my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-17-2005 10:03 PM                        Audience reactions here have been very favorable too and we've had several repeats. I think using the original book title, rather than naming it after the original movie, was a great move.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 07-18-2005 02:17 AM                        quote: Mike Olpin I could have done without Tim Buton's "Plot expansion". He seems to be on a father/son relationship kick. That was kind of a huge point to Big Fish. I don't think this movie particularly suffered for it, though. Characters can't just be wacky or weird or in any other way unstable, these days, without there being some childhood trauma or back story to "justify" it, or so it seems. That was my reaction to the development of Willy. But it did seem odd ... Using the original title would seem to indicate focusing on Charlie. But this movie really focused on Willy Wonka more. But, yeah, the kids were all more rich as characters, and you actually cared about Charlie, and the Oompa Loompa(s) actually had funny moments. Good decision to use one guy for all of them, even though some of the digital fudging to get dozens of them in the same shot were less than fully convincing. But I agree with Brad. The CGI in this movie was effective and well-used. It was rarely so obvious but, when it was, it wasn't distracting for it. Yep, audiences are loving it, even after shelling out $13 a ticket for the IMAX. Or maybe my pre-recorded pre-show announcement was just THAT good! "Please exit up the stairs to the top of the auditorium, thank you."  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 07-19-2005 08:06 PM                     Absolutely fraking awesome!!! This just furthers my love for IMAX. The presentation was super crisp and the colors were just spectacular. I also adore that 12,000 watts of sound power. I took my little brother to see it and his eyes lit up for every major scene. The songs were very different. It is very little like the original. This was true Tim Burton at it's best. Very weird and sick. Very awesome IMAX presentation: 5/5 Movie in general: 4.5/5  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-20-2005 01:37 PM                        Regal Hollywod 18, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 9, 2005/07/19, 19:00 I had just seen the original movie one week earlier and I think I prefer the 1971 movie to the new one. I've never read the book, so doing so may change my opinion in the future. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "Michael Jackson!" when I first saw Willy Wonka. The focus was poor on the right third of the image (but sharp over the rest of it) and there was an asshole kid behind my friend and I who would not shut up. I just don't enjoy movie theatres like I once did and I see far fewer movies in theatres now compared to a couple of years ago. It seems people were far better behaved in theatres 10 years ago than today and far fewer advertisements were shoved in our faces and the presentation quality was better, on the average.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-20-2005 07:02 PM                        My wife brought home the book last week, and I read it over the weekend. The movie follows the book almost exactly, until the ending which is slightly different and which I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it. A couple of small details are changed -- in the book, the kids each get to take both of their parents along (although Charlie still only takes his grandpa). And, in the book, Wonka has a goatee. But other than that and a couple of other things, it's pretty close -- right down to some of the dialogue being exactly the same.  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 07-22-2005 01:37 PM                     I made the trip down to Grand Rapids with a fellow employee and some friends to Dan Suomi's wonderful IMAX location, as many probably know Dan is the Chief Projectionist at this location. First presentation...this is by far the best IMAX film I've ever seen. The colors and the sharpness were just great. It was a sold out show at 7:30 on a Tuesday night. A great crowd of young and old. I was a little skeptical of this, I figured I'm going to love it or hate it. This movie was unbelievable. It had me laughing and actually caring for Charlie, unlike the other one. Johnny Depp was perfect as Wonka...after seeing this film I'm not sure if I will ever watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. This is right up there with Batman Begins as the best film of the summer. Five out of Five P.S. Dan, great presentation. Also were you the one working Tuesday night?  |  IP: Logged Bob Brown Expert Film Handler Posts: 146 From: Grand Rapids, MI Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-22-2005 03:08 PM                        HEY, DON'T FORGET LANSING HAS A IMAX ALSO...... -BB  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-24-2005 05:38 PM                        Wonderful........the CGI is "under control." (Usually they just duplicate one or two loops...ad nauseum.)(Is one spaceship enough? we'll use 10....no 20; no 200.) This time Oompa Loompa nation actor Deep Roy actually acted his part over & over again. He probably has more screen time than any other actor this decade. Louis  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 07-24-2005 08:48 PM                        Now that I've seen the film quite a few times, I'm impressed with the job they did with Deep Roy. There are a couple shots where they looped his performance and added a slight delay, but most of the shots were clearly done with either different performances, or different camera shots simultaneously of the same performance. Either way, merging it all together as seemlessly as it was, in as many sequences as there were ... wow!  |  IP: Logged John Anastasio Master Film Handler Posts: 325 From: Trenton, NJ, USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 07-26-2005 03:37 PM                        Burton has a weird, warped, wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his best films. The kids were fantastic and he couldn't have found a better collection of character actors for the rest of the cast cast. The takeoffs on other films had me rolling in the aisles. Depp looked like his makeup artist was a mortician's apprentice. I don't know why, but I could never stomach the 1971 film.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-29-2005 06:19 PM                        Let's face it, this film wiped the stench that was "planet of the apes" from our memories. I mean I liked it the first time I saw it, but after repeated viewings, I can honestly see why Burton regretted making that picture. This one, is a pure and simple treat I will enjoy for years and years to come. Ciao  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 08-03-2005 05:44 PM                     I have deep affection for the 1971 film, but I also enjoyed this one very much. Looked OK on the new smaller Imax screen at Showcase Springdale, but not as good as BATMAN. Johnny Depp is a true actor, bringing an entirely different look and approach to each character. He works well with Tim Burton. Only troublesome part was that, during the final shot, the voice of the Oompa Loompa (wonderfully portrayed by Deep Roy), came from the center channel, while the character was obviously on the far right. It would have sounded much better from the right speaker. Again, I noticed a slight wobble in the sound. I'm not sure of the process (guessing DTS), but occasionally, during sustained notes, there is a slight flutter to the sound. I'm not sure just what is going on there.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 08-24-2005 11:14 AM                     Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it very much. Many fine actors, beautiful set design and great score by Danny Elfman - I noticed that he did the vocals for the songs, like he did for THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. The squirrel scene to me was the funniest part of the picture. That long shot with a superimposed title "Düsseldorf, Germany" (when the fat little boy is introduced) got a great laugh from German audiences because of the Rothenburg-like city (where they shot WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM). The real town of Düsseldorf is about as pitoresque as Baltimore... The only negative thing I have to say about CHARLIE is in terms of image quality, it seems to me that 2K resolution is not adequate for detailed long shots as in this movie (referring to the 35mm version, of course).  |  IP: Logged Bruce McGee Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1776 From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular. Registered: Aug 1999 posted 08-25-2005 06:57 PM                     Our print of Charlie looks great after almost 5 weeks. I've only seen little snippits of it when checking focus, and I want to see the whole thing now. I've never seen the original.  |  IP: Logged Peter Berrett Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 602 From: Victoria, Australia Registered: Nov 2000 posted 09-03-2005 08:36 AM                        Hi All Last night I saw Charlie & the Chocolate Factory at the Dandenong Drive-in along with my family. For comparison, I watched Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory which was shown on tv tonight here in Australia. I have seen this film before but not for a while. The first point to note is that my kids (both 4 or less) both were entranced by both films. They are in fact quite different in style and substance, the first film of course being a musical. I was surprised at how well the new film has been made and it definently kept me entertained. Now about the Michael Jackson thing. People have got this all COMPLETELY wrong. Please let me explain. I think you will be surprised at my take on the whole make-up thing. Take a look at the following two links and please take careful note of the way that Depp looks slightly to the right and slightly upward to camera in the publicity shot. http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808403419&cf=pg&photoid=568020&intl=us Now look at the following publicity shot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/ See the similarity? That's right - I reckon the makeup and publicity shot have been borrowed straight from Amelie and that Depp has been made up to look a bit like Audrey Tautou. Far fetched? Maybe but remember that Depp is partnered to French actress/singer Vanessa Paradis and lives some of his time in France. I didn't like the weirdness that Depp brought to the role of Wonka. Whilst the part is well acted the character is not likeable whereas Wilder's somewhat eccentric Wonka was a very likeable and caring character. Burton's film also missed a little in terms of believability. Although the premise is far fetched to begin with, the first film had Charlie living in a real house. In the Burton version the house is clearly fake. This causes a problem in that the contrast between the reality of Charlie's existence and the fantasy world of the factory is a little lost. It is as if the whole story is a fantasy. The film would have been helped greatly if Charlie's background had been more realist and believable, then when he steps into the factory the contrast would have been greater. Another problems with Burton's film is that you can't understand the words in the songs which is a real problem as the songs are meant to explain and highlight key points & morals to children. My principle criticism with Burton's film however is that he changes the ending used in the musical version. In the 1971 production Charlie is shown to have his flaw to but his unprompted act of contrition earns him the forgiveness of Wonka. That was the key moment in the film - a moment of genuine drama and tension - and Burton just threw it away. In Burton's film Charlie (by default) simply wins the factory. The extended plot which sees Wonka reunited with his father just didn't work for me and didn't have much emotional depth. This is not to say that the first film didn't have its faults, one of which was that it could have been ended better. Further some of the psychadelic elements could have been toned down a little bit for children i.e. the boat ride could have caused nightmares. These criticims aside both films were very enjoyable. Finally I really enjoyed Tim Brooke Taylor's performance in the original film. He was very funny. It was almost like a scene from the Goodies. cheers Peter  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.