I'm watching Burton's "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory"

[Orrex]

I truly can't believe how awful it is. In addition to being a trite, empty, and desperate film, it may be the worst performance of Depp's career.

Good grief it's lousy.

[tigereye]

1. it was wonderfully surreal - but in an odd way not as surreal as the original

[rcrush]

2. Maybe Tim Burton ought to try and make a movie without Johnny Depp in it

Ah it will probably still suck.

[Orrex]

3. Big Fish wasn't bad.

It wasn't The Best Thing Ever, but it wasn't bad.

Other than that...


If Burton doesn't have a special room in his house containing a loving, candlelit shrine to Depp, then he really should install one.

[rcrush]

5. Then there was Planet of the Apes.

:rofl:

[Orrex]

6. I've seen it twice, and I refuse to admit it.

[dana_b]

21. I agree

and I like Depp!! I just have not been thrilled with their work together lately. I thought AIW was a snooze.

[klm55500]

4. the original was 100X better

[Orrex]

7. Exactly!

Depp (probably my overall favorite actor) went for the facile and simplistic Michael Jacksonish/Church Lady cartoon vision of Wonka, whereas Wilder's portrayal was darker by virtue of being less obviously dark.

I don't care if Roald Dahl was involved in the Burton film--it's still poop.

[TZ]

8. Totally disagree

Wilder's character was a fucking clown. I have NEVER been able to watch the wilder version al the way through. I thought Depp did a wonderful job. I also really appreciated the 70ish musical score- definitely aimed at people of my age. Oh btw: the oompah loompahs in the first film remind me of actors in blackface. Very repulsive.

[Orrex]

11. Honestly, I don't get the blackface vibe, but I'll think about it.

I'm not saying that the original hasn't aged, because it certainly has.

But the Burton version will age even more severely, I think, and it's further pigeonholed by looking exactly like a Burton film--same filters, same angles, same score, same actor, same faux-creepy ambience, etc...

Aside from being a Burton film, the main problem with the Burton film IMO is that there was absolutely nothing at all surprising about it, with the possible exception of the squirrels, which were a wasted effort in any case.


We'll likely have to agree to disagree on this.

[JVS]

9. It sucks! But it seems there is an agenda out there to turn all good kids movies with Goth...

sensibilities and Johnny Depp as the star.

[mitchum]

27. It's the Sissygoth agenda

[WolverineDG]

10. Well, I liked it

and I've never understood why people think Willie Wonka likes kids...he freakin' HATES them.

dg

[GoCubsGo]

17. Yep, much better than the original.

I thought the Gene Wilder version was lame and too sacchrine for my taste. The Burton version had much better music, and I loved what he did with the Oompa Loompas and the trained squirrel scene. I hated that the "Willy Wonka" movie changed the "Nut Room" scene to the "Golden Goose" thing.

[Ikonoklast]

12. You didn't drop acid first.

It will change your viewpoint dramatically.














Not about the movie, it stunk on ice.

[HopeHoops]

13. It is, however, far closer to the book than Gene Wilder's film.

The whole "dentist father" thing was probably introduced as a time filler.

[Orrex]

16. In the long run, fidelity to the source material is a minor consideration

The SyFy miniseries version of The Shining was closer to the book, for example, but it wasn't a better film.


I suspect that the dentist father subplot was introduced because Burton thought that he needed to give Willy Wonka a backstory to make him seem more human and real. This simply proves that Burton doesn't know much about effective characterization.

And if it was meant as a time filler, then Burton should refund a portion of everybody's ticket price!

[woo me with science]

14. I liked the elevator in the Burton version. nt

[chrisa]

15. I refuse to watch.

Not in the spirit of the original. I refuse to watch movies like that for the same reason that I refuse to watch the Matrix sequels, or most sequels anyway. The person writing or making it (or both) either hasn't seen the original enough, or tries to add their own signature to it (which usually ruins the movie, if not done well).

[Touchdown]

18. Umm. Your argument would work with some other sequels.

The original writing/directing/creative team for The Matrix did both sequels.

Try the Robocop sequels. They TRULY sucked.

[Orrex]

20. Oh, I don't know.

Having seen the two Matrix sequels, I could easily be convinced that the writers/directors hadn't actually paid attention to the first film.


But you're right about the Robocop sequels. :puke:

[RushIsRot]

19. I found the movie delightful and Depp became an entirely different

character in it than he has been previously. I own the movie and look forward to watching it again.
I was entertained and that was what I sought.

[mikeSchmuckabee]

22. Deep Roy!

"Augustus Gloop will not be harmed."

[BlooInBloo]

23. Try Pan's Labryinth - it shows what Burton wishes he could be.

[Orrex]

24. IMO Pan's Labyrinth could very well be the best film of the past decade

Any ten minute stretch of Pan's Labyrinth is more artful than Burton's entire career.

[BlooInBloo]

25. I dunno if I'd go quite *that* far, but damn it was an excellent movie.

[mitchum]

26. I'm assuming it was just another Tim Burton Sissygoth movie

[Initech]

28. I saw it on a plane and quit after the rapping oompa loompas

:puke: