(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

Comments 24

circlemaybe July 25 2005, 13:28:18 UTC
do you know that he made a remake of the book rather than the movie??? it was so much like Roald Dahls writing it is ridiculous. Sorry you hated it....I LOVED it.

Reply

songintheair July 25 2005, 17:15:56 UTC
everyone has been saying that they like it cause its so much like the book and all that but it doesnt make a difference if you havent actually read the book. for me, its just like how stanley kubrick's version of the shining is so much better than stephen kings even though its not like the book.

Reply

Well... iwantamullet July 25 2005, 17:24:44 UTC
It was more like the book, yes.
As for the movie overrall, I think it was overrated because it was Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The original may not be as close to Mr. Dahl's writing, but I prefer it over this new one. Johnny Dep's acting wasn't that great in the movie, the oompa loompa's were pretty ridiculous with the organized songs, and the fact that the visual effects weren't kept consistent...just didn't do it for me. I don't understand how it was the number one movie in America. I think you should see Hustle & Flow instead:P It would be worth your money.

Reply


violence210 July 25 2005, 13:35:45 UTC
i'm really into the new one, basically because it is indeed so close to the book. yes, the oompa loompas were pretty fucked up, but other than that, I thought it was great.

Reply


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


catch22bigfish July 25 2005, 16:16:57 UTC
i wanted to see it really bad.. but i honestly have a phobia of midgits (oopma loompas included).
it was that bad? damn!

Reply

songintheair July 25 2005, 17:18:15 UTC
you might like it, but everyone i went with thought pretty much the same thing. actually i think i disliked it less than them. you should still see it though!

Reply


metalissa July 26 2005, 20:53:36 UTC
i havent seen the movie.

but i think it's cool that they actually took the time to train the 20-some squirells instead of just CGI-ing them.

haha

Reply

iwantamullet July 26 2005, 23:26:31 UTC
they TRAINED THEM!?!? that is insane, that was the only part that was pretty cool..

Reply

thepants July 27 2005, 13:30:32 UTC
Whhaaaaaaat? That makes that part WAY more impressive (technically speaking). There had to be SOME cgi...they were way too on cue! Wow...where'd you find that out?

Reply

metalissa July 27 2005, 16:25:32 UTC
yeah, there may have been some CGI (like i said, i havent seen the movie) i'm sure there probably was some. but as far as the actual tricks that they were doing, whatever they may be, they were trained.

i read about it in a summer blockbuster article in Newsweek mag.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up