Cool News
A more detailed review of CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY oozes in!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with another look at Tim Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY from the test screening up in Chicago a few days ago. This one goes into more detail than previous one we posted and thus has more spoilers to give your hungry eyes. I like the enthusiasm for the film so far. I'm definitely intrigued. Enjoy the review!
Hello all,
I saw that there was a review up for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and by the looks of the talk-backs I thought ya?ll would like to here some more, maybe another opinion or more info on some things to clear some material up. Since I too was at this screening I decided to write a review as well. Well, first off, how did I get in to see Charlie 2 months early??? Well, one and a half weeks ago I was down in Chicago at the Rivereast 21 to view the sneak of SERENITY (which by the way was gloriously **** material and shall be viewed by me again in another one and a half weeks) and some guy was handing out pieces of paper for sneaks to The Longest Yard for that Monday which I could not attend due to College Exams but also for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for that Saturday which I took off of work to go ahead and see. The paper told you to call and RSVP with names of up to four peeps and bring the paper too.
Well me and the folks went and got in line an hour and a half early and the persons just collected the papers and gave us our tickets. We were about 50th in line and in the next half hour the entire ginormous lobby became filled with more peeps. We were let in about 20-30 minutes prior to the 6:30 showtime and the auditorium held at least 450 people. HUGE. I also saw the guy who was looking for people to be in the focus group but he would not allow me because I work at a movie theatre, they also would not allow any film students. It seemed to me that they wanted only JOE SCHMOES who would most likely like the movie. And after they asked these people what they thought and may have turned away those that did not like it in order to get better ratings is how the guy put it. I also found out that the filmmakers were not there like the guy said, but that he just tape recorded the conversation they had about the film.
Im going to try and not repeat too much of what the first reviewer said so stay with me. The movie opened with the making of the bars, temp graphics, temp music, the whole deal throughout. I think that the first reviewer didn't mention some things because they could seemingly ruin/ or de-virginize the readers eyes from the jokes or possibilities of some jokes in the film A.K.A. SPOILERS. So from here on in, be warned, minor SPOILERS could arise. But since it's a comedy, and a remake(somewhat) at that, don't be too worried. But it is your life, your choice, choose your path wisely young padawan.
*Minor spoilers follow*
So, the film, at the beginning we get Charlie and his family. His Parents are great in this flick. Helen Bonham Carter I believe is the mother, a.k.a. CGI Fight Club sex chick. She did a great job in this flick, and would it maybe a bit weird, but even as this poor, very poor mother, she is still ridiculously hot in this film. But anyways his dad is well done as well. His grandparents are great, all of them contributing one liners that bring about laughter in my heart. His main grandpa is great as well and we get a little backstory on him. 20 years ago flashback and he's working in the WILLY WONKA factory, a joke is that he says that it was when he was much younger, then they cut to the flashback and he looks the same, only he's in a candy-striper outfit. And here they show him go and meet the mystical WONKA. Then they cut to 15 yrs. ago and everyone is laid off because all of Wonkas secrets were stolen by competition. So Wonka is by himself now. Later on they go into the OOMPA LOOMPA backstory in a Vietnam-esque journey as Wonka is searching for new exotic flavors and comes across these dudes. (All of which who yes, are played by the same actor by way of modern technology) these guys love the cocoa bean and Wonka tells them they'll get all they want if they come work with him, so they do.
All of the Wonka bar sales and other aspects are all modernized to the time with shots of neo-Japan and America and some Middle Eastern country I believe. The fake ticket is not as big of a deal in this flick but is mentioned. I really enjoyed the ways that the kids got the tickets in this one. Mike TV is especially cool while playing his Unreal Tournament-type game as he's interviewed and being a genius in knowing how to calculate where the bar would be, he hates chocolate, didn't eat the bar, and only bought one because he knew the ticket would be there. Veruca is not as effective in this one as she was in the old one in my opinion, she just didn't stick out in my mind I guess. Violet is a b-itch though, along with her mother, who actually hits on Wonka, but he plays it like "oh, that's nice" and shoots her down, WONKA = PIMP. Augustus rocked my world with his choco-loving ways and his hilarious foreign accent of chubby delight. We actually are treated to a shot at the end while we're in the glass elevator of these four leaving in their own odd ways. That was new, as well as Mike brings his dad in this one, and Violet brings her mom in this version.
OOMPA LOOMPAS are hilarious in this movie. Their song and dance routines ruled, especially the set-up and the dancing and the fact that Willy Wonka loved them and would clap and cheer while the parents looked on in agony right next to him. HILARIOUS. The Augustus song and dance was my fav, oompas doing synchronized swimming in a choco-river = genius. The guy who played them was great, and played all of them, including Doris from the Corporate branch of the factory. Haha.
Charlie Bucket a.k.a. Freddie Highmore was very enjoyable and made my heart tingle. The overall message of the film with this and with Wonka and his Pops was tear-felt and heart warming. A beautiful message for a family film about the importance of family. The studio guy before the flick told some people by us how those 14 and under kids and folks thought of the movie and mentioned that for a lot of them it was just the deal about trying to get past the Michael Jackson thing. Because he is well represented in this film as a naïve, fairy-land living, boyish, glove wearing, white make-up'd man that invites a child to live with him never to see his family again. But it all works out and Family prevails.
Depp is fantittily-astic in this film and spouts one-liners quickly and gestures that create hilarity in my soul. I enjoyed this performance immensely and look forward to seeing it again. Just the way that he deals with them like "I don't give a damn about ya'll, I do my thing, listen to me or get f'd up, don't touch me, and don't try to tell me something in my world isn't right or doesn't make sense" This is especially nice as Mike TV tries to question and correct anything that Depp has in his world or does and Depp tells him to stop mumbling because he can't understand what he is saying, this goes on a couple times in the film. But Depp does the whole schpeel throughout with every character.
On to the kids getting kicked out: Augustus, choco-river is standered same as before. Violet turns violet, standard. Mike gets tiny, standard. All have added jokes though and more hilarity by way of Mr. Depp. So, the best one, the greatest one, one of the funniest things you may see this year in theatres. SQUIRRELS. That's right, squirrels, not geese or whatever they were before with the eggs, but squirrels, trained squirrels that can get the whole nut and can test for bad nuts. Well, imagine my surprise when me, a HUGE squirrel fan (there must be millions at my university campus) see these dozens of squirrels sitting at chairs in a circle around this room testing and opening various nuts. "This is Squirrelicious!!!" I thinks to myelf, and more hilarity ensues as Veruca, who has every other animal on the planet says Daddy, I WANT A SQUIRREL, and Depp says well you Can't Have ONE! She then messes with the squirrels, Depp says don't touch their nuts (I'm totally serious there) and the squirrels gang on her, ala WILLARD, and test her, Veruca = Bad Nut and is thrown out along with pops. The squirrels were amazing and along with the oompas and Depp were the best things in this film.
The screenplay was a nice, fresh update to the classic and generates an enormous amount of laughs, I myself shall soon begin work on one of the stories that a friend of mine and I have come up with and shall co-write into a screenplay(more 25th Hour-ish) this summer. That's right, I am an ambitious film buff with dreams of a future in the industry as well. On a small note, this week especially, Count Dooku a.k.a. Christopher Lee is Willy Wonka's pop. D.D.S. (that means Dentist) there is a great scene (flashback) when Willy comes home from trick or treat and Lee says "lets see the damage" and then throws the candy into the fire. And oh yeah, Willy has massive headgear, even more then the "well the goddamn babysitters an idiot" from in the original Amittyville. Some songs in the flick are lost and not present, (oompa loompa song is not in it, the river "pure imagination" song is not in it) and that's all I can think of
*End minor spoilers*
OVERALL though, Depp is phenomenal and delivers countless laughs, sometimes he's a little too dark and odd though for a PG rating in my opinion. The kids do their jobs, Charlie best of all and Veruca worst of all but her demise is GLORIOUS though. The parents and g-parents are great. Other supports are good and the OOMPAS rocked out totally! Almost everyone there loved the flick, it was wee bit relaxed and could probably cut some time (seconds) off of a bunch of shots and bring the running time down by good chunk from the 1:51 (I was told) cut that we witnessed. Just need to truncate the laughs a bit is all, which is possible and will lead to the creation of a laugh riot. The movie is more of a fun comedy with a great message but I don't think that it is capable of becoming the CLASSIC that the original is. I definitely think this one is funnier though and plays as a great comedy starring Johnny Depp. (oy, he's sooo dreamy!) So I feel the rating might be a bit off as of right now so we'll see what happens, but it's close to being fully family friendly enjoyment. I personally loved it, can't wait to see it again in finished form.
***1/2 out of **** for me for Charlie and the Choco Factory and in theatres July 15, 2005.
Just f.y.i. **** out of **** for Serenity, perfection, and in theatres Sep. 30, 2005.
If you use this, which I pray you will as it took me 90 minutes to complete, with all of "Undercover Brother" playing in the background, call me
SQUIRREL MASTER (as I was watching some Half Baked the other day in memory of the long, lost Dave Chappelle and overall, it fits) And I'd like to give a shout-out to PONDSCUM, one-love yo?!
SQUIRREL MASTER *out!*
-
+ Expand All
-
but with reservations ??
-
all those random question marks in stupid places hurts my eyes!
-
I hate squiggles furry little bastards,tell you what though they got my money for this when i saw Depp in the trailer..oh and geek molester nice try but you were slower than you thought so read it and weeeeeeeeep baby
-
May 16, 2005 6:03:05 AM CDT
What "college" accepted someone with such horrendous antiknowled
by salvatoregravano
Oh, yes - a US college.
-
By the way - the overall style of this review was annoying
-
May 16, 2005 6:17:02 AM CDT
So much for the conspiracy theorists' cries of "PLANT!" on the l
by ribbons
Thanks, Squirrel Master. (********* SPOILER **********) Also, I guess that explains Veruca's bizarre one-sheet with the Bad Nut reference on it.
-
http://www.worldofkj.com/Loyal-Charlie.php
This guy thought the oompa loompas were terrible -
You are a genius. I agree with power metal 1. Tim (gayman)bur (gay) ton is gay and I hate him, due to his gayness. All this gayness has clearly affected his film making ability (not that he every had any. the gay!) as his films suck ass and don't rule anything atall (especially not my ass haha. gay!.) Nothing by Gay Gayton should be a 12 part mini series by HBO and I doubt Gilliam would direct any of it. He's so Gay. Do you know what I call Tim Burton instead of Tim burton by way of a clever satire? I call him Gay bumton. Ha Ha . Gay.
-
Ah yes, THE PLANT !
-
This is truely Burton's type of film. If anyone can do justice to the book, it's Tim.
-
I am not going to see this abomination and suggest to all to stay away as well. So Timmy wants to push himself farther into irrelevance by pissing on Roald Dahl's grave and recreating Dahl's story in his own dark, twisted image? Let him, I guess. Johnny "America is a dumb puppy" Depp is no Gene Wilder.
-
but a few ghastly turns of phrase:
'that create hilarity in my soul'
'made my heart tingle'
'tear-felt and heart warming'
Make me question the sanity of the reviewer.
Argh. -
There's something real Botoxed about Johnny's face in this film. I love the man, but he looks like one of the fucking Desperate Housewives.
-
May 16, 2005 11:36:25 AM CDT
My analysis: Powermetal1 is one of those self-loathing gays.
by barry egan
-
May 16, 2005 12:15:43 PM CDT
"Depp is fantittily-astic in this film and spouts one-liners qui
by thebaxter
OK Harry, fess up... it was really you who wrote this review, wasn't it?
-
UCLA. remember...DO NOT feed the squirrels!
-
...gave me a headache.
-
How many Burton movies did you watch before you realized that you thought he was gay? Because it seems like you've seen just about all of his work. Is there a secret reason why you watch every single Burton movie? It's ok. You can keep it hidden with you in that closet of yours. What a dumb ass!
-
a) You haven't seen the movie yet so cannot form any such opinion on Burton's take on it, despite how much you may have heard about it
b) Dahl apparently HATED the original film / musical and wanted a much more darker feel to his story (and didn't appreciate the title "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)
c) Dahl's family endorse the new film and say that Dahl would have approved greatly
d) I like big boobs -
Great review, but this yet again we have a person reviewing the film who seems to not have read the book.
I'm so very glad that someone who has only seen the 1971 film still liked this movie, but were they to read the book and find that this movie is far closer to the book than the Wilder film (I'm basing this on pictures, trailers, and reviews, since I haven't had the privilege of seeing it), they may love it even *more*.
Of *course* there was no "Pure Imagination." That song was not in the book, and therefore not in this movie.
Of *course* there were squirrels. That's what it was in the book; no giant geese in the book.
I'm thrilled that the reviewer was able to enjoy this film without having read the book and only seen the musical. It says to me that there *are* people out there who will like this even if they've seen the musical and not read the book.
Joy -
May 16, 2005 3:02:53 PM CDT
Augustus rocked your world, huh? Charlie made your heart tingle?
by team america
Pervert.
-
This sounds like another plant.
So far, the only real review that I've seen is over at http://www.livejournal.com/users/soccer_mom56 -
There is nothing in the world that makes me feel better about myself than reading these talkbacks. Thank you for every arrogant, silly, ill-informed word you print. You guys are priceless!
-
There's no way I'd ever see another Tim Burton re-make...
-
Just how many golden tickets are out there?
-
You gotta check out the Willy Wonka parody at farceforce5.com
-
hehe...he said tit.
-
May 16, 2005 5:48:58 PM CDT
It may be a darker than a PG rating but they're NOT gonna rate i
by xxmr_bojanglesxx
C'mon, it's WILLY WONKA! PG-13???
-
May 16, 2005 6:12:44 PM CDT
"can any of you fuckwits point to ONE SINGLE "reimagining" that
by judge doom
Just one? You can choose between THE FLY, THE THING, UNTOUCHABLES, BEN-HUR, VANILLA SKY, OCEAN
-
May 16, 2005 6:28:32 PM CDT
Moviemack: Why don't you stay off US websites, then? And folks
by oompa_radar
-
Just because he had ONE opinion about the state of the country, that makes him anti-American. I see. I must've been living in pure ignorance before, my god! I've seen the light now, moviemack. Thank you for your wisdom.
-
I, too, was at the Chicago screening this weekend and found the reaction from the audience to be rather tepid as these things go. (Even produder Richard Zanuck looked worried when I saw his reaction to it all on the way out of the theater. My guess is that there will be some trimming before it opens this summer.) I found this re-make to be a major, major disappointment. Tim Burton's people have made it look quite good and my hat is off to the production design team. But that is the only place where it equals or surpasses the original. In all other ways, the movie pales in comparison. Starting with Johnny Depp who never really gets a proper grasp on his character. He seems to be recycling some pieces of Ed Wood mostly. His character comes off as feeble and mannered. Hardly the all-knowing sly Willie Wonka that Gene Wilder so brilliantly brought to life. And I found that all the other elements of this version could not hold a candle to the original. The Oompa Loompas wore out there welcome after their first song. (And all the songs were god-awful, by the way. Newley and Bricusse's score is a minor classic anyway, and the tunes here are absolutely no threat to that memory.) I also found all the kids to be mostly imitating the original child actors and not bringing anything particularly fresh to the table. Most of the parents made little impression. They're not nearly as funny or striking as the great character actors who filled those rolls in the first movie. (Although Violet's mom does get some very good laughs with her vacuous expressions.) Maybe it was too much to try to remake a movie beloved by so many. Tim Burton failed at the same thing a few years back with his dull attempt at bringing something new or significant to his take on "Planet of the Apes." This movie, like that, is a major botch. (Maybe Burton should stick with original material. "Corpse Bride" looks like a winner!) Outside of the excellent 'squirrels and nuts' scene, there is very little here to delight. The movie lacks charm and joy. And there was very little evidence of laughter in the audience throughout. Instead I saw a lot of people shifting out of boredom and restlessness. And this is an audience that couldn't wait to see it. Some two months early! I don't know how the studios is going to pull in a wider audience once the critics get their hands on it. (My prediction--it will be panned. And quickly ignored by audiences if Chicago's reaction is indicative of such a thing as well.) And in perhaps the ultimate irony, the film does nothing to make one want to eat chocolate. Even that is botched. (I feel sorry for Nestle who is doing a major tie-in.) It's a pretty unappetizing movie, literally AND figuratively.
-
May 16, 2005 7:55:25 PM CDT
Just because they're not name actors, doesn't mean they weren't
by jeff4261
Hey, moviemack, relax. For starters, I was talking about the actors who played the parents of the kids, not Jack Albertson. And just because they aren't household names like Mr. Albertson doesn't mean that the likes of Leonard Stone who played Violet's dad ("Violet! You're turning violet, Violet!") or veteran British comic Roy Kinnear who played Mr. Salt aren't worthy of acknowledgement. My point was, they were much more vivid and funny than say James Fox who is rather dull in the role of Mr. Salt. And just because you're a bit on the prickly side, I'll throw in the name of Nora Denny who played Mrs. Teevee, too. She was a popular character actress in the 60's and 70's and did loads of commercials in those days as well as some memorable turns on shows like "Green Acres" and "Bewitched." Or do you think that actors have to be stars to be good? Or known by you?
-
May 16, 2005 9:12:27 PM CDT
RE: Bojangles, I don't really know who the "he" in your post ref
by xxmr_bojanglesxx
The "he" was Johnny Depp since he said some shit that was considered 'un-patriotic' and was a one-week controversy. I just thought you were one of those meat-headed douchebags that actually hold some type of a grudge for YEARS over those kinds of trivial headlines, and just lash out at people and random celebrities just to prove how much of a hot-shot you are. OVER THE INTERNET I might add...but I don't know. I don't know you. And don't get me wrong. I'm not the president of the Johnny Depp fanclub. I just felt compelled to give you a tap on the shoulder and specifically inform you of your idiocy, assuming as written above was the case. Not as though you actually give a shit what I think of you. Vice versa. Even if it WAS the case in which you were speaking of, don't get your panties all in a bunch. Don't take opinions lightly do ya? My apologies.
-
May 16, 2005 11:00:16 PM CDT
Black OL's were changed by RD himself for second printing
by mister man
-
The newspaper headline could read: "Wonky Willa." That is all.
-
If anything, I think it's ironic that you're using it to describe the neo-con's point of view, 'cause it was an underdog movie. And it certainly wasn't a "thinkpiece," but any movie that puts the ESPN hype machine in its place and has the balls to talk about just how fucked up the average American's relationship with food is deserves some props.
-
Does no one realize that this movie is NOT a remake of the Gene Wilder film? Does no one realize that this is a straight adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl (with which this movie shares a title, unlike the 1971 musical travesty)?
If you have a problem with the lyrics of the Oompa-Loompa songs, blame Roald Dahl; the lyrics in this movie come straight from the book.
If you like having squirrels instead of geese, credit Roald Dahl; squirrels are what were originally in the book.
Don't compare Johnny Depp's Wonka to Gene Wilder's Wonka; compare it to Roald Dahl's book Wonka.
One last freaking time:
THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!!!
GO READ THE BOOK!
Joy -
No, we're not illiterate; I think most of us have read "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory." I also think you're a sucker for thinking that the studio gives a shit; yes, this is an "adaptation" (sort of), but the ONLY reason that it's holding fast to the text is because the screenwriter, John August, decided to play it that way, and the studio bit. THEY wanted a remake. What, you just thought that Warner Bros. decided to revisit an old Roald Dahl book that's already been made into a movie once before when they haven't sucked the rest of his ouevre dry yet? I don't.
-
Dear Tina,
You might be interested to know that Mr. Dahl did the screenplay adaptation for the first movie. And the trouble with the Oompa Loompa songs are not Dahl's lines. The real problem is the lame musical tracks that accompany them. They not only drown out the words, but there is no melody that even comes close to having the hook of the original compositions by Anthony Newly and Leslie Bricusse. -
Roald Dahl only wrote the first draft of the screenplay for the 1971 film. David Seltzer was brought in to do a *major* rewrite of the script, and that is how Dahl ended up HATING the musical. They completely reworked his script so much that he basically had no real voice in the final product.
Concerning the Oompa songs, since the beginning of the film had filler music due to the film being unfinished, isn't it possible that the Oompa songs are unfinished as well?
Joy -
You folks are so cute! Keep up the pointless bickering; it's really darling. And keep telling yourselves: you really are special, you're always right. Please, please post a liink to your blog!
-
Psshaw. We all realize that YOU'RE always right! Duh, silly!
-
If you don't like opinions, stay off of message boards. Just a suggestion. You don't have any larger windmills to tilt at? Starving children or something?
-
I read your response, but did not find a link to your blog! Seriously, I enjoy every word laid down in these talkbacks. It amazes me that there are so many self-proclaimed experts of American Cinema willing to lend their "knowledge" to those of us who haven't read as many talkbacks as they. Opinions are fine, as long as they are stated as such. Just because some schmoe declares something to be THE TRUTH doesn't make it THE TRUTH. Self-importance seems to be the name of the game here, and this provides me an unending supply of amusement. But thank you for your response.
-
what with the squirrel lovin' and all...
-
...now I'm confused.
-
I consider myself more akin to Sancho Panza than his master. Windmills are just windmills to me, but what do I know?
-
...my bad.
-
I have to agree with your analysis, moviemack, America IS a dumb puppy!
-
I would rather see Tony Danza (totally) kill himself by any method ... period. Why does anyone think that old hasbeen has or ever had talent?
-
I fully agreed with your list of examples of better than the original remakes (THE FLY, THE THING, UNTOUCHABLES, BEN-HUR and maybe even VANILLA SKY) until you listed OCEAN
-
There
-
So, I guess Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy wasn't necessary, seeing as how there had already been an animated movie based off the books...
That's the same situation with this movie. The first film adaptation of a book was horrible, so the filmmakers (and the family of the author) felt it was necessary to re-visit the book and try for a more faithful adaptation.
I guess most of you guys would be adverse to someone making a movie based on the Wizard of Oz books, even though the Garland musical was very different from its source material.
Personally, I'd love to see Burton do a take on Wizard of Oz.
Anyway, I'm trusting CatCF to be a good adaptation of Roald Dahl's book; his widow would not have greenlighted it had it been too far from his vision. That's why it took so long for this new adaptation to get finished in the first place; they were waiting for Dahl's widow to greenlight the right director and actors for a faithful adaptation.
Too bad we won't be able to have a sequel... or at least, not one based on the book sequel, since Dahl was so appalled by the 1971 musical that he forbid any film adaptations of the book sequel.
It'd be interesting to see a completely original sequel to it, though...
Joy -
Why has no-one ever considered making "Charlie and the Great Glass elevator", or even mentioned it in passing? If you're looking for darker source material, well thats the shit. The space hotel invaded by carnivorous aliens? The land of the minuses? If you havn't read it, then that'll sound odd. Or i dunno, maybe it wouldn't work. I seem to remember more jokes based on wordplay than setpieces. The Shuckworth Shanks and Showler bit was great.
-
Oh, right. Tina mentions it in the post above mine. Thats moderately humiliating. Well, good on you for bringing it up! I'd love to have seen the vermicious knids done in stop-motion, henry selick style. So Dahl didn't want it made?
-
Tina, Thanks for your thoughts. While I have also heard for years that Dahl was less than enthusiastic about the finished film and know that Selzer did a re-write on his script, the screenplay credit is still listed soley as Dahl's and there is some debate as to how much is his vs. Seltzer's. I wonder why he didn't take his name off of it. Maybe he just didn't like the songs--that's the story I've always heard. Nonetheless, both movies are pretty accurate to the source material. In fact, once you actually see the re-make I think you'll agree that it is very close to the original book and movie from the structure to the characters to the details of how the 4 grandparents share a bed. And once you see it, you may very well be as disappointed as I was. It just doesn't add very much new or interesting.
-
There seems to be a lot of revisionist history going on in regards to Dahl's contribution to the original film and his reaction to it. Here's some facts I picked up from Mel Stuart's book "Pure Imagination": Roald Dahl had complete control over the script. All changes had to be made with his approval and scenes couldn't be filmed until he signed off on them. Dahl wouldn't have been surprised that parts of the book had to be altered. He wrote the screenplay for "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" , and did a total rewrite of Ian Flemming's book, after all. Neither Roald or Mel wanted the movie to be a musical (musicals were passe in 1971) but the backers of the film ,The Quaker Oats company, insisted, so they got the best song writers they could find. Anthony Newley was a Tony award winning writer and actor at the time. The Candy Man, recorded by his friend Sammy Davis Jr. was a huge hit in the early '70s. (trust me I know, I was there, it was all over the radio) As far as kids' musicals go, most of the songs are actually pretty good, and the acting was above average. The Production designer was the same guy that designed the Nautilas Submarine (and a lot of other things) for Disney. Because the movie was made on such a tight budget, (only a few million, they didn't have 100 million dollar budgets back then, so it's a little unfair to dismiss the original as cheap looking. Besides, a huge budget seems to be the ONLY thing this new movie has over the first film) some characters, like Charlie's father and some of the other parents, had to be cut out. From a filmmaking point of veiw it makes sense, making Charlie fatherless puts his family's poverty into some realistic context and builds simpathy for the characters (in the book, dad just comes off as a bum) Adding unnessarry characters to the Chocolate factory would have required larger set pieces to fit them all into, as well as giving them all some kind of business to do to justify their being there. (this would have been at the expense of the other actor's screen time) They explained it away easily enough in the film: all golden ticket holders could bring ONE guest, which makes sense, the ticket wouldn't say bring your parents, since, as a contest open to anyone, there would be no way of predicting the ages of the winners. Then there are things that look good in print but don't necessarily translate well on screen. When I read the book back in third grade, the Oopma Loompas were described (and illustrated, oh, I wish I still had that book, you'd be apalled) as black pygmies. EVEN I knew back then that THEY HAD to be changed somehow, so it wasn't really a big shock to see the more elfen characters in the movie. The squirrel sequence, while a funny part of the book, would have been too difficult to pull off convincingly, plus if you allow a scene like that to go on too long, you run the risk of looking overly sadistic and actually having the audience feel sorry for poor little Veruca. in the movie, they get rid of her quickly and cleanly and they move on to the next scene. In Dahl's original script, Wonka was just this dancing little old man who does little more than guide them around the factory. In the rewrite they developed Wonka into more of a mysterious character and filled his dialogue with Shakesperian nonsequitors, can't see how he'd object to that, at least they pilfered lines from another brit. As for Wilder, he may not have been Dahl's first choice, but HE wanted Joel Grey (the Caberet guy) I think most people wold agree that Wilder was the better choice. Also, in the book, Charlie comes off as a very passive character, who wins the factory simply by default --all the other kids have disqualified themselves and Charlie survives by doing nothing--they had to come up with something that might tempt Charlie, so they came up with the whole Sluggworth/ Gobbstopper subplot, to give Charlie a chance to demonstrate that he could be trusted. All these changes were made either by Dahl himself or with Dahl's approval. Even Wilder's "happily ever after" line was made with Dahl's approval --he may not have liked it, but HIS ending had Granpa Joe saying "Yippee!"asa the final line and the producers decided they wanted something a little memorable to send the audience off on. Now, over the years, Dahl did grow to dislike the movie because the movie and the book are two distincly different entities, and people were always making comparisons between the two, which just puts it in the same catagory as any classic childrens story that was adapted for the screen--The Wizard of Oz, Pinocchio, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, etc. all film versions stray somewhat, for better or worse, from the source material. But in over thirty years, it's probaly still one of the best
screen versions of any of his books, and anybody who hasn't watched it recently (from the very begining all the way to end , you ADD addled youths) ought to go check it out. most of it holds up very well. -
I never said there is no truth. I simply explained that an opinion is an opinion, and not neccessarily more than that. My opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's, unless I can substantiate it with evidence and a clear, cohesive argument. I am not a "Movie Mack," as you clearly are, so I would not dare to assert that what I think about cinema is wholly credible.
-
There was NEVER any intrest, during the making of the film, nor after its completion, to make a screen version of "Great Glass Elevator" . "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was independantly produced , with backing from the Quaker Oats Company. The film, they had hoped, would promote a new candy bar they were producing at the time. Because Wonka bars were such an important part of the storyline, the new candy bar was renamed the "Wonka Bar" and the film was retitled" Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" to tie the two together. Unfortunately, the candy bar suffered a few setbacks during production, and they weren't ready at the time of the film's release. The film went out with the new title , I guess because they saw that Wilder was the star of the movie anyway. But back to "Great Glass Elevator"--since the book is so completely different in tone from "Charlie", I doubt if The Quaker Oats Company would have seen any point in financing an even more expensive, less candy centric, outer space film. The commercial failure of the first film (to be fair, this was right in the middle of Vietnan, remember, and kid's movies weren't playing as well as they had been a decade earlier.) had more to do with the decision to do another ( if there ever was a desire to do it in the first place) than anything else. Dahl may have chosen to withhold the film rights, but the fact is, in 1971, there were very few takers.
-
May 17, 2005 3:28:13 PM CDT
"So, I guess Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy wasn't necessary, seei
by ribbons
No. No, it's not. First of all, that's the only movie based on books that people with your point of view are interested in bringing up. Here's a pretty glaring difference: one's animated. The other was live action. Here's another one: the only reason that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" has any currency is because it was made into a popular movie. It's not the most famous book of Roald Dahl's because it taps into some cultural zeitgeist of our lust for chocolate, it's famous because it's the wellspring of a famous movie. Plain and simple. And, by the way, if the producers were soooo concerned with doing the book "justice" (in your dreams), why would they create a history for Willy Wonka, something that Dahl was firmly against? Oh yeah: because that's NOT why they're making this fucking movie.
-
Actual information with no rhetoric...cheers for that! So the whole "chocolate factory" theme was used as a marketing angle...that's distressingly obvious now that its pointed out to me.In reference to the book, When does the edition describing the oompahs as black date from? Just, that i have an ancient copy of "Great glass elevator" with cover artwork depicting them as white.
-
As they used to say somewhere else, "The truth is out there, it just sure as hell isn't here!" Get the original on DVD and listen to the commentary, you'll have a greater appreciation for this somewhat flawed classic. As for the Illustrations, the Oompah Loompas looked like little black natives.The artwork was black and white and done in pen and ink. I don't know who the illustrator was, but I'm pretty sure he was the same one who did Great Glass Elevator. I had both books, could never really get into Great Glass Elevator, it was just too different from the first book. But I was 11, so what did I know?
-
good as he is, he's no Gene Wilder. Saw the trailer on Apple music store ages ago and disliked it instantly. Probably go and see it but already disliking Depps interpretation. Why not just go the whole hogg and cast Paul Rueubens.
-
What a load of horseshit. I said it before and I'll say it again, I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS FILM TO BOMB....BIG TIME.....BABY!!!
You little movie studio pricks. Go fuck yourselves. -
Looks like Burton has outdown himself again, he just keeps getting better and better.
-
See, that right there doesn't give much credence to the true behind-the-scenes story of the making of the Wilder film. Any book published to supplement a movie is going to have a spin; and it this book was by Mel Stuart--the director of the movie--the spin is going to be even greater. For example, I read the behind-the-scenes book for the 1999 Will Smith "Wild Wild West" movie; talk about spin! Ross Martin is probably spinning in his grave! The person who wrote the book was writing it for Warner Brothers, so they of course praised the filmmakers and talked about how they tried their best to honor the TV show they were basing the movie on. Talk about a bunch of bullshit.
I have talked to people who had the privilege of speaking with Roald Dahl face-to-face, and he made it known very bluntly why he hated the film, and it was mainly to do with them rewriting his script to make Slugworth a secret agent and to change it so that Charlie didn't win by default.
He was upset because that changed the message and spirit of what he was trying to say in his book.
The difference between those changes and the addition of Wonka's backstory is that Wonka's backstory adds to a character, not changes it. It gives him motivation and says why he is the way he is, but doesn't change the way he is.
Charlie's character was assassinated in the musical.
I for one can't wait to see this new, more faithful adaptation of the book.
And that's my final word. I can't believe I even got myself sucked into posting on here, since I try to avoid this crappy site like the plague. I just wanted to compliment the review and remind everyone that this movie is based on the BOOK, not the previous film incarnation.
Joy -
You could give Willy Wonka any number of motivations for owning a chocolate factory; a dentist father is a pretty lousy one, and as cutesy as allowing Charlie to win fair and square as far as I'm concerned. Instead of an infinite number of possibilites for his being the way he is, there is only one. That changes the effect of the character as far as I'm concerned. But that's besides the point. Dahl had stated in the past that he didn't want a backstory for Wonka. By violating his wishes, the studio is being "unfaithful," hence, it's very unlikely that this movie is being made for the noble reasons that you think it is. Again: for all intents and purposes, it's a remake.
-
....like I said like a squillion hours ago, we all know this movie is based on "the BOOK, not the original movie." I guess you avoid listening to reason like the plague as well. I'm glad you like the book, now if you hate this site and its lowly inhabitants so much, please stop trying to illuminate us with the oh-so-obscure works of Roald Dahl and bugger off.
-
That was obnoxious of me. Sorry.
-
Good DAY sir!
-
There sure are some strange folks around these here parts...
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts