Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 10th Anniversary - March 3, 2015

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

The only reason people hate this movie is because of nostalgia.

No, it's because the original is a good film and this is a bad one. Willy Wonka is a weirdo with daddy issues because his dentist father wouldn't let him eat candy? Good lord.

In regards to the comments about the original being a lighthearted musical, have we watched the same film? It was and still is a dark film; darker than the woeful Depp version. Wilder plays Wonka like a maniac much of the time and a mischievous imp at others, the children are portrayed as being in real danger inside the factory, the adults are portrayed as being just as gluttonous & nasty as the children ("It's your husband's life or your case of Wonka bars!"), the psychedelic tunnel scene is terrifying, etc. For a candy bar commercial, it's wild stuff.

Burton's film is a silly cartoon wherein Depp does his best Crispin Glover impression (there is no question that Twister from 1989 inspired his performance). It's a garish piece of studio product from a director that lost his "Pure Imagination" long ago. It doesn't really matter how much closer it adhered to the source novel when the execution was so dank and misguided.

Different strokes, I guess.

[DarthMarino]

Everything up to the appearance of Wonka is vasty superior in this version. The ending is also much more satisfying. The middle section is certainly better in the 1971 version.

[Vlad Draculi]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, it's because the original is a good film and this is a bad one. Willy Wonka is a weirdo with daddy issues because his dentist father wouldn't let him eat candy? Good lord.

At least Wonka had development in this version.

In regards to the comments about the original being a lighthearted musical, have we watched the same film? It was and still is a dark film; darker than the woeful Depp version. Wilder plays Wonka like a maniac much of the time and a mischievous imp at others, the children are portrayed as being in real danger inside the factory, the adults are portrayed as being just as gluttonous & nasty as the children ("It's your husband's life or your case of Wonka bars!"), the psychedelic tunnel scene is terrifying, etc. For a candy bar commercial, it's wild stuff.

The only thing I find dark in the original is the boat ride.

Burton's film is a silly cartoon wherein Depp does his best Crispin Glover impression (there is no question that Twister from 1989 inspired his performance). It's a garish piece of studio product from a director that lost his "Pure Imagination" long ago. It doesn't really matter how much closer it adhered to the source novel when the execution was so dank and misguided.

Have you never read the book?

Now I will agree with you that Burton has lost his imagination. The man hasn't made a good movie since Sweeney Todd.

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Although some things were changed (like the date for the tour into the factory), that's no reason to "hate" the final version. In my opinion, the version from the 20th century is the better version. The 21st century version is too static, it doesn't have any heart put into it. Plus Gene hates the new version.

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/06/14...actory-insult/

Of course Gene hates the new version. It isn't his. It is no different than Stephen King hating Kubrick's version of The Shining because it improves the suspense and scare factor the book lacked.

[mohman77]

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a rare gem for me in that I typically dislike remakes and find them needless, desperate cash grabs that tarnish the magic of the original versions (Karate Kid, anyone?). But I really enjoy this one, just about as much as I enjoy the original that I grew up with. Both films have great qualities that give them tremendous replay value, and both can co-exist without one or the other being the "superior" version. Quite a feat!

My daughter ran this one into the ground when she was 3-5, so I've never picked this up on blu. But now enough time has passed that I will likely go for the 10th anniversary release. Also need to pick up the original!

[soarinsteven]

Originally Posted by mohman77

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a rare gem for me in that I typically dislike remakes and find them needless, desperate cash grabs that tarnish the magic of the original versions (Karate Kid, anyone?). But I really enjoy this one, just about as much as I enjoy the original that I grew up with. Both films have great qualities that give them tremendous replay value, and both can co-exist without one or the other being the "superior" version. Quite a feat!

Yeah, I'm with you. I grew up watching the original, but like this one as well. If not anything else I was amused by Depp's performance from the first viewing, but I grew to love it after consecutive viewings. Such an oddly strange, but fun performance. Love the art direction in Burton's film as well especially Charlie's home.

Recently upgraded my dvd with the current release so not really interested in a new edition.

[Vlad Draculi]

Originally Posted by mohman77

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a rare gem for me in that I typically dislike remakes and find them needless, desperate cash grabs that tarnish the magic of the original versions (Karate Kid, anyone?).

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, I Am Legend, and A Christmas Carol are adaptations.

The Manchurian Candidate, The Fog, Halloween, Angels in the Outfield, The Mummy, and King Kong are remakes.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, I Am Legend, and A Christmas Carol are adaptations.

The Manchurian Candidate, The Fog, Halloween, Angels in the Outfield, The Mummy, and King Kong are remakes.

Most agree on the part Mr. Weeaboo! Halloween is an example as it's based on the original screenplay of the earlier film. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a separate adaptation.

Would you also say Nolan's Batman trilogy are separate adaptations of the comics rather than "remakes" of the Tim Burton films? they have little in common other than Joker and Batman and Two-Face.

[MifuneFan]

For whatever reason, Warner re-announced this again today, and the artwork is different, and it now has a letter from Tim Burton included in the photobook (similar to the Scorsese letter with Goodfellas 25th). Nothing about it being remastered or anything.

[comicgeek]

Being in first grade when this film came out, I saw this movie so many times. It still might be one of my favorite films to date.

[jscoggins]

[Nailwraps]

Amazon posted the back cover and by comparing the specs from there to that of the 2011 cover, I can confirm that it's the same disc from 4 years ago.

[darry]

I read every Dahl book back to front when I was a kid and, IMO, there is something about them that doesn't and never will translate into a good film. I think the Witches film was ok, but even then it's hard to create the emotions Dahl evokes to the young mind. On that note I think the Depp version of Wonka was better. Wilder was charming and charismatic but that was Wilder, he was like that in all his roles.

[Pieter V]

Blu-ray.com review

Just a re-release. Again Warner Bros is effortless.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by darry

I read every Dahl book back to front when I was a kid and, IMO, there is something about them that doesn't and never will translate into a good film. I think the Witches film was ok, but even then it's hard to create the emotions Dahl evokes to the young mind. On that note I think the Depp version of Wonka was better. Wilder was charming and charismatic but that was Wilder, he was like that in all his roles.

And that is what made Wilder far better than Depp who was trying to imitate Michael Jackson.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

Of course Gene hates the new version. It isn't his. It is no different than Stephen King hating Kubrick's version of The Shining because it improves the suspense and scare factor the book lacked.

Is that really a fair comparison though? Stephen King didn't direct his own version of the movie, just wrote the book.

[blackashford]

The "this film has no heart" criticism is so unfair. There is no way to quantify that and it actually kind of feels like an insult. I mean if it has no heart and I like it, what does that make me?

This film is in no way terrible. It is competently made at the very least. It has a beginning, middle, and end. The acting services the story and the production values are good.

And Deep Roy's work on this film is incredibly impressive. He had to film the same scene so many times. He had to learn a number of dance routines, in multiple parts, and perform lip sync to each song. I don't believe there was much CGI used here. It was compositing techniques and I know they even used a puppet/animatronic for him at times. He deserves a lot praise for all the work he put into this. And someone had the audacity to criticize his looks? Wow.

[Vlad Draculi]

Originally Posted by blackashford

And Deep Roy's work on this film is incredibly impressive. He had to film the same scene so many times. He had to learn a number of dance routines, in multiple parts, and perform lip sync to each song. I don't believe there was much CGI used here. It was compositing techniques and I know they even used a puppet/animatronic for him at times. He deserves a lot praise for all the work he put into this. And someone had the audacity to criticize his looks? Wow.

THANK YOU!!

[MifuneFan]

Update: Pre-order is live: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: 10th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray Pre-order[/URL]

WB lists it as a giftbox, so likely not a Digibook, but a standard case, and separate photobook in a slipcase. We should see the Press Sheet up later today.

The MSRP is $24.98, so it should be up on Amazon for $17.49 in a day or so.

[DenOfEarth]

Should have a new transfer

[Packerfan75]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

Of course Gene hates the new version. It isn't his. It is no different than Stephen King hating Kubrick's version of The Shining because it improves the suspense and scare factor the book lacked.

That's not why King hates Kubrick's version. In the interviews that I've seen, King hates it because of the portrayal of Jack Torrance. He's supposed to gradually decend into madness but Jack seems disturbed from the very beginning. Instead of being a loving and caring husband and father who slowly loses his mind, he's already mostly there to begin with.
When I heard that I couldn't help feel that he was right. It was a good point.