[FinalBroadcast]

Post all your opinions on the film here. I'm going to see it in a couple of hours \o/

[icklekermy]

Haven't seen it yet, but i was driving to wrok yesterday and the radio station were interviewing Julie Dawn Cole (the original Veruca Salt), and at the end of the interview they played the entire "I want it now" song...i was singing loudly while driving down the motorway

"I WANT A BEAN FEAST!!!"

love it!!

[Soapmad Kate]

I was watching the original yesterday to remind myself. I want to see the new one soon.

[MDX]

i went to see it tonight and it was very good but not a patch on the Original

but thats because they over did the Special FX and changed the damn Umpa Lumpas , i know why they changed them but still i was gutted.

The songs in the Movie are ok but are over the top at the same time.

Mr Depp reminded me of Mr Jackson playing his role and i felt very strange every time he spoke.

[Jamfocus]

Did they use a lot of Special FX then? I know I was happy to hear that Burton made many sets for the film for example the room where you can eat everything.

[MDX]

it seemed like there was far too much Special FX, the room with the Garden set is real and looked great.

the sets are real but they just used some Special FX to add somthing extra, for me some of the Effects are not the best either and bring the movie down a few notches in the wow factor.

Maybe its just me though

[ScottishWoody]

I saw it today, thought it was really good

[GARETH197901]

watched it tonight with my wife and 5 year old nephew,and we all loved it

[MDX]

what did you make of it upto the Original though ?

[gerry d]

I thought the movie was good.Freddie Highmore as Charlie played the part very well.There was a couple of scenes in the movie where i felt sorry for Charlie because of Freddie Highmore performance.

Thought Johnny Depp was pretty good as Wonka

The only thing that did annoy me was when the Oompa Loompas would sing their songs.I personally found it difficult to make out what they were actually saying.I could hear certain words here & there.Did anyone else have this trouble?.

I also thought that Christopher Lee was the narrator but it turns out it's somebody called Geoffrey Holder

Can i aslo mention that when Charlie found the Golden Ticket some people in the cinema i was at actually applauded which i found abit strange also when the movie finished some people applauded.

[Mr Blonde]

Johnny Depp was a huge letdown as Willy Wonka as he failed in his bid to eclipse Gene Wilder's performance...he used the wrong accent...his hair looked a mess and he played the character too dark...in summary it was embarrassing from start to finish and I will not be watching this film ever again...

[nidave]

The movie was fantastic - lots of very adult refrences and Willy Wonka was amazing.
Gene Wilder was crap compared to Johnny Depp.
This also followed the book a lot more and the ompa lumpa (sp?) songs were taken from the original book. Am sure Rohld Dahl would have been pleased.

[GARETH197901]

Originally Posted by GARETH197901

watched it tonight with my wife and 5 year old nephew,and we all loved it

i loved the original but loved the book more and this film was more faithful to the book than the original

[Larry Scutta]

I thought it was great, unlike the 1971 version it *was* the book in film form (in fact not that far off from how I imagined it to look when I read it). The only thing I wasn't too sure about was the back story about his father and the ending that it entails. I prefer Wonka as a quiet, unconfident, vulnerable character - which of course is how he would be if he'd been shut up in a factory for a couple of decades.

I was a huge Dahl fan as a child and was never that keen on the Gene Wilder version. too much was changed from the book (I particually don't like the contractual stuff at the end and the whole slugworth subplot). The point of the story (which is a moral of how to bring your kids up) was too clouded in the first version, particually because of the emphasis on Wonka rather than Charlie. The new version has a far cleaner plot

[donkey_ass_phil]

I'm not a huge fan of the original as I feel it drifts too far away from the book, but the new films looks fantastic. Johnny Depp is the PERFECT Willy Wonker IMO, can't wait to see it!

[dingledangle]

This was much better than the Wilder film, brilliant all round.

Wilder's original performance was a self-conciously comic performance of a wacky prof. Depp had real depth and sadness, a properly wounded individual (with definate shades of M. Jackson). Charlie's family had real pathos, like something out of a Becket play.

Strong casting all round, and I thought the cloned oompah-loompahs ware hilarious. (Also the narrator as revealed at the end btw). A masterpiece.

Did anyone notice that granpa was played by the one armed kitchen helper out of Robins Nest?

[russellelly]

I was so disapointed by this film that I had to write a review on IMDB. Anyone interested in my opinions can see them at http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/usercomments-644

[toastie]

I personally thought it was a lot better than the Gene Wilder version.

I know it's supposed to be a kids film but when we went on Friday the cinema was full of adults

[TWS]

Originally Posted by gerry d

The only thing that did annoy me was when the Oompa Loompas would sing their songs.I personally found it difficult to make out what they were actually saying.I could hear certain words here & there.Did anyone else have this trouble?.

Can i aslo mention that when Charlie found the Golden Ticket some people in the cinema i was at actually applauded which i found abit strange also when the movie finished some people applauded.

I couldn't make out what the oompa loompas were singing either, and some people applauded at the cinema when i watched it too, which i found incredibly strange.

My favourite bit was when Johnny Depp said

Spoiler

I'm edible too, but that's called cannibalism

It absolutely creased me up

[Leprechaun]

I saw it Saturday. Early sunday morning I had nightmares that Oompa Loompas were attacking me

[Mark_E]

I saw it afew weeks ago and it is so much better than the original.

[Larry Scutta]

Originally Posted by dingledangle

Did anyone notice that granpa was played by the one armed kitchen helper out of Robins Nest?

Yes and Mr O'Reilly from Fawlty Towers ('Yes we are orelly men'). Good to see Liz Smith in it, even though she did play virtually the same character she's played in everything for years (a dopy old woman)

[Larry Scutta]

Originally Posted by russellelly

I was so disapointed by this film that I had to write a review on IMDB. Anyone interested in my opinions can see them at http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/usercomments-644

The problem is that you continually compare the new film to 'the original' - the original was the book and both films are parallel interpretations of the book. In the review, you ask:

'Why were there squirrels and not geese?'... because Dahl wrote about squirrels (and geese were easier to film in 1971 which is the reason they changed the plot)

'Why was Mike accompanied by his father?'..... because that's in the original story. Mikes parent isn't meant to be a confident stong woman like in the 1971 version, it's supposed to be a weak and powerless man, hence why no-one's told Mike to turn off the TV (or computer games in this case)

'why, oh why, was there no flaw by Charlie?'..... because that's the point of the story; the other 4 kids have been brought up badly, Charlie had ben brought up correctly, hence he was perfect and won the big prize. The lemonade sub-plot was the worst bit of the 1971 film.

Why did he get 'in the Wonkavator (sorry, elevator) before Charlie had won?'..... because that's how he travels round the factory in the book, and it is the 'glass elevator' hence the sequel: 'Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator'


CATCF is more faithful to the book than the 1971 film (albeit with a few additions) and that's why it is IMHO the better version. There is more 'Dahl' in it which can only be a good thing.

[russellelly]

Originally Posted by Larry Scutta

The problem is that you continually compare the new film to 'the original' - the original was the book and both films are parallel interpretations of the book. In the review, you ask:

That's a fair point, perhaps being brought up with the original has made it seem infallible, and maybe that's unfair. But making a second adaption of a book is bound to incurr comparisons.

Regardless of the differences from the '71 film, it still seemed an all-round poor performance.

[Cloud Strife]

Originally Posted by russellelly

That's a fair point, perhaps being brought up with the original has made it seem infallible, and maybe that's unfair. But making a second adaption of a book is bound to incurr comparisons.

Regardless of the differences from the '71 film, it still seemed an all-round poor performance.

Well Dahl hated 1971 version. As it was nothing like the book. Hated it so much he would not let them make the glass elevator sequel