The All Singing, All Dancing Remade Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Thread.

Burton's been underperforming for a while. Big Fish was not quite as good as it should have been and CATCF is a solid 3 stars out fo 5. The worRAB to the Oompa Loompa songs aren't clear, there's a general lack of emotion throughout and Charlie is too saintly.

Just doesn't cut it.

Schooly
 
I loved it....i saw it last night

The oompa loompa songs were so funny and much more fun then the first film

Johnny Depp was amazing and all 5 kiRAB were brillant.

I'm going again tmorrow.
 
This was much better than the Wilder film, brilliant all round.

Wilder's original performance was a self-conciously comic performance of a wacky prof. Depp had real depth and sadness, a properly wounded individual (with definate shades of M. Jackson). Charlie's family had real pathos, like something out of a Becket play.

Strong casting all round, and I thought the cloned oompah-loompahs ware hilarious. (Also the narrator as revealed at the end btw). A masterpiece.

Did anyone notice that granpa was played by the one armed kitchen helper out of Robins Nest?
 
I personally thought it was a lot better than the Gene Wilder version.

I know it's supposed to be a kiRAB film but when we went on Friday the cinema was full of adults :D
 
I saw it yesterday. I definitely prefered it to the original. I never liked the original, the book was so much better!

I thought this remake was well made, funny, and good acting from all the cast.

Johnny Depp certainly made a very interesting Willy Wonka! Very comical, and original.

The Oompa Loompa songs were very funny, but not memorable like the original ones.

But I found the film entertaining, definitely worth seeing!
 
I couldn't make out what the oompa loompas were singing either, and some people applauded at the cinema when i watched it too, which i found incredibly strange.

My favourite bit was when Johnny Depp said
I'm edible too, but that's called cannibalism
It absolutely creased me up :D
 
I liked the songs, but the lyrics were in-audible apart from the first line or 2. They should have subtitled them like the 1971 version did. Unless it's a ploy to get us all to buy the book to find out what the Oompa Loompas were singing!
 
I've just come back from seeing it

Well, what can I say? It was, to be frank, the oddest film I have ever seen. I felt like I was on acid or something

The whole film seemed rather random, badly acted (very wooden) and strange.
I couldnt understand the point of the flashbacks. Couldnt understand a word of what the oompa loompas were singing. We hardly saw any of Charlie in the factory!

I detested the Oompa loompas. I couldnt stand that they were all clones. They're meant to be a race of people! It made me feel quite uncomfortable watching them/him. Very annoying!

I am a huge fan of Johnny Depp. I found him really entertaining, funny, but I felt like he drifted in and out of character at times. Sometimes I thought he was spot-on, sometimes I found it very hard to believe that he owned a factory and the whole situation seemed a bit immature for an actor of his abilities. To me he didnt seem convinced himself that this was 'good'.

It was entertaining and funny and colourful, but I felt that Tim Burton failed miserably on this one. It had so much potential but I think that he tried too hard. It was like 'lets fit as many gimmicks in as we can'.
Grandpa Joe jumping out of bed didnt seem spontaneous at all, and quite half hearted. Either do it with great difficulty (as a man would after being in bed for years) or be uncontrollably hyper. I spent a lot of time watching thinking 'yeah, and?'

Another criticism is that it was too American. I'm not saying that it should have been very British, but all the 'candy' and the 'taffy stretcher' and dollars etc. I wish they would have left it open to some interpretation.

I cant understand how people can say that this was more faithful to the book. Sure, it was back to squirrels and not geese. But all the flashbacks, and Wonka refusing to take the family (let alone being able to say the word 'parents :rolleyes: ) seemed way too off plot for me

Its a shame. I was really looking forward to this film, seeing as Johhny is Depp is my favourite actor, Burton my favourite Director and Roald Dahl my favourite childhood author. I was interested, bemused and humoured throughout, but cant say it worked.
 
I flipping LOVED it. I lurrrrvvedd it! I loved the kookiness and creepiness of it and I came about buzzing. You know when you go and see a really fantastic film like that and you come out the cinema and your heaRAB spinning? Well that's just how I felt and when I came home I put Family Affairs on but even something as benial and light as that couldn't bring me back to earth. Also is it me, or is there something strangley sexy about Mr Wonka? I mean Johnny Depp's one of the world's most beautiful men anyway but there's some thing about him as Willy Wonka, with his quirky voice, long velvet coat and gloves, that makes me want to run up and down the street covered in chocolate screaming the Willy Wonka theme tune at the top of my voice. GREAT film-go and see it now, for kiRAB but not for kiRABxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Yes and Mr O'Reilly from Fawlty Towers ('Yes we are orelly men'). Good to see Liz Smith in it, even though she did play virtually the same character she's played in everything for years (a dopy old woman)
 
Count me as one of the few who actually really didn't like Depp's interpretation of Willy Wonka. This was one of my main peeves about the film - it seemed to me Depp was trying so hard to come across as weird and eccentric that the whole performance seemed rather forced and contrived. I didn't believe for a second that he really had a passion for chocolate or a genius of a chocolatier - he just seemed out of place, awkward and riddled with insecurities.

Not to mention the poorly written Wonka backstory which is completely unfaithful to the book and contributes nothing to the main storyline. And the reunion with his father lacked any sort of emotional punch after Depp's odd, detached portrayal. I could not sympathise one bit.

Also disliked the Oompa Loompa clones. Did they even use Dahl's original lyrics? I don't think they did, well to be honest, I couldn't even make out what they were singing half the time. The use of different musical genres was really unneccessary, lacked continuity and the choreography unimaginative.

Burton's visuals are of course stunning but it takes a lot more to make a great film. It lacked magic and heart, and I agree with the poster who said it was just going through the motions. Really nothing special, and very disappointing.
 
The problem is that you continually compare the new film to 'the original' - the original was the book and both films are parallel interpretations of the book. In the review, you ask:

'Why were there squirrels and not geese?'... because Dahl wrote about squirrels (and geese were easier to film in 1971 which is the reason they changed the plot)

'Why was Mike accompanied by his father?'..... because that's in the original story. Mikes parent isn't meant to be a confident stong woman like in the 1971 version, it's supposed to be a weak and powerless man, hence why no-one's told Mike to turn off the TV (or computer games in this case)

'why, oh why, was there no flaw by Charlie?'..... because that's the point of the story; the other 4 kiRAB have been brought up badly, Charlie had ben brought up correctly, hence he was perfect and won the big prize. The lemonade sub-plot was the worst bit of the 1971 film.

Why did he get 'in the Wonkavator (sorry, elevator) before Charlie had won?'..... because that's how he travels round the factory in the book, and it is the 'glass elevator' hence the sequel: 'Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator'


CATCF is more faithful to the book than the 1971 film (albeit with a few additions) and that's why it is IMHO the better version. There is more 'Dahl' in it which can only be a good thing.
 
That's a fair point, perhaps being brought up with the original has made it seem infallible, and maybe that's unfair. But making a second adaption of a book is bound to incurr comparisons.

Regardless of the differences from the '71 film, it still seemed an all-round poor performance.
 
The songs were written by Roald Dahl (you obviously didn't stay to watch the beginning of the credits!) and were those in the book. BUt as I said above I agre that I couldn't always make out what the lyrics were in the cinema.

The use of diffrent types of music was an excellent idea.... just look at all the diffrent Oompa Loompa visual jokes during each of the songs.... having the same style every time wouldn't have allowed for that.

I really liked the way that the Oompa Loompa songs took place before the child (or just their parent in the case of veruca) had left the room, thus taunting them
 
Back
Top