wonka. I think I'm gonna go watch the original.
|
O.G.
Posts: 118/169 |
Originally posted by Ziff
I thought this movie had ups over the old one. Mainly, the portrayl of Wonka. This is the way I've always seen him. He is no more than a child who was betrayed and became rude. That is how I see it.
I didn't like the exclusion of the introduction song...That's what angered me. The Oompa Loompa songs ruled HARD though.
Because of they way that wonka acted, they thought that burton used Micheal jackson as what the charater should act like and looks like.
dont even compare it to the orignal. |
Dark Vampriel
Posts: 1309/1658 |
Ok I like to make a comment even though I didn't see the movie. But one of my friends told me way before this movie came out was that Marilyn Manson was suppose to play Wonka instead of Johnny Depp. Not sure how accurret he was or where he heard that from but I think Manson would be cool as Wonka though. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4647/5458 |
I thought this movie had ups over the old one. Mainly, the portrayl of Wonka. This is the way I've always seen him. He is no more than a child who was betrayed and became rude. That is how I see it.
I didn't like the exclusion of the introduction song...That's what angered me. The Oompa Loompa songs ruled HARD though. |
Rydain
Posts: 631/738 |
Being a major fan of the 1971 version, I had to see this one, and I tried to give it as fair of a chance as possible, but I left with an overwhelming feeling of "Eh."
I loved the opening, which reminded me of the beginning of Edward Scissorhands (a Burton/Depp movie I liked very much). I liked how Augustus Gloop was not only gluttonous but rude (in the old movie, he wasn't very bratty at all, probably because he was portrayed by a German kid who barely spoke English and therefore got few lines). I thought Charlie Bucket was great - wide-eyed and good-natured without ever coming off as saccharine or phony. The sets ranged from good to awesome, so no complaints there. The shiny candy boat ruled. Though I preferred the 1971 movie's characterization of Violet Beauregarde as a nerd with no self-restraint (probably because I am also a nerd who runs her mouth...can you tell? ), I did think that they did an excellent job with the "overachiever" characterization. She and her mother were sickeningly plasticine and I was very happy to see them go.
Buuuut...
I can't get past the characterization of Wonka. I hated it. Sorry, but I did. It's not that he looked like Michael Jackson. It's not that he was different from Gene Wilder's eccentric, generally dignified, rather old-fashioned Uncle Wonka. It's that no matter what the character was, I would have found him to be quite annoying. He was rude without provocation ("I don't care" is not the proper response to a polite introduction), childish, and seemingly quite out of control of a tour going on through his own factory. All the random high-voiced speech and giggles worked my nerves. I also thought it was a poor characterization of Wonka because Wonka seemed, well, much more like Gene Wilder's portrayal. I would expect him to be rather goofy, yes, but he would use more timeless language and speak more formally. "Ew", "You're weird", "Chewing gum is really gross", etc. seem very un-Wonka-ish to me.
I didn't care for the father subplot. It seemed pointless to me, and it wasn't even in the book. I also disliked the Oompa Loompa music in this version. I know the lyrics were book-accurate, but they were often incomprehensible, and the idea of having different musical styles and uber-choreographed dancing just didn't work for me. The 1971 version had simpler songs with the same melody but slight differences in orchestration. I liked these much better.
The movie's tone bugged me because it was inconsistently dark/bleak and OMG HAR HAR HERE'S SLAPSTICK IT'S FUNNY LAUGH. Edward Scissorhands had funny moments without fucking up the tone. Why couldn't Burton pull that again this time? Most of the IT'S FUNNY LAUGH obvious humor did not appeal to me. The 1971 version contained lots of subtle funnies and amusingly memorable lines. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" (delivered in a diabolical singsong) has been my GameFAQs sig line for several years now.
Overall...glad I saw it because I was curious, but I don't particularly care to see it again. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
