(Untitled)

Jul 25, 2005 04:41

well charlie and the chocolate factory was an undeniable piece of utter shit. what the hell. tim burton is 0 for 2 with remakes. planet of the apes was probably even worse ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

thepants July 25 2005, 13:54:18 UTC
I think you're just trying to stir the pot, cuz it was WAY better than the first one due to it's likeness to the book. The Oompa Loompa's were EXACTLY like the book said (minus the fact that they were all one guy) but it even gave their story of origin which was in the book.
I love how Gene Wilder was upset because (and I quote) "They only made this movie for the money." OH really Gene? You mean like EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE BY HOLLYWOOD INCLUDING YOURS? CRAZY.
Sorry, I loved it, and I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan. But this was a great film for all. I'm sad you didn't appreciate it.

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 14:25:43 UTC
That was all said with love by the way, I re-read it and thought I sounded like an ass. Don't read it that way, I had a smile the whole time. Except the last sentence, I had a clown-sized frowny face. Cuz I love ya.

Reply

songintheair July 25 2005, 17:16:26 UTC
but you know what was really good? batman begins....it was amazing!!

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 17:29:34 UTC
TOO TRUE!

Reply

songintheair July 25 2005, 17:12:35 UTC
just cause its a lot like the book doesnt make it good. i probably wouldnt like the book either if its a lot like the movie. i just thought the visuals were really inconsistent and the acting was lousy. i hated the oompa loompa songs, but you could have at least had them lynch syncing on beat, ya know? i was pretty sure tim burton added in a lot of his own stuff too, so how is it exactly like the book?

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 17:28:21 UTC
not sure why i said lynch, i meant lip-synching. oh and if i were trying to stir the pot i woulda said something like "george bush is a hero". seriously though, batman begins is sooo good.

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 17:46:54 UTC
I know, I was kidding about the 'stirring the pot' thing. AND GEORGE BUSH IS A HERO!

(Still kidding)

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 17:35:29 UTC
he added the whole back story of willy's father which I had mixed feelings about but overall it worked. and the kids were a LITTLE different, like Violet wasn't SO competitive (just in gum-chewing she was). And Mike's dad didn't go on the trip. So there were inconsistincies. But in Charlie's character it was WAY closer. He was a pure kid. In the old movie he drank the fizzy-lifting drink, that was NOT in the book nor should it have been. He was a good, honest kid. The grandparents were the correct age this time (late nineties). Willy's sadistic side came out a lot clearer I believe. You get a stronger sense that he set up the other four children in the book and I didn't get that in the old movie (which I still have a place in my heart for). There was a lot more, but my hands are telling me to stop typing cuz they hurt. We can talk sometime ( ... )

Reply

songintheair July 25 2005, 17:41:33 UTC
i'll see it again, and i'll probably warm up a little. but when the oompa loompa's turned into a hair metal band there was no going back for me. i try to see every movie twice though, even if i didnt like it the first time. i think maybe i just expected too much.

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 17:58:40 UTC
I agree...I'd forgotten the hair metal band (read: pushed out of my memory). That was when I kind of was like..."Well, I like everything ELSE ok, so I'll let this slide." But I understand.

And if you haven't read the book I'm sure it's no big deal, but to those of us who have...wow.

And one last note is that I think I liked it in part BECAUSE OF the visual inconsistencies if you're talking about the dramatic set changes. I found it appropriate. To each his own.

And Batman Begins...again...wow.
I voted for Crispin Glover to play the Joker in the next one. That'd be sweet. (Ain't It Cool News had a poll...nothing official of course...too bad too).

Reply

iwantamullet July 25 2005, 20:38:38 UTC
mike's dad did go with him.
in the original violet's dad was with her, but this one went by the book with violet going with her mom.

Reply

thepants July 25 2005, 23:33:46 UTC
Wow, you're right I re-read my post after you wrote that and realized I forgot a BIG difference. Charlie was the only child with ONE adult. All the other kids had both of their parents in the book. There were 14 adults in the book (minus Willy). And you're right, I forgot about Violet's dad.

Good call.

Reply

iwantamullet July 26 2005, 17:33:14 UTC
Have you read Charlie and the Glass Elevator? I didn't get to:o

Reply

thepants July 27 2005, 13:31:09 UTC
No, but it's next on my list! I wanted to as a kid, and I think I went looking for it but just never found it...I'll make it a goal now though.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up