The OAO Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Thread

[CBright7831 0]

It earned 20.5 million it's opening day.

 

Wow.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Yuna: Ebert, that bastard! How dare he criticize Johnny Depp!

What pissed me off was the arrogant way in which he did it... Ebert, like a lot of other critics, are trying to fit Wonka into some mold. 'He's like [insert character/actor here] meets [insert other character/actor here]'. Very old each time it's used.

 

Every other critic seems to have signed a contract dictating that they have to mention either Michael Jackson, Gene Wilder, or both, in their review.

[Guest Deadbolt]

I saw this last night, first movie I've seen on opening day in like...hell, forever I think, I'm not one of those "Look at me I'm the first to see this movie" kind of people, prefer waiting for someone else to see it so I can get a review from them. That said, I was fully willing to risk my $9.50 on opening night because the movie just looked so dang good. Tim Burton is a genius, and Johnny Depp just keeps getting better and better in each movie he's in.

 

That said, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory did not disappoint. The acting was top notch, the characters all brilliantly designed and carried out, and while the movie stayed extremely true to the book (as much as I can remember it,) it was done in a very modern setting that worked perfectly. The factory looks gorgeous, the Oompa Loompas were great, and the story moved along at a quick but entertaining pace. One thing I was worried about was the introduction of a flashback subplot to Willy Wonka that I didn't remember from the book; my worries were short lived as this part of the movie worked well, never interupting the flow of the story and adding a new dimension to Johnny Depp's character.

 

Best part of the movie though? Tim Burton mocking just about every famous music video with the Oompa Loompa songs...the Thriller bit was hilarious There are some parts to this movie that adults will get an extra kick out of, but unlike such children's movies as Shrek it doesn't have to resort to crude "adult" humor to do that.

 

Over all, this movie easily gets an A+ in my book, and I'll certainly be picking it up on DVD when it comes out. I don't care if you're 4 years old or 40, go see it!

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

the Thriller bit was hilarious

...This intrigues me.

but unlike such children's movies as Shrek it doesn't have to resort to crude "adult" humor to do that.

That always annoys me about family/kid's movies. To try and have something for all, it will have really, really tasteless humor. Aggravating.

[Guest Askewniverse]

Yuna: Ebert, that bastard! How dare he criticize Johnny Depp!

What pissed me off was the arrogant way in which he did it... Ebert, like a lot of other critics, are trying to fit Wonka into some mold. 'He's like [insert character/actor here] meets [insert other character/actor here]'. Very old each time it's used.

 

Every other critic seems to have signed a contract dictating that they have to mention either Michael Jackson, Gene Wilder, or both, in their review.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you seen the movie yet? The Michael Jackson comparisons may be warranted. Besides, how do you want critics to describe Depp's portrayal of Wonka? Saying "actor X meets actor Y" makes it easier for readers to form an idea about how a particular character is portrayed.

 

And do you expect critics to not mention Gene Wilder in their reviews? That's like expecting critics to not mention Christopher Reeve when they review Superman Returns.

[Boner Kawanger 0]

Was it just me or did Elfman's theme at the beginning sound like his Spider-Man theme?

 

I liked the movie quite a bit.

[DMann2003 0]

Wonka's voice kept reminding me of Carol Channing

[SuperJerk 0]

but unlike such children's movies as Shrek it doesn't have to resort to crude "adult" humor to do that.

That always annoys me about family/kid's movies. To try and have something for all, it will have really, really tasteless humor. Aggravating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wait...

 

 

Shrek was a kids' movie?

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Wait...

 

 

Shrek was a kids' movie?

They call it a 'family' movie... meaning kids can watch it and zone out and be braindead yet... there are jokes for adults. Lame.

[SuperJerk 0]

Am I the only person on the internet that liked Shrek or something?

 

Did I miss the memo that said we're all supposed to hate Shrek?

 

If there's a memo that says I wasn't supposed to like The Incredibles, I missed that one too, because that movie was awesome.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

(posted in my journal on the 19th)

After having watched the first 40 minutes of my downloaded bootleg Charlie and the Chocolate Factory I am happy to say that I still do not see the Jackson references.

 

Is it the boyish nature of them both? Similar, perhaps, but I am certain there are many others of the man-boy psychology; one need not refer instantly to Jackson. They both have daddy-angst... fine, I'll accept that point, but that is where the similarities end.

 

Jackson's psychology lends itself to slumber parties, overly-extravagant gifts for his children, and other activities a young boy might engage in. Wonka, on the other hand, cannot stand to be around children, cannot utter the word 'parents' let alone envision himself being one. Again, I say while their psychologies are similar, that does not mean they are the same in any form of the imagination. Besides, has it not been reported that the way we see Jackson is only a front for the media?

 

In any case, I am sick to death of the Jackson-Wonka comparisons, and furthermore, I am ashamed that I've spent two paragraphs on this icky judgement.

 

Though my copy looks as though someone cropped it terribly, I'm still getting most of the movie. I've read some complaints about the ticket-winners being rushed, to which I say, well duh! We know from the trailers how bad they are, what their faults are...that's really all the time that needs to be spent. The focus of the movie is Charlie, Willy Wonka, and the Chocolate Factory.

 

I enjoy the time spent with Charlie, and how close his family is. I also read some complaints that he was too wholesome and that his type of child/character did not exist. Another stupid review. I find him very much believable, perhaps because I can see myself in that situation. After receiving the Golden Ticket, and once the shine of it wore off a bit, it makes perfect sense that he would want to sell it. And it makes sense, in a way, that the one grandfather would say no.

 

The realism associated with the movie is really its defining attribute, I think. For instance, the toothpaste factory 'modernizing' and eliminating the father's job and, of course, Wonka's parental issues. The latter I look forward to exploring.

 

(posted on the 20th)

Once again, I continue to say that I saw nothing of Jackson. As a matter of fact, I did not see Depp, either. Willy Wonka is one of those rare characters – like Sands & Ichabod – that I forget about the actor, and the character becomes a person entirely separate. In the beginning, during Grandpa Joe’s story, he reminded me of Raoul Duke with the voice – a parallel further enhanced during his tasting of the caterpillars – but for the rest of the time Willy Wonka reminded me only of… Willy Wonka.

 

Like another of Burton’s great creations – again, I reference Ichabod – we see through flashbacks the reason for his social abnormalities & weirdness, therefore, it is acceptable. He’s not just some weird person like, say, Wilder’s version. He has psychological issues that, like any person, he builds walls around, guarding that terrible secret.

 

But to only discuss Willy Wonka would be a crime to the children actors. Via IMDB.com, one learns that only Annasophia Robb (Violet Beauregarde) has had prior film experience, appearing in two movies prior CatCF; however, Julia Winter (Veruca Salt), Jordan Fry (Mike Teavee), and Philip Wiegratz (Augustus Gloop) are entirely new. Also, Ms. Robb is the only one of those four to have another project lined up.

 

Given their small parts, the children were well-chosen, in my opinion; only Mr. Wiegratz did not stand out to me, but then, the role of Augustus is so small. I’ve read where the characterizations of the children were a bit extreme, but I do not believe so. I’m sure there really are spoilt rich brats who expect to get what they want. We know from such TV shows as Bravo’s ‘Show Biz Moms and Dads’ that pushy parents unfortunately exist. And, I know from my own personal experience, the joys of being a video game addict. Of the four, I think Mike Teavee was the smartest. He did, after all, calculate which candy bar was needed.

 

Of the four demises, I have to say I dislike Violet’s the most… which is ironic, since the Oompa Loompa song that follows is my second favorite. To me, the extent to which she transformed seemed a purposeful one-up of the former movie attempt. One can argue that the entire movie was a show-off of the technical prowess and, in a way, they just might have a point. I suppose it is the flagrant use of CG for Violet that rubs me the wrong way; the same goes for Mike’s exit at the end. They were both far too…cartoony.

 

Speaking of the end, I enjoy that we got to see a glimpse of the children’s lives after the factory. Augustus has not changed; Violet still seeks her mother’s approval (thought it will be much harder to gain now); Veruca is still a brat however her father has changed which, consequently, means she will; Mike… well, I’m not sure. He was made taller, which might enhance his uppity, ‘I’m smarter than you’ attitude, yet the slightly psychedelic TV channel trip would surely affect him.

 

Somehow, someway, Deep Roy needs to win an award, as do the numerous computer artists who multiplied him that many times. I mean, seriously, can you imagine the work that was put into both?! All the motion capture Roy did, all the tweaking done by the techies to ensure the lighting/movements/etc were perfect.

 

If I had to pinpoint to anything that took my mind out of this fantastic world, it is the black-and-white striped tree that can be seen behind Charlie in the chocolate room. It would not be a Burton movie without his stripes, most commonly found on a villainous person (Beetlejuice, Katrina van Tassel). Nor could there be Burton without Elfman, and vice versa. I do not know how they do it, but those two create magic together.

 

All in all, I enjoyed the movie very much; in spite of the awkward close-ups/cropping (not a fault of the movie’s by any means, but whoever recorded my bootleg copy). On a side note, could anyone – besides me, of course – imagine Raoul Duke in the chocolate room?

[SuperJerk 0]

Tim Burton strikes again, taking another beloved story and turning it into "his vision" while improving on nothing whatsoever. The 1971 film was far more faithful to the book than this movie was.

 

Burton's become a hack, and this film was mediocre at best.

 

The changes he made from the original story added nothing to it, and he completely destroyed the Wonka character by turning him into an asexual freak, who's just as comfortable talking about hair care as he is candy. No, Wonka isn't Michael Jackson in the movie, Wonka's been turned into Pee Wee Herman. However, instead of crossing the country looking for his bike, this madcap prince of goofy is looking to resolve his childhood issues. This is especially apparent during the many exchanges between Wonka and Mike TeeVee.

 

Wasn't the movie called CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory? Charlie's just a means to get us inside the factory, and is forgotten about for the middle third of the movie. At the end, his only purpose is to utter a few lines reminding Wonka of the importance of family. Despite the use of the book's title, this is definitely Wonka's movie. The original message of the story was completely buried by the tacked-on need to make it about putting family first. Not only that, but the rest of the movie was rushed just so this unnecessary crap could be shoe-horned in by Burton.

 

In addition, the Oompa Loompa sequences were painfully bad. Using 60s, 70s, and 80s templates for the songs is a musical decision which falls flat. The choice to have Mike TeeVee meet his reward by being zapped into an 80s hair band music video was another choice that does not work. I'll admit I briefly enjoyed the 2001: A Space Oddyssey reference, but I quickly found myself longing to be watching THAT movie instead of this one.

 

I have no doubt, children of the future will be watching the Gene Wilder classic, and this version will be a forgotten embarrassment.

[snuffbox 0]

I liked this movie. Got plenty peeled before the screening and that worked nicely. I thought it was another great performance by Depp in another bizarre and challenging role.

 

Anyone know anything about Depp trying to make a movie from Hunter S Thompson's Rum Diary?

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

There's a listing for it at IMDB but very little has been said. Depp is the only cast member, and the writing/director credits go to Bruce Robinson. Hunter S. Thompson is also listed in the writing credits, naturally. I think Benicio Del Toro was listed somewhere in the movie but, apparently, no longer.

[Guest fanofcoils]

My thoughts:

 

I hated this movie and only give it 2 out of 4 stars because Depp and the fat kid were funny. The fat kid was over the top and did the most with his character except going more over the top eating all the candy when they were at the main candy area before he fell in the river. The actress who played Veruca Salt was awful (unlike in the first movie), the parents were very uninteresting for the most part unlike the somewhat memorable parents from the first movie. Violet was more entertaining when her gimmick was just being a obsessed gum chewer (in the first movie). The fat kid's mom was fine for just looking the part and Violet's mom personality was good but she didn't do a very good job in the movie. Grandpa Joe's and Charlie's relationship just wasn't there, except somewhat in the start of the movie (the 71 version did a better job with their relationship).

 

Charlie was more noticeable in the 71 version than in this version where Charlie looks the part, and only memorable thing was the predictable "I won't leave my family" statement at the end. The old version seemed to put much more emphasis on Charlie and Wonka. We see more of Charlie in a shorter film it seems. For instance the fizzy lifting drink scene. Wonka was very memorable in the first movie and sang a great song (Pure Imagination). In the newer version he brings nothing to the table except being funny to watch (like him getting really happy and moving along to the Oompa Loompa songs).

 

There are much better quotes in the old version, and a better ending. In fact they built up his home AND his school for instance so when you see Charlie pointing down and mentioning his home and school in the elevator, it means something because we experienced both of them in the movie. The old version had an excellent song by the owner of the candy store, whereas in the new version the songs are entertaining to listen to but none of them are very memorable except maybe for Augustus's one. It was funny though at first when Mike Teevee mentioned that after the Augustus song was finished he thought that what just happened was fixed.

 

The old version had the entertaining teacher of Charlie. The newer version had the somewhat funny grandma. There have been much more characters like the out of touch grandma in movies than of Charlie's teacher in the old version, so I prefer Charlie's teacher. The old version had a more straight forward story and it moved better. The story about Wonka's father in the new version wasn't very entertaining. The old version had the memorable menacing character of Slugworth, the new version does not. The candy area where the chocolate river is in the candy factory in the old version looked much better, and bigger than in the newer version.

 

The Oompa Loompa songs were much more interesting and subtle in the first version than in this one, like they were expecting the bad things to happen to the bad children and giving their thoughts on children in general (the Oompa Loompas in the old movie that is). In the new version most of the parents were horrible like Veruca's dad who just stood there when Veruca was about to fall in the hole. Mike Teeve's dad was incredibly boring, unlike his mom in the old version where she didn't have any interesting personality, but at least she interacted in the movie. In the old version the dad and Veruca interacted much more and much better. Gene Wilder was so much better as Wonka and much more interesting than Depp. I watched the new version and I thought of Wonka as a crazy moron and never did I care to know about his backhistory.

 

The time in and before the factory seemed much longer in this version. For instance in the new version they took more than 5 seconds or so (unlike in the old version) to explain the story of the guy with the fake golden ticket. There was also the computer that tries to know where the golden tickets are storyline that was amusing. In the new version the time in the factory seemed quick and the experience was underwhelming. The old version it seems a fairly long while they are in the factory. There wasn't any interesting interaction in the inventing room unlike in the prior version. In the new version they skip the everlasting gopstopper (or whatever its call) part for the most part and go right away to the 5 course meal gum part. There was also the great "I've got a golden ticket" song in the first movie.

 

The Oompa Loompas weren't very memorable in this movie, they stood out much more in the old version with their hair and makeup. I think if the new version is more like the book than the old version, than the old version of the movie is better than the book. I definitely felt better for Charlie, Grandpa Joe, and their family when Wonka told Charlie he won the factory and can take his family than in the newer version when I didn't care at all. I think in the new version if they spent NO time on the Wonka-dad thing and more time in the factory, the movie definitely would have been better. I watched the old version of the movie as a kid in awe the first time I saw it, when I saw the new version all I can say is I was somewhat amused, bored, and underwhelmed.

 

Thoughts on what I said. I may have more to say later.

[SuperJerk 0]

It was funny though at first when Mike Teevee mentioned that after the Augustus song was finished he think that what just happened was fixed.

 

That's a good point. Mike TeeVee was constantly being used in the movie to point out how illogical everything seemed. Its as if Burton used him to take a gun to the head of Suspension of Disbelief and blow its brains out.

[Guest fanofcoils]

Young Freddie Highmore acquits himself admirably as Charlie, and what he accomplishes here may help to dispel the memory of Peter Ostrum's hideous acting in the same role more than three decades ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peter Ostrum was offered a 5 picture contract after Willy Wonka and turned it down. I thought he did a great job in the first movie and I see nothing wrong with how he acted.

[Ced 0]

But he did kill the "I've Got a Golden Ticket" number the second he tried to sing and there's no argument there.

[Boner Kawanger 0]

Young Freddie Highmore acquits himself admirably as Charlie, and what he accomplishes here may help to dispel the memory of Peter Ostrum's hideous acting in the same role more than three decades ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peter Ostrum was offered a 5 picture contract after Willy Wonka and turned it down. I thought he did a great job in the first movie and I see nothing wrong with how he acted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No studio would ever offer a contract to someone that couldn't act!

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

*sigh* Fanofcoils, can you not let the movie stand on its own merits? Comparing a new thing to one of nostalgia really brings it down, as nostalgia makes anything better.

 

Although... can't say I blame you. If they were to ever, god forbid, do a remake of Silence of the Lambs then I would be just as intolerable of the new one as many fans of the old WWatCF are to CatCF.

[Guest fanofcoils]

But he did kill the "I've Got a Golden Ticket" number the second he tried to sing and there's no argument there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He did? I don't recall this at all.

[Guest fanofcoils]

Young Freddie Highmore acquits himself admirably as Charlie, and what he accomplishes here may help to dispel the memory of Peter Ostrum's hideous acting in the same role more than three decades ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peter Ostrum was offered a 5 picture contract after Willy Wonka and turned it down. I thought he did a great job in the first movie and I see nothing wrong with how he acted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No studio would ever offer a contract to someone that couldn't act!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One studio did at least. It is in the biography section of Peter Ostrum on imdb.com. How couldn't he act? I thought he did a great job as Charlie. In fact, in the new version, I thought the actor who played Charlie did a good job, he just seemed to have a lesser role.

[Guest fanofcoils]

*sigh* Fanofcoils, can you not let the movie stand on its own merits? Comparing a new thing to one of nostalgia really brings it down, as nostalgia makes anything better.

 

Although... can't say I blame you. If they were to ever, god forbid, do a remake of Silence of the Lambs then I would be just as intolerable of the new one as many fans of the old WWatCF are to CatCF.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think I am comparing it to nostalgia, I am just comparing it to a perfect in my eyes movie. Instead of being of almost the same quality or better, and different if it wants to, it was just a much much worse movie and different.

[Guest fanofcoils]

I forgot to talk about Mike Teevee in the new version. In the new version he lost his "video" edge between the time he was seen playing video games and going to the video room in the factory. Instead he was just an annoying kid who talked a lot. I preferred the Mike Teevee character in the old movie, where he wasn't annoying and had a pure "TV" character.

[bob_barron 0]

*sigh* Fanofcoils, can you not let the movie stand on its own merits? Comparing a new thing to one of nostalgia really brings it down, as nostalgia makes anything better.

 

Although... can't say I blame you. If they were to ever, god forbid, do a remake of Silence of the Lambs then I would be just as intolerable of the new one as many fans of the old WWatCF are to CatCF.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm more upset that they claimed the movie was authentic to the book, when it wasn't. Wonka in the book is much different then Wonka in the movie.

 

And Violet, Veruca and Mike Teavee are much better in the book as well

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Estimates for

Friday, July, 22, 2005

Title Daily Total

 

01 CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY $9.0 million ($94.9 million)

[The Czech Republic 0]

Wonka in the book is much different then Wonka in the book.

When I was a dog, my dog swallowed my dad's wedding ring. It was awesome.

[bob_barron 0]

Thanks for catching that one Czech.

[King Kamala 0]

I saw a matinee yesterday for $3.50 (Cheapest movie ticket I've bought in years). It was well worth the money. An entertaining little flick, I had my doubts but I enjoyed it. I thought Tim Burton was going to do another shitty remake but he proved me wrong thankfully.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'm sorta amazed how much of the movie was lifted directly from the book.

 

Even if the book mentions that the other four kids had both their parents there. (And there was some switching of which parent went for the kids for Mike and Violet)

 

A lot of the hilarity of the movie was in Depp's delivery. Like about Cannibalism, when Joe mentioned working at the factory, Oompa Loompas turning into blueberries, and so on.

 

Deep Roy was creepy and the last sequence of Oompa Loompas in hair band videos was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen