I saw it today, and Depp plays it odd, but funny yet tragic all at the same time. The set up of why he went into the candy business made sense, and the kids dont actually seem to DIE in this version. Good flick, worth checking out, but the ending wasnt quite what I had hoped for.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeI saw it today, and Depp plays it odd, but funny yet tragic all at the same time. The set up of why he went into the candy business made sense, and the kids dont actually seem to DIE in this version. Good flick, worth checking out, but the ending wasnt quite what I had hoped for.
They also didn't die in the book OR the 1971 movie version. Although I believe Mike Teevee after the Factory tour might have legally changed his name to Shawn Bradley.
(In the book he walks out of the factory "10 feet tall and thin as a wire" and the resolvement in Wonka '71 isn't any different)
(edited by Blanket Jackson on 15.7.05 1809) "Did you get your Journalism degree from a box of Cocoa Puffs?"
I saw it, and I didn't really have much opinion one way or the other. It didn't do a single thing wrong as a movie, but it still wasn't anywhere near as good as the original. If I had to sum up the whole movie in one sentence, it would be a poor idea executed flawlessly.
I saw it and liked it better than the first one, and I might see it again just to watch the Oompa Loompa dance routines once more. This was the first movie in years that made me laugh out loud several times in the theatre.
Originally posted by StephanieDepp seems to be channeling Gene Wilder through a dippy filter
Two completely different reviews I've read say Depp comes off more like Michael Jackson than anything else (reclusive, has a playground for kids, eccentric, etc) and they say the combination of this channeling and the whole Chocolate Factory/Neverland parallels gives the movie a weird vibe.
On a different subject, how does the new movie treat the psychedelic boat ride in the tunnel (where in the original the chicken gets decapitated? Truly an odd scene in a "kids" movie...)
The casting was terrific. I'm usually not an advocate of child-beating, but the rotten kids were such little punks that I nearly took off my belt in the theatre. I usually don't do that unless I'm at an after-hours theatre with Paul Reubens.
Overall, the movie was pretty whacked out, but entertaining. It may need to be seen again a second time while on shrooms to really gain the full effect.
And I've gotta say, after all these years.....Wonka's "worldwide ticket hunt" was pretty weak. Two in the USA, two in England and one in Germany? What about Asia, the most heavily populated continent in the world? What about South America? What about Africa? [/Bono]
"You can look the other way once, and it's no big deal, except it makes it easier for you to compromise the next time, and pretty soon that's all your doing; compromising, because that's the way you think things are done. You know those guys I busted? You think they were the bad guys? Because they weren't, they weren't bad guys, they were just like you and me. Except they compromised... Once." -- Jack Bauer
I personally felt that the movie just seemed to get worse as it went on. It started off strong, and I liked that the children were more bratty this time around, but Depp seemed to play Wonka as a much less intelligent character than Wilder did, and he didn't come off as either charming (as Wilder did, in his own way), OR as creepy (as was intended...), he just came off as clueless.
I have to say that to me, all the best scenes were frontloaded into the early parts of the movie, and that I was sincerely disappointed in the Oompa Loompa songs.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/sony-plans-ghostbusters-cinematic-universe-780179 If you weren't really feeling the new Wiig/McCarthy/McKinnon/Jones team of Ghostbusters, there could be a Channing Tatum-led crew headed your way.