|
beckham1
|
 |
« on: July 16, 2005, 10:57:20 PM » |
|
I went to CATCF today and it was great  I have to preface this by stating I really didn't like the the original and the Oompa Lummpa's have always freaked me out. Also I would not consider myself a Tim Burton fan by any means, I thought Nightmare Before Christmas sucked and I even went to see it at the theatre the first day it came out because I thought it looked great. I did like Sleepy Hollow, but again my approval was probably harder to win because of both of the factors I stated. Anyway I thought it was great, there was a couple songs by the Oompa Lummpa, but they were not the ones we all think of from the original. Also I am not anti Depp or Pro Depp at all so no advantage there, but JD was great. He was funny and quirky throughout the whole movie. I thought I had read somewhere negative reviews of Deep Roy's performance, but I didn't think there was anything bad about it. Charlie was good and the other kids played their parts very well to really get across the persona they are supposed to reflect. I read the book maybe in 3 grade or something, too long ago to remember so I can't tell you how it compares for accuracy if that is what you are looking for. I really have to say I liked it more than I thought, and it has a nice story ending in comparison to the original movie (again I assume this one reflects how the book ended, but I don't remember). I wouldn't characterize it as a dark movie, maybe just because the background of most things (other than the inside of the factory scenes) reflects a nighttime or industrial type of setting. All in all it was funny, witty, quirkey, and just well done overall. It is certainly worth paying the cost to go see it while it is still in the theatre. If you are in the mood for a few laughs it is a great and entertaining option. Again my disclaimer if your looking for book accuracy I don't remember so someone else will have to put their 2 cents in on that, and yes you will notice most of the props, costumes, etc used in the card set, a few I didn't notice, but they are there. Now get back to your HP book 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Relax, take it slow, and let the good times roll. ~ Steven Stifler.
|
|
|
|
Trey
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2005, 04:44:06 AM » |
|
oh im happy that you enjoyed it, I didnt realise it would be out already! and i CANT believe that we dont get it here in oz until September  no fair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brilliant Snape.... once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2005, 11:23:35 PM » |
|
So Deep Roy plays ALL the Oompa Loompas? That's pretty interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zero
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2005, 10:26:07 PM » |
|
So Deep Roy plays ALL the Oompa Loompas? That's pretty interesting.
Yep, he plays all of them (except for one or two fake ones  ). I, too, saw the film with Wendi. I liked it a lot. I was very much afraid that 1.) The trailer was showing all the funny scenes and the film would just turn out to be okay OR 2.) My expectations were way too high (when that happens, I usually end up getting disappointed by the film ... as has happened to me in the past). My fears were not confirmed at all! I thought everyone did a great job in their roles very convincing ... with the exception of Mike Teevee. I kinda thought he was overacting and kinda weird. I liked the parts of the film that were added. It gave the film much more depth. All in all it's worth seeing in the theatre and owning (rather than renting  ), imo!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 27, 2005, 10:27:23 PM by ZERO »
|
Logged
|
"... It was a little ghost dog, with a faint little bark, And a jack-o’-lantern nose that glowed in the dark ..."
|
|
|
|
ArwenEvenstar
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2005, 04:07:36 PM » |
|
Just got back from seeing the film tonight as it was the national release in Australia today. All I can say was that IMO it was brilliant. Johnny Depp did a stand up job as usual as the oft creepy and just plain crazy Wonka! Before anyone asks no I did not even see a slight resembelance to Michael Jackson and really wish people would stop saying they could compare him and Jackson. Err Wonka doesnt like kids so that settles that.  I know she wasnt featured heavily in the film but for what it's worth Missi Pyle was great in this. Her expressions were just priceless. The kids also were really good and played out their roles perfectly. Deep Roy was also extremely good as the Oompa Loompas. Nothing much else to say but this was definetely one of the funniest movies I have seen all year if not THE funniest. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trey
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2005, 02:14:59 AM » |
|
COOL!!! I cant wait to see it, going tonight so it should be fun!  Glad u liked it Arwen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brilliant Snape.... once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
ArwenEvenstar
|
 |
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2005, 04:10:37 AM » |
|
Cool Trey. Hope you enjoy it. Im going again tonight with some more friends so hopefully I'll like it as much this time round. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trey
|
 |
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2005, 07:20:57 AM » |
|
Well I LOVED Charlie & the Chocolate Factory....and I must say that it is 10 times better than the original!!! JD was awesome  ...he played Willy Wonka as he should be played..in the first film wonka seemed like a nut job to me and really quite scary...but in this movie he comes across as completely different..a tad quirky and not fully sane, but genuine and very funny! I loved how the story delved into Willy Wonka's past..there was alot more depth to the character. Freddie Highmore was fantastic and a MUCH more likeable Charlie than the kid in the first flick!! He and Depp seemed to gel together as they did in finding neverland and made an incredible team. All of the other kids were pretty good, I especially liked Julia Winter I thought she was great as Veruka Salt. Grandpa Joe was a classic The only thing that did disappoint though was the oompa loompas...I thought their songs were great, but they just seemed a little too small..very minature compared to what they should be.. All in all a wonderful movie....im hoping to go and see it again next weekend  Also a BIG BONUS for me was getting to see a preview of the HP and the Goblet of Fire. The trailer was spectacular and almost overshadowed the movie haha. I think it was pretty similar to ones I have seen over the net...but it looks so much better on the big screen....there were a lot of 'oh's and ah's' in the cinema so im pretty sure it was a surprise to many and that they didnt know the film was coming out this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brilliant Snape.... once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2005, 08:47:15 AM » |
|
Someone commented to me that they thought that it would have been better if they had spent more money on it!!!
I had heard it had cost about 2/3 of all 3 LOTR films so I find that an odd comment to make, I enjoyed it - the colours were so vibrant that they filled you up - as though I'd eaten 17 bars of chocolate*
*don't try that at home kids
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Why's all the tea always gone?
|
|
|
|
Choice of Lúthien
|
 |
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2005, 02:39:46 PM » |
|
I saw it yesterday since it finally opened here in NZ. I loved it and cannot wait to see it again. I probably prefer this to the original, though it's been awhile since I've seen the former. And I don't see why I can't like both. JD was brillant--he was so quirky and funny. I absolutely loved all his facial expressions. He's an actor that can do anything. All the kids were great---Freddie Highmore was wonderful--and David Kelly was a perfect Grandpa Joe. Beautiful art direction and I still have the "Willy Wonka" song stuck in my head  As for it costing more money, I belive it already cost US $150 million which is quite a lot (though a lot was apparently spent in all the previous tries to get this). Burton spared no expense for the movie--a real chocolate river, real squirrels trained to crack nuts, etc... Can't wait to see it again and again....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly
|
 |
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2005, 02:59:57 PM » |
|
). Burton spared no expense for the movie--a real chocolate river, real squirrels trained to crack nuts, etc....
No kidding? That's so neat! I'll have to look up stuff about the making of the movie. I would love to know more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2005, 03:05:11 PM » |
|
I'd love to see a making of this movie... surely you are pulling my leg Alyssa?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Why's all the tea always gone?
|
|
|
|
ferdinand_the_yak
|
 |
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2005, 03:13:47 PM » |
|
I saw it tonight (finally!) and thought it was brilliant! Johnny was fantastic as the 'not quite there' Wonka and Freddie Highmore and the other kids were great. Perfect casting all round  And I loved Chris Lee as well, like Trey said, it gave alot more depth to Wonka's character. Although I had to keep myself from saying 'Saruman' at first  I loved all the references to other movies... anyone NOT notice the Edward Scissorhands one?  Alyssa - the river was real enough, but it was not chocolate. I read somewhere what it was, but I can't remember. Here's some interesting facts for you guys anyways: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/triviaOne of my friends refused to see it because he was freaked out by the Ooompa Loompa songs in the original - I can't see how he could fail to love the songs here though! I thought that they were one of the best things in the movie. All in all, the embellished ending made this a 5 star movie all round! Fingers crossed that they make the sequel as well  *I also saw the trailers for GoF, Wallace and Gromit and the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as well, all three of which looked BRILLIANT so that was a nice bonus  *
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 09, 2005, 03:24:41 PM by ferdinand_the_yak »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2005, 03:29:20 PM » |
|
- the river was real enough, but it was not chocolate. Stop it - you are ruining my dreams
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Why's all the tea always gone?
|
|
|
|
ferdinand_the_yak
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2005, 03:33:27 PM » |
|
Sorry Roz  But of you look at the imdb facts, some of the props in the chocolate Room were real though  Slightly annoyed at the Americanisation of some of the words though... CANDY?  And inflation is a bit of a worry - in the book, he found 50p, now - its 10 pounds 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2005, 05:42:22 PM » |
|
Ok, so I was very gullable about the river and squirrels.  The word candy is Americanised? You don't use that word?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2005, 05:46:52 PM » |
|
And inflation is a bit of a worry - in the book, he found 50p, now - its 10 pounds  No - it's worse than that it was $10! The film was set in cosy Americanised Britain, even the postboxes were American style mail boxes and I nearly died with laughter at "Candy" being said constantly in an English accent (it's all wrong to the ears, if someone says Candy it should be said in an American accent) especially at poor Helena Bonham Carter - who naturally has lovely teeth and a far back (posh) English accent. Kelly you aren't gullible - you just WANTED to believe
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Why's all the tea always gone?
|
|
|
|
Kelly
|
 |
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2005, 06:07:12 PM » |
|
Oh, I so want that world to be real! I think I figured it out, you say sweets instead of candy?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2005, 06:25:49 PM » |
|
I think I figured it out, you say sweets instead of candy?
It depends, "sweets" are usually childrens candy, boiled sweets, chews lollipops etc, but chocolate is simply chocolate, it's never described as anything else - what about in Aus Jo?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Why's all the tea always gone?
|
|
|
|