View Full Version : Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Review
I enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining and pretty funny, while at the same time having that old school chocolate factory movie feel. The ending was slightly different, but overall a good 2hrs spent.
one last note: If you can get baked beforehand, BY ALL MEANS DO SO.
DCJ311
07-15-2005, 11:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
one last note: If you can get baked beforehand, BY ALL MEANS DO SO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing this movie baked is required. I saw it last night and wished I had smoked beforehand. The movie was pretty meh otherwise.
-Skeme-
07-15-2005, 11:11 AM
Willy Wonka is the original, Charlie is the remake. I refuse to see that pile of horseshit.
IndieMatty
07-15-2005, 11:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Willy Wonka is the original, Charlie is the remake. I refuse to see that pile of horseshit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Burton is way more true to Dahl. I guarantee this will be better.
Maulik
07-15-2005, 11:17 AM
Johnny Depp.
MoreWineII
07-15-2005, 11:18 AM
There will never be a better WW than Mr. Gene Wilder.
IndieMatty
07-15-2005, 11:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Depp.
[/ QUOTE ]
What about him?
He's one of the best actors of our time.
Maulik
07-15-2005, 11:47 AM
Johnny is in the new Chocolate Factory, so it will be good.
-Skeme-
07-15-2005, 12:01 PM
This movie will be terrible. You can tell from the previews that it won't even touch the original. They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[ QUOTE ]
They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depp had the same unique nuttiness as Gene Wiler had. It felt different, of course, but it wasn't bad.
Ezcheeze
07-15-2005, 09:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Depp had the same unique nuttiness as Gene Wiler had. It felt different, of course, but it wasn't bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say that? I mean come on, how can you say that? Depp's "unique nutiness" is NOTHING like Gene Wilder's. Depp's Willy Wonka is more reminiscient of Michael Jackson than Gene Wilder's version.
This movie sucked. If you liked the original I suggest seeing it agian instead of this garbage. It's mildy entertaining but it just doesn't do justice to the original so it ruins it all IMO. Just goes to show how amazing Gene Wilder was. He completely made the old movie and pretty much every movie he was in.
Jack of Arcades
07-15-2005, 09:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Willy Wonka is the original, Charlie is the remake. I refuse to see that pile of horseshit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know... it was a book to begin with.
liquidboss
07-15-2005, 10:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Willy Wonka is the original, Charlie is the remake. I refuse to see that pile of horseshit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know... it was a book to begin with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I love when people try to be funny and sound dumb. Charlie is the original, as in the book. Willy Wonka was the movie where they changed the name.
-Skeme-
07-15-2005, 10:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know... it was a book to begin with.
[/ QUOTE ]
This means nothing in this argument. Willy Wonka is still the original movie. Charlie is the remake.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I love when people try to be funny and sound dumb. Charlie is the original, as in the book. Willy Wonka was the movie where they changed the name.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain how I sound dumb? I was correcting the OP so there was no confusion for anybody else. The remake is called Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and the original movie is called Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.
bort411
07-15-2005, 10:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depp had the same unique nuttiness as Gene Wiler had. It felt different, of course, but it wasn't bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can't say "same unique." Unique means one of a kind. If something is the same as something else, it's not unique.
NorCalJosh
07-15-2005, 10:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This movie will be terrible. You can tell from the previews that it won't even touch the original. They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you serious? that was easily gene wilders worst role ever. he came across as a wacked out pedophile.
Vince Young
07-15-2005, 11:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This movie will be terrible. You can tell from the previews that it won't even touch the original. They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you serious? that was easily gene wilders worst role ever. he came across as a wacked out pedophile.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is some sort of joke, right?
TStoneMBD
07-16-2005, 12:04 AM
SIDEBAR: how did the dahl book become nearly as famous as it did anyway? its just some random, pretty good kiddy story. i dont see anything so amazing about it that it deserves 2 movies and a threadslot on OOT.
Luv2DriveTT
07-16-2005, 12:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This movie will be terrible. You can tell from the previews that it won't even touch the original. They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I remember, WW was a wierdo in the books. The origional movie was a poor adaption, but a wonderful movie. I hear the new movie is truer to the books, I was a huge Dahl fan as a kid.
TT /images/graemlins/club.gif
Luv2DriveTT
07-16-2005, 12:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
SIDEBAR: how did the dahl book become nearly as famous as it did anyway? its just some random, pretty good kiddy story. i dont see anything so amazing about it that it deserves 2 movies and a threadslot on OOT.
[/ QUOTE ]
James and the Giant Peach. Nuf said, but there were others equally as gifted.
TT
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They made WW a rambling idiot. No uniqueness that Gene Wilder had. Wilder's Wonka was clever and witty. Depp's is a [censored] idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depp had the same unique nuttiness as Gene Wiler had. It felt different, of course, but it wasn't bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can't say "same unique." Unique means one of a kind. If something is the same as something else, it's not unique.
[/ QUOTE ]
same difference
what I meant was both Wilder and Depp's character's were always in their own little worlds. But it worked so well for the movies
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SIDEBAR: how did the dahl book become nearly as famous as it did anyway? its just some random, pretty good kiddy story. i dont see anything so amazing about it that it deserves 2 movies and a threadslot on OOT.
[/ QUOTE ]
James and the Giant Peach. Nuf said, but there were others equally as gifted.
TT
[/ QUOTE ]
Matilda and BFG were pretty good too
Pocket Trips
07-19-2005, 12:35 PM
I am a huge Tim Burton and Johnny Depp fan but this movie was the worst piece of crap I have seen in a long time.
I knew I was in trouble just from the opening music by Danny Elfman.. It had such a sinister sound to it you just knew Burton was gonna fuk this up.
The movie looks like Burton got really stoned one night and thought "Hey lets make a movie that is a cross-between Willy Wonka and The Rocky Horror Picture show." Every time Depp was onscreen I expected to hear the time warp song kick in.
The whole side-plot of Willy Wanker and his father was just an example of the crap that had no place in this movie. Yes I understand that he is supposed to be a socially awkward genius looking for an heir, but some things are better left to the imagination.
Cutting the scene where Charlie and grandpa joe narly get caught in the fan is also inexcusable... that was a scene that could've benefited from the better film-making technology available today but it was completely missing.
I highly recommend never watching this P.O.S. if you grew up watching and loving the original as I did.
Dynasty
07-19-2005, 12:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am a huge Tim Burton and Johnny Depp fan but this movie was the worst piece of crap I have seen in a long time.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's got a very high 7.8/10 rating on IMDB right now.
[ QUOTE ]
SIDEBAR: how did the dahl book become nearly as famous as it did anyway? its just some random, pretty good kiddy story. i dont see anything so amazing about it that it deserves 2 movies and a threadslot on OOT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a terrific book.
Ehh...I thought it was alright...
Wedding Crasher> Chocolate factory
[ QUOTE ]
Cutting the scene where Charlie and grandpa joe narly get caught in the fan is also inexcusable... that was a scene that could've benefited from the better film-making technology available today but it was completely missing.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be completely oblivious of the fact that Burton's movie is based on Dahl's book, NOT the movie with Gene Wilder. The scene with the fan doesn't happen in the book, any more than the scene with Wonka's father does. If you must compare the new movie with something, compare it to the book, not the old movie. But even this shouldn't be done carelessly, as film and fiction are two very different artistic media.
-Skeme-
07-19-2005, 04:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's got a very high 7.8/10 rating on IMDB right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most new movies do. Star Wars 3 was like #32 in the top 250 for a while. Give it a few weeks and they'll come down some.
gorie
07-24-2005, 01:11 AM
i just saw this movie... it was ok just for the sake of seeing it. the original is far superior.
what really ruined it for me was the oompa loompa songs. terrible!!! i miss the orange oompa loompas. at least they could sing /images/graemlins/frown.gif
Pocket Trips
07-24-2005, 01:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
i just saw this movie... it was ok just for the sake of seeing it. the original is far superior.
what really ruined it for me was the oompa loompa songs. terrible!!! i miss the orange oompa loompas. at least they could sing /images/graemlins/frown.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
nice cheap way for the studio to save $$$ using the one guy as all the oompa loompas .. about the only thing i liked about the oompa loompa songs was depp's reaction to them. the way he was dancing and singing along while everyone else was horrified over what had happened to the kids
Jack of Arcades
07-24-2005, 06:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's got a very high 7.8/10 rating on IMDB right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most new movies do. Star Wars 3 was like #32 in the top 250 for a while. Give it a few weeks and they'll come down some.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it'll regress to about a high 6 or a low seven.
Jack of Arcades
07-24-2005, 06:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know... it was a book to begin with.
[/ QUOTE ]
This means nothing in this argument. Willy Wonka is still the original movie. Charlie is the remake.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I love when people try to be funny and sound dumb. Charlie is the original, as in the book. Willy Wonka was the movie where they changed the name.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain how I sound dumb? I was correcting the OP so there was no confusion for anybody else. The remake is called Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and the original movie is called Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.
[/ QUOTE ]
How's it a remake when the movie isn't the source material Charlie draws from? It's the second adaptation of the book. That doesn't make it a remake, they're two separate entities.
WackityWhiz
07-24-2005, 06:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Depp.
[/ QUOTE ]
he has nice teeth
benza13
07-24-2005, 09:19 AM
I thought the movie was good, and I definitely think it is better than the first adaptation of the book. With Tim Burton you have to expect a darker version, and while I agree that the father stuff was a little overdone, this movie stayed truer to the book overall. Sure, they cut the part with Charlie and Grampa Joe floating up to the fan (which wasn't in the book anyhow) but that also made for a weird situation where Charlie defied WW but still won the prize. This version was definitely better and as far as the message for children, it was a better message about realizing that your family loves you and is just trying to protect you. The oompa-loompa's were a little disappointing in some ways, but much better in others, especially in their interaction with WW and the backstory. In any case, its definitely worth seeing. I plan on seeing it a second time since I too had to see it without being high this first time and I know that will increase my enjoyment of the movie.
Lawrence Ng
07-24-2005, 06:57 PM
Saw the movie a few days ago. My only regret is not watching this thing after a few joints. Man, that would've been wicked.
Lawrence
Aces McGee
07-25-2005, 12:16 PM
Just saw it last night.
It's been a while since I've read the book, so I can't speak to whether this was more true to the original story than the first movie was.
However, the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp interpretation of Willy Wonka was definitely different than the Gene Wilder interpretation.
I didn't enjoy the movie. My main problem was that there's too much of a story to be told focusing on Charlie and the chocolate factory itself to fully develop the Willy Wonka storyline. It came across as trite, in my opinion.
-McGee
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.