Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 434475" data-attributes="member: 8">Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (2005)[ATTACH=full]58147[/ATTACH]There was no reason for me to rewatch this film but my mouse accidentally hovered over the thumbnail which caused it to autoplay a preview.I didn&#039;t instantly recognise the scene or character therefore I wondered if this was a new version or a version no one ever talked about.As soon as the big fat WB logo appeared I realised I had been a little bit too gullible, or maybe I just wanted&nbsp; to believe that there was a third Wonka (excluding the prequel which I&#039;m definitely not going to watch).I guess this was my cue to move on to the next film but then I thought, it&#039;s a Christmassy wintery movie and I&#039;ve only seen it once 20 years ago so let&#039;s see how I feel about it today.Starting with the best part: the title, because it&#039;s the one we got for the Dutch translated title of the seventies classic.Then there&#039;s little Charlie himself who looks criminally adorable. Every time he said something I started to sob uncontrollably. Sometimes it really feels good to be manipulated.Then that moment of the golden ticket, almost as iconic as the sword of Camelot. I know it&#039;s going to be there but that never stops me from feeling nervous.The other kids are great, too, but perhaps a bit too unlikeable, especially Mike Teavee. It&#039;s probably done to emphasise Charlie&#039;s saintly character but that really wasn&#039;t necessary.The biggest difference is, of course, the two Wonkas. Gene Wilder&#039;s character is unpredictable and very passionate, and Johnny Depp plays it childlike and timidly.I guess &quot;the best&quot;will be a matter of taste. I wasn&#039;t particularly moved by Depp&#039;s interpretation but there also wasn&#039;t anything about it that bothered me.The fabulously psychedelic and garish look of the original has been replaced with Tim Burton&#039;s trademark gothic style, but it&#039;s supposed to be a remake after all.Everything about this remake is more and bigger and sweeter, but I think the first film is more impressive, suspenseful and emotional.Well I guess I have to&nbsp; mention the Oompa Loompas.To be honest, that also wasn&#039;t my favourite part in the original but it looked kinda harmless. Unfortunately, there&#039;s no escape from the remake Oompa Loompas which is just one actor multiplied by CGI.The music is forgettable at best and I could hardly hear the lyrics. Another issue I have with CGI is that all these films basically look the same. It simply prevents a film from standing out from the rest. I haven&#039;t seen the new Frankenstein yet but I already know exactly what it&#039;s going to look like. It just takes the fun out of it.So I&#039;ll say that super-loveable Charlie and his super-loveable family are the main attraction in this remake.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 434475, member: 8"] Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (2005) [ATTACH type="full"]58147[/ATTACH] There was no reason for me to rewatch this film but my mouse accidentally hovered over the thumbnail which caused it to autoplay a preview. I didn't instantly recognise the scene or character therefore I wondered if this was a new version or a version no one ever talked about. As soon as the big fat WB logo appeared I realised I had been a little bit too gullible, or maybe I just [I]wanted[/I] to believe that there was a third Wonka (excluding the prequel which I'm definitely not going to watch). I guess this was my cue to move on to the next film but then I thought, it's a Christmassy wintery movie and I've only seen it once 20 years ago so let's see how I feel about it today. Starting with the best part: the title, because it's the one we got for the Dutch translated title of the seventies classic. Then there's little Charlie himself who looks criminally adorable. Every time he said something I started to sob uncontrollably. Sometimes it really feels good to be manipulated. Then that moment of the golden ticket, almost as iconic as the sword of Camelot. I know it's going to be there but that never stops me from feeling nervous. The other kids are great, too, but perhaps a bit too unlikeable, especially Mike Teavee. It's probably done to emphasise Charlie's saintly character but that really wasn't necessary. The biggest difference is, of course, the two Wonkas. Gene Wilder's character is unpredictable and very passionate, and Johnny Depp plays it childlike and timidly. I guess "the best"will be a matter of taste. I wasn't particularly moved by Depp's interpretation but there also wasn't anything about it that bothered me. The fabulously psychedelic and garish look of the original has been replaced with Tim Burton's trademark gothic style, but it's supposed to be a remake after all. Everything about this remake is more and bigger and sweeter, but I think the first film is more impressive, suspenseful and emotional. Well I guess I [I]have to[/I] mention the Oompa Loompas. To be honest, that also wasn't my favourite part in the original but it looked kinda harmless. Unfortunately, there's no escape from the remake Oompa Loompas which is just one actor multiplied by CGI. The music is forgettable at best and I could hardly hear the lyrics. Another issue I have with CGI is that all these films basically look the same. It simply prevents a film from standing out from the rest. I haven't seen the new Frankenstein yet but I already know exactly what it's going to look like. It just takes the fun out of it. So I'll say that super-loveable Charlie and his super-loveable family are the main attraction in this remake. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =