Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (remake)

[bunnyhatesfoofoo]

Willy Wonka

I love the original Willy Wonka. I think it’s a fantastic movie and I hope that despite the remake that children will still rent and watch the original. That said, I like Tim Burton’s style very much and look forward to seeing his take on the story. I’ve never read the book, but I might now just to see the difference.

I watched the trailer a couple of times. I think this looks like a really perfect movie to see in the theater. Depp does appear a bit feminine but that’s not unusual. His skin is weird looking too, I thought. Kinda grey and oddly smooth, like he had a face lift.

I think Depp was a great choice for this character, though I would have definitely enjoyed seeing Michael Keaton trying to mimic the strange wackiness of Wonka. If I recall correctly, its been a while since Keaton’s done anything really strange. They need to make another BeetleJuice.

I didn’t notice Veruca Salt in the trailer. She was my favorite character in the original. I wonder what she looks like in this one.
Does anyone know... in the book does Wonka speak only in rhyme?

"Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most." <------ Im I wrong in thinking that this is a strange thing for him to say considering that he makes gum for a living?

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Film pic...

 

[FischerKing]

yep - depp looks like a little like carol channing.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

shawn

 

[bunnyhatesfoofoo]

Carol

yep - depp looks like a little like carol channing.
shawn

Ha ha ha ha! Your right. Just give her a top hat and it's Charlie.

 

[TastyNugget]

I, like most everyone here am a huge fan of the original.

And... I am seriously worried about the remake. but I think it is going to be an entirely different beast all together.

(All:"This is going to be an entirely diffrent beast.")

Trailer looks freaky. I am just going to block the first one out of my mind and try and see his one as untainted as possible.

 

[CaptTurbo]

I, like most everyone here am a huge fan of the original.

And... I am seriously worried about the remake. but I think it is going to be an entirely different beast all together.

(All:"This is going to be an entirely diffrent beast.")

Trailer looks freaky. I am just going to block the first one out of my mind and try and see his one as untainted as possible.

It seems fitting that a handle like TastyNugget uses his 20th post on a food topic

 

[TastyNugget]

LOL

 

[Joe Mama]

I just saw the preview for this movie for the first time. I went to see Batman Begins, it looks cool, but what is with the way Johnny Depp is planning Willy Wonka? It's as if he's trying to put a fem/gay spin on him, but it was even kind of creepy. He almost reminded me of Michael Jackson... like the kind of guy that really shouldn't be hanging around a bunch of children.

Joe Mama

 

[Renz]

'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' a Winner
Friday, July 08, 2005
By Roger Friedman

Believe it or not, Warner Bros. is going to come out of the summer at the top of the box office heap. First it was "Batman Begins." Now it's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

I went to an advance screening of Tim Burton's latest visual sensation last night, and wow! I think "Charlie" is Burton's best film since "Beetlejuice." "Big Fish" and "Edward Scissorhands" fans may disagree, however, and that is their prerogative.

Burton has made a trippy, psychedelic film that adults will embrace even more than kids. Luckily it works on two levels, so children — from 9 and up, no younger — will have fun, too. But this is by far an adult movie, with sophisticated language and scenes. No sex, however. Don't worry.

As in any Burton movie, the sets, costumes and lighting are superb — maybe more so here than ever before. Seeing "Charlie" makes you wonder why Burton didn't get to direct "The Cat in the Hat." Indeed, some of "Charlie" recalls Dr. Seuss even more than it does Roald Dahl with its whimsical art direction.

Johnny Depp, who's a Burton repertory player, portrays chocolate factory owner Willy Wonka like he's Michael Jackson. Sometimes the Jacko factor is a little too obvious, but Depp has more depth than Jackson.

Thirteen-year-old Freddie Highmore, who starred with Depp in "Finding Neverland," is back and has an easy rapport with Depp. You can feel it on screen. As Charlie, the youngest member of an extremely eccentric family, Freddie carries all his scenes even when up against such daunting adult presences as Helena Bonham Carter — Mrs. Burton in real life — and Noah Taylor.

The real star of the movie, besides Burton himself, is a gifted comedic actor named Deep Roy, who is height challenged. You may recognize him from my second favorite Burton movie, "Big Fish."

Not to give anything away, Roy plays a multiplicity of characters including an Oompa Loompa. He also stars in his own mini-rock video, which has to be seen to be truly appreciated. And wait 'til you see him as a shrink and his own patient. Hilarious!

Irish actor David Kelly, 77, who plays Charlie's grandfather, is also bound to be cited for his lovely performance

"Charlie" cost a lot to make, but it's the first movie of the summer season where you can actually say it's all up on the screen. Alex McDowell's production design will leave you breathless. I think there are seven art directors credited to this film, and you can see why. There's so much to look at, my guess is that a lot of people will be eager to go back for a second look.

There are musical numbers that are so much carved out of the '60s. There are visual puns and even a reference upfront to Depp as Scissorhands. All together, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" may turn out to be the surprise phenom of the summer when it opens next Friday. Bravo!

 

[Chaplin]

Sound great, I'm seeing it for free Saturday morning.

 

[Pariah]

From what I've seen of this movie in trailers (including a TiVo preview), I think Depp is going to bother me so much that I won't enjoy myself. Seems like he's trying to almost do a perverted Jim Carrey routine.

I've also come to the conclusion that I don't like Burton's slant on things most of the time.

I think I'll probably just sit down with the original Gene Wilder as Wonka and enjoy that one instead. It's a shame, because this was a remake I was looking forward to...but I'd rather have seen a different actor as Wonka (maybe Cage?) and maybe even a different director.

 

[JS22]

From what I've seen of this movie in trailers (including a TiVo preview), I think Depp is going to bother me so much that I won't myself. Seems like he's trying to almost do a perverted Jim Carrey routine.

I've also come to the conclusion that I don't like Burton's slant on things most of the time.

I think I'll probably just sit down with the original Gene Wilder as Wonka and enjoy that one instead. It's a shame, because this was a remake I was looking forward to...but I'd rather have seen a different actor as Wonka (maybe Cage?) and maybe even a different director.

It's a shame? You havent even seen it yet. Give it a chance, then you can bash it.

 

[Chaplin]

Reviews so far have been overwhelmingly positive.

 

[Linderbee]

I read the book many times as a child--Roald Dahl is one of my favorite authors (I cried at James & the Giant Peach--it sucked so bad). The original movie doesn't follow the book's "feel", so to speak, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what Burton/Depp does with it. For those who didn't read the book, I can completely understand the lack of enthusiasm over this. The first movie was wonderful in its own right. I'm excited purely from the book perspective. I'm not looking at this movie as a "re-make," just a different take. (hey that rhymes!!)

 

[abomb]

I read the book many times as a child--Roald Dahl is one of my favorite authors (I cried at James & the Giant Peach--it sucked so bad). The original movie doesn't follow the book's "feel", so to speak, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what Burton/Depp does with it. For those who didn't read the book, I can completely understand the lack of enthusiasm over this. The first movie was wonderful in its own right. I'm excited purely from the book perspective. I'm not looking at this movie as a "re-make," just a different take. (hey that rhymes!!)

A friend pointed out a Premiere magazine article about the movie this month. Apparently the widow Mrs. Dahl stated that she and Roald did not like the 70s version and she worked with Burton on this one. Changed my opinion of the whole thing and I will reserve judgement until I see the flick.

A-Bomb

 

[Cheesebeef]

saw it tonight - decent. Really liked the beginning and the set up and thought the look of the film was breathtaking - realy the best visually stunning film Burton has directed in quite a while but there seemed to be SOMETHING missing IMO. I can't put my finger on it, but I started to get a little bored (much like I did in BIG FISH) falling a little off the high the movie started on and just waiting for each kid to meet their fate to get to the end. I dug the backstory - thought it was inertesting with Wonka and his life before the Chocolate Factory, but the movie just didn't sweep me away like I thought it should. I also thought the Oompa Loompa numbers were too long and dragged out.

Decent movie - will make a truckload of money - but regardless of what Dahl and his family think, if given the choice, I'd pop in Gene Wilder's maniacal verrsion of Willy Wonka over this one.

Gene Wilder - man - talk about your underrated acting geniuses. He may be my favorite actor of all time. That might be a reason why I choose the original as well, but with that being said, I just didn't get that magical feeling from this one that I did with the old one and the old Ooompas still kick ass.

 

[Chaplin]

Loved it. Just loved it.

Definitely more adult than the original movie, and Willy Wonka in this version was MUCH more interesting because they decided to actually give him a backstory.

Not to take away from Gene Wilder, who was great in the role, but for some reason I couldn't see the Michael Jackson reference--I think some obscure critic mentioned it some time ago and it got into people's heads--I just got that he was extremely eccentric and actually didn't like children at all (the former is like MJ, but the latter definitely is NOT).

Some really funny moments and the film looked TERRIFIC. Not a huge fan of musical numbers in movies, so I was thankful that they were pretty short in this film. By the way, all the Oompah Loompah songs were performed by Danny Elfman and his voice was synthesized.

 

[Pariah]

I also thought the Oompa Loompa numbers were too long and dragged out.

Not a huge fan of musical numbers in movies, so I was thankful that they were pretty short in this film.

Did you guys see the same movie?

 

[CQ]

We went and saw this last night. I read the book during the day yesterday so it would be fresh on my mind at the movie. They did add some to the story, but I thought they did a really good job with it. But it was neat to hear how many lines from the movie were directly out of the book, word for word!!!! I really liked the movie! I view this not as a remake of the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie, but simply a different telling of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book.

I thought the Oompa Loompas were a bit overkill. The songs were cute, but just too much. During one of the songs, I noticed my husband starting to drift off. (Granted, it was midnight, but still...)









**********************SPOILERS**********************






































Ok, I'm sure everyone who has seen this movie noticed the plastic gloves that Willy Wonka wore throughout the movie. Hubby commented when we were leaving the theater that it was interesting how he wore rubber gloves, just like his dentist father. Almost like a subconscious way to keep his father's memory with him, even after all those years.

I was sitting there with my jaw dropped in shock when Willy Wonka just took off in the elevator, leaving Charlie and his family in the broken down cottage!!!!!! I wanted to smack Tim Burton upside the head at that point! But with the adding of the family background of Willy Wonka, I think him leaving and discovering how much he did need family, was really good.

 

[AZZenny]

Never saw the original movie or read the book, so no biases there. I am a really hard-core Depp fan - but the trailers had me worried. I could picture him in Tim Burton's hands and with a big budget like an unfamilar power tool gone amock. I planned to skip it, but the reviews and some equally skeptical but willing friends persuaded me.

Saw it today: Loved it. Johnny Depp is amazing; he makes the movie. I can't imagine anyone else pulling that role off. The movie hinges on his damaged looniness, and the delicate, evolving interplay with Charlie. You can tell that Depp understands children in a respectful way.

Now I did find the Oompaloompa aspect just a little bit excessive, although sometimes very funny, and they certainly played into the threatening undertone. In fact, my one compalint is that a little tighter, brisker editting throughout wouldn't have hurt.

I don't know how kids will feel about it - so many kids' movies aren't, really - and there are a lot of inside jokes - but I thought it was very enjoyable, and for any Depp afficionado - gotta see it.

 

[CQ]

Never saw the original movie or read the book...

Really?!?!?! Wow, now I'm wondering what other classics you've missed out on! Wizard of Oz? Anyhow, I too am a huge Depp fan. My husband and I were talking on the way home from Charlie last night about what an amazing actor he is. He becomes each character he plays, he doesn't just act like a character. I think about the diversity of his roles, Don Juan, Pirates, Secret Window, Neverland, now Charlie. Truly amazing!

AZZenny, go rent the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and even read the book. It's so worth it!!! I personally love the whole Chocolate Factory story, all of the ways it has been told!

 

[AZZenny]

The timing of both the book and movie just fell between the age-appropriate cracks for me, I guess. I was thinking after I finish the new Harry Potter I'd re-rent Dead Man.

As to the Michael Jackson comments - it's there subtly in the beginning, I think - the pale, superfine face, the overdone clothes, the gloves, kids, castle-like residence, social weirdness - unfortunately, it's just what we are prone to associate with culturally; be pretty hard not to, so maybe they decided not to even try. But for me, at least, that very rapidly disappeared as Johnny Depp painted in the finer strokes of his character. Damn, he's good. How do you give that kind of over-the-top character so much depth?

 

[Hordispack]

saw it tonight - decent. Really liked the beginning and the set up and thought the look of the film was breathtaking - realy the best visually stunning film Burton has directed in quite a while but there seemed to be SOMETHING missing IMO. I can't put my finger on it, but I started to get a little bored (much like I did in BIG FISH) falling a little off the high the movie started on and just waiting for each kid to meet their fate to get to the end. I dug the backstory - thought it was inertesting with Wonka and his life before the Chocolate Factory, but the movie just didn't sweep me away like I thought it should. I also thought the Oompa Loompa numbers were too long and dragged out.

Decent movie - will make a truckload of money - but regardless of what Dahl and his family think, if given the choice, I'd pop in Gene Wilder's maniacal verrsion of Willy Wonka over this one.

Gene Wilder - man - talk about your underrated acting geniuses. He may be my favorite actor of all time. That might be a reason why I choose the original as well, but with that being said, I just didn't get that magical feeling from this one that I did with the old one and the old Ooompas still kick ass.

I agree wholeheartedly with all you said. Charlie was o.k. but, not great, as I expected it to be. Gene Wilder is a comic genius. Ever see the Frisco Kid?

 

[Chaplin]

The timing of both the book and movie just fell between the age-appropriate cracks for me, I guess. I was thinking after I finish the new Harry Potter I'd re-rent Dead Man.

As to the Michael Jackson comments - it's there subtly in the beginning, I think - the pale, superfine face, the overdone clothes, the gloves, kids, castle-like residence, social weirdness - unfortunately, it's just what we are prone to associate with culturally; be pretty hard not to, so maybe they decided not to even try. But for me, at least, that very rapidly disappeared as Johnny Depp painted in the finer strokes of his character. Damn, he's good. How do you give that kind of over-the-top character so much depth?

Very well put, although I didn't see the Michael Jackson parallel as much as you did at first.

 

[CardFan67]

I agree wholeheartedly with all you said. Charlie was o.k. but, not great, as I expected it to be. Gene Wilder is a comic genius. Ever see the Frisco Kid?

My wife wanted to see this one bad, so I broke the "no theater" rule and we went last night... My wife loved it, I was very disappointed... Artistically lacking in my opinion, kind of shocked due to those that were involved... As always Depp was awesome, this guy can play anything... Enjoyed the squirrel senquence but the Oompa Loompa guy just struck me the wrong way, not to mention that they just repeated him over and over and shrunk him down...

The original was a classic and in my book still ten times as good as the remake...