Boots To ReBoots: Charlie And The Chocolate Factory Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- In this episode, Andy reviews the 2005 re-adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka and directed by Tim Burton. Man, I miss Gene Wilder...
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE and share the Boots!
www.stitchedtog...
/ stitchedtogetherpictures
/ bootstoreboots
R.I.P. Gene Wilder
RIP gene wilder
+Diarmuid O'Neill RIP Gene Wilder
Flush Fries May he rest in peace
Missed him as much anyone does as well
Chicago Critic Gerald: So you're saying this movie is so bad that it turned Freddie into a Psycho?
I love Grandpa Joe in the 2005 version. He's so damn adorable!
I like both films for different reasons.
Fun fact, the actor who played Grandpa Joe in the 71 version went on to voice Amos Slade (the hunter) in Disney's the Fox and the Hound which Burton helped animate.
Huh. That's a favorite movie and I knew Jack Albertson did the voice but didn't know that about Tim Burton
Grandpa shoe in the remake was pretty much useless and didn’t really much do anything other than “he worked at the factory”.
Great actor in many films. His first nude part was in “ waking Ned Devine” at 80 yrs old.
I also had to give a shout-out to Grandpa George. That guy's hilarious.
R.i.p Gene Wilder we'll miss you
David Brown Tim Burton why????!!!!
The remake was ok. But I grew up with the original so Gene Wilder will ALWAYS be Willy Wonka. Johnny Depp's version just looks like a modern day Michael Jackson.
The 2005 isn't even a remake of the 1971 film! It's another adaptation of the book
More people should upvote this. This film wasn't perfect, but it did some things better than the "Original". One of them was giving proper screen time to the supporting characters and making them somewhat deeper and not having them abruptly disappear and have no final scene. Another was giving the film something more of an earned conclusion as opposed to tapering off.
A more faithful adaptation of the book. Wanka in the books was not a loveable eccentric. He was borderline insane and more than a little creepy.
Either way it wasn’t a very good movie and Depp was totally miscast as Wonka ,Wonka in the book was an old eccentric big blue eyed gentleman who was a bit creepy so Wilder was perfect for the part.
That's one thing I did think was a good idea but is just how they did the characters in that terrible version is what ruined the movie
@@riofanl3638in the 2009 version?
I would love to see you do a review of Tim Burton's alice in wonderland vs Disney's original.
It's on the list. Thought about doing a review for the sequel that was just released, but saw X-Men: Apocalypse instead. I heard it didn't do very well. Not sure if it's because it was a bad movie or due to the drama surrounding Johnny Depp right now.
+StitchedTogetherPics aw sweet!
+StitchedTogetherPics it okay I say time was the best part and I kept looking at mad eyes depp
Have you considered Doing Death Race being that is a remake of Death Race 2000
The remake is shit. It's complete garbage other than the visuals.
That moment when you realize you don't know the Tim Burton version of the songs, yet you watched it so many times as a kid
Your reviews remind of the style of AVGN because you have a story while telling your review that I enjoy. I hope you make lots more videos with this character. Hopefully you can do more background story on your character while doing reviews so we can learn more about him.
Thanks! I've been making videos for several years now and slowly reveal and hint at things. I would recommend going back and checking out my earlier videos.
StitchedTogetherPics I want to watch some of your other videos but some movies I havent watched so i dont want to spoil it for me lol thats the only thing that holds me back on watch some video reviews as i like to watch the movie first before i watch a video review. The boots to reboots is what i found first and i enjoy because i like when it gets the boot lol. Are you working on any upcoming videos?
@@StitchedTogetherPictures PLEASE DO THE RED DAWN REMAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For me, having read the book, and see both versions, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Personally I tend to favor the Burton one more be a they managed to capture just how huge the factory is. Willy Wonka I felt should have Depp’s look, but also certain personality aspects of Wilder’s minus the psychotic parts. For me, the original felt too much like how the mgm wizard of Oz felt. Making it a musical, and tweaking plot elements. While the remake I would compare to how return to Oz captured the tone to that of the book.
Slap a goate on depp and bada bing bada boom you got book accurate wonka
I love this movie. It might not be great, but it introduced me to darker themes and Christopher Lee, so it holds a special place in my childhood.
The ending killed me. Nah. Come on Joe that's grim. 😂😂
Comparing from the original and The reboot, the original was 10x better. I do have to give the reboot a little bit of credit because it was more faithful to the book
The whole thirty minute plot detour at the end kinda takes away from that though.
You do have a point
Who cares if it was more faithful tho?
TheTTVCrew Roald Dahl.. People who like the book.. idk
@@KingOfGaymes Absolutely.
Michael Jackson loved the original so much that he wanted to play willy wonka in the remake but they gave it to johnny depp instead?
Has anyone heard the Primus version of the original Wonka songs, great album.
Unpopular opinion but I thoroughly enjoyed the 2005 film. I grew up having seen Gene Wilder, and loved the original film, but I am one for rediculous and stupid humor, also I'm just as socially awkward and weird as JD's take on the role. Even if the film is lackluster that Johnny's in, I always enjoy his performances regardless. Gene and Johnny are completely different, but that's what I prefer more than Johnny trying to imitate Gene. Just my personal opinion though.
Brilliantly written, fair and in-depth, you my friend just got another subscriber. Keep it up mate!
The Cheshire Cat Thanks for watching and subscribing! :)
One thing Charlie and Chocolate Factory 2005 got right: Show it don’t say it.
The opening of the factory.
The chocolate palace.
The spies stealing Wonka’s recipes.
Loompa Land.
The fates of the naughty children.
All these things were only spoken of in the original due to cost or effects.
It was a brilliant decision to have Grandpa Joe work for Willy Wonka. How else would he know all this stuff about the factory?
And we finally saw the Great Glass Elevator go slant ways!
I prefer that the kids fates were not shown.
Johnny Depp is wayyyy to out there. Sometimes he tries using an accent (Australian or... something).
I definitely agree he can pull off as Willy Wonka but thanks to the mediocre writing and direction we have Michael Jackson
Ya, they should have portrayed Willy Wonka more like The Doctor from Doctor Who ( especially considering the elevator) and a mixture of Rex Harrison from 1967 Dr Dolittle. Quirky and bizarre yet clever and adventurous. Instead they just made him...well like Michael Jackson.
I do like the factory better than the original and the fact that you see the loompaland and the history of oompa loompas.
Michael Jackson is actually a good starting point since he was trying to do the book wanka. The book wanka wasn't a loveable eccentric he was kinda creepy, disturbing, and borderline insane. There is a reason the author of the book thought the 71 version was crap. Remember it was a children's book written by a guy who normally wrote trippy x rated novels.
@@whowantit3 not if they were going for the book version. In the books wanka isn't a loveable eccentric he is borderline insane and kinda creepy. Remember the book is a children's novel written by a guy who normally wrote trippy x rated novels.
@@markcarpenter6020Firstly, it's Wonka not Wanka, which you've written wrong multiple times. Secondly, the book was written by Roald Dahl, a celebrated author of _children's_ books.
TF you on about?
Another great boots to reboots! This is the first non-horror one we watched and we weren't disappointed. You rock!
+HORROR ADDICTS Thanks!
As much as I love Johnny Depp as an actor, Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. It was one of the most iconic roles in his career. Like Johnny Depp is as Captain Jack Sparrow. No one can play those roles except for them. I think Johnny still did a decent job though because he took a totally different interpretation on the character. The 1971 version is superior in my opinion. Especially when it comes to the score and songs. The songs from the original are so memorable and I still know them by heart to this day. Pure Imagination literally sends chills of nostalgia through my spine. The ones in the remake I don't remember at all and I've seen both many times.
Depp is closer to the book wanka than Wilder was. Not arguing which is better just pointing it out.
I always liked Gene best in Young Frankenstein and The Cisco Kid.
I actually kinda like this movie, to be honest.
Why?
i mean, it isn't good (especially compared to the original) but it isn't terrible, nor is it as bad as any of the other remakes (Godzilla 1998,Black Christmas 2006, NoES 2010,rob zombie's Halloween 1&2)
I liked the Michael Jackson like Wonka.
JETTO VOORHEES Me too , and I found the songs very memorable.
Jetto Gao Silver I like it to
I echo the sentiments of Wilder. It's an insult.
no an insult would to be remaiking "Young Frankenstein"
shit i hope there arent any Hollywood elite cocksuckers around to read this .. it might give them ideas ..
*looks around nervously*
@@KenMabie It comes out even since the 71 insulted Roald Dahl. They both got a turn with it. And this slander of the author (in this video) is unwarranted.
@@StrongandStable17 Neither is the opinion of the star of the first film adaptation. They both got insulted with each respective film, comes around.
And every time the author is mentioned he says terrible things about him as if to say he hates him and we should too.
Funny with this tale separating the films from the source material is doable, but with other things no one permits it, like *Eragon.*
@@TheNotverysocial I never said Wilder's view was gospel either. That's because Eragon was genuinely bad. Just to drive the point home other examples of films considered bad by authors:
Mary Poppins,
Cool Hand Luke,
Clockwork Orange,
And One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
All good films I'm sure you'd agree.
@@StrongandStable17 Yeah, but that is one particular one everyone continuously harps on every inconsistency with the source material, and no one is permitted to go into it blind. Every comment always says "It's not like the book at all!"
Yet with Dahl adaptations, many saw the films without ever having encountered the source material, and people allow them to be seen on their own merits or failures alike.
Also, *Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, BFG,* and *The Witches* are erroneously called remakes of the previous films, and that is not the case at all, as they are based on the same material the first films were. If the film came first then got novelised, or never did, that would be another story. Original screenplay.
Gene Wilder singing Pure Imagination still sends shivers down my spine. They should have realized remaking this would never work.
It's not a remake. That would be like saying Batman Begins is a remake of Batman 1989.
@@coatsorkeys Either way the 2005 version sucked big time an absolute joke of a movie and Depp as Wonka absolutely nothing like the book version.
@@gerardhiggins4827 nah, 2005 was great.
This movie was not a remake
@@nasbukhari696Well according to critics and rotten tomatoes..the original is far superior🤷
This is the most thorough analysis of original vs. remake of this material I've yet seen and vit's delivered by a homicidal maniac...go figure! ;-)
You should see Bankgeek, Bobsheaux, and ThatFellowCoat's side of it. They give far more honest opinions of this film without willfully omitting things or slenderising Roald Dahl to make their points.
Not a remake
Its probably a good thing the Tim Burton Superman movie was scrapped though a part of me would've liked to have seen it lol.
I mean Nic Cage as Superman priceless,in today's world that honor would go to Johnny Depp of course.
+MegaPorkchopexpress When I think Superman, I don't think of Nicolas Cage. The movie probably would have been bizarre... but entertaining in a cheesy way :)
Also, the giant robot spider.
Concerning the music, I definitely can't picture Primus releasing an album covering the remake's soundtrack. Also, I recently saw a video where someone said that Cheer Up Charlie was a bad song. I was really confused and I'm glad someone else understands the heart that song brings to the movie.
rip gene wilder
thank you - i just found you but I am loving your take on reboots...whats up with this whole new genre of film - lame, stupid, unnecessary remakes.
Annie J You're welcome and thanks for watching :)
To be honest (maybe because I watched it in theaters when I was 6) the new version doesn't seem so bad to me.
+4Corry It makes sense. You were young when you first watched it so this is probably the Wonka you grew up with. Some kids who grew up with the Star Wars prequels love them and think the old ones are boring. Opinions are subjective. Nothing is loved by everyone.
StitchedTogetherPics I didn't say I liked the new one better. I said I didn't think it's that bad.
You have a good point Andy.
I loved this movie. The older version wasn't that impressive to me in comparison.
Camille Williams Ah whatever.
The movie was never meant to be a remake. It was an adaptation of a book by Roald Dahl. Dahl actually hated the 1971 film.
So is the book just as bad?
PEGASUS MASTER No. The 2005 adaptation was made purely to more faithfully bring Dahl’s book to the big screen. I actually love the 2005 film more than the 1971 film.
@@mjtruth1039 To be fair Dahl didn't like many (if any) of the adaptations of his work so that's not a great measure of quality.
Besides authors can be very fickle for example Stephen King disliked the Shining despite how great that film is.
Danny Elfman could have even repurposed Oingo Boingo songs and that would have worked better than what he did. Imagine a song like No Spill Blood or Cry of the Vatos or Whole Day Off with Willy Wonka lyrics...
His plan was to get to know the kids, and choose his favorite.
I genuinely love Charlie and the Chocolate Factory more than the original. The one thing I'll give the old one is Gene Wilder was a great Willy Wonka but I love Johnny Depp's version, I think his awkwardness is hilarious and relatable. I don't think him needing the cards or repeating himself means he's stupid, in my opinion it just highlights his social awkwardness even more insinuating he doesnt know what to talk about with people to the point he repeats himself cause he has to reuse previous topics.
You make awesome vids man. Constructive and hilarious.
+Malus Thantos Thanks!
Is it really suspenseful if you already know he's gonna find it?
And is it a remake or simply a new interpretation of already existing source material?
It's a more faithful adaptation of the source material. Most people complaining never read the book. Wanka was not a loveable eccentric. He was awkward, creepy, and borderline insane. The author hated the original movie. And to be fair remember the author of charlie normally wrote weird and trippy x rated novels.
@@markcarpenter6020 Except in many ways the 71 version is creepier than the Burton version as it included the tunnel scene, and unlike the Book and Burton film leaves the fate of the children ambiguous.
Personally they all have their upsides and downsides though I confess I like the book and Wilder film while disliking the Burton film.
I'm glad we get 2 very distinct interpretations of this same story
Nowadays we would need 3 scenes that tell the origin of how he got his coat and top hat
This is what a review should be. I love how you point out what was good and what was bad and say why the actor do there best and blame it on how the characters were written. You also say how it could have been better and it should. You're keep up the good movie. The music in this is good.And this isn't a remake. Remakes are actually based on the movies and uses the same details like music, scenery, time period, etc. This was actually written by Tim Burton to the so different he didn't even. watch the original before doing it
I actually like the remake way more than the original, which is an extremly rare occasion for me... Dont like the original at all
Lukkern I agree with you 💯
EthanCoolBro18 Gamer how
Oh my! That ending kept me laughing all nite man!! I can't stop laughing...😂😂😂... so disturbing
0:23 Andy's reaction to the lion king franchise remake
10:50 and plans lion king 2 Simba's pride remake sequel
It annoyed the hell out of me when he said casting Deep Roy as every Oompa Loompa was done out of “laziness” despite being documented as one of the biggest challenges of the movie’s production. Burton *easily* could have filled every single one of those spots with a different actor but casting Roy as all of them was very clearly a stylistic choice and it astounds me that you somehow cant see that.
Well actually, the remake is supposed to make the audience feel as awkward and uncomfortable in an unpredictable way like how the five children react to Wonka as if we are in the movie with them.
Hint: The Wonka's Welcome Song scene that parodies "It's a Small World".
It's not awkward you feel though. .it's mind numbingly boring and all together insulting to both the original, and the viewer.. it's so shockingly bad, there is no redeeming qualities to it at all.. it's sad, for all the talent available. .it's incredibly lame
Thank you. People who have only seen the movie don't realize how disturbing and creepy wanka was in the books. Burten was trying to show that in his movie. The closest 71 movie came to the book wanka was the trippy boat ride/song.
@@darianstarfrog Yes lame and totally dull and dour and the music was totally forgettable as well.
@@darianstarfrog lol youre writing this under the tired assumption that 2005 was meant to be a remake of 1971. That was never supposed to be a case and infact tim burton made it a point for everyone who helped write the movie to have never seen 1971. This movie was never a remake and is suppised to be an adaptation of the book, which judging by this comment you have never read and if you did you probably didnt like it.
The one and ONLY thing I give Charlie and the Chocolate Factory credit for was that the chocolate river actually looked like melted chocolate
I do like that we finally find out what happened to the kids.
you have to a Boots To ReBoots on The Witches remake when it comes out
intresting fact is i still own my copy of the original movie and still watch it today
13:31 i died with laughter you go good Andy
This movie has positive reviews, like 80-%. I think people like it fine. just look at it as its own thing.
+Jonathan Garcia Boots to Reboots is all about comparing the original to the Reboot.
+Oda Swifteye
This is an adaptation of the material, not a remake (at least that's what everyone says).
Jonathan Garcia That distinction holds no value.
The general concept of these videos and this channel is that there is an original movie and that years later another movie of the same name and generally the same premise comes out and the review itself is coming up with ways to justify or condemn it's existence in the face of it's predecessor.
The original has 89% on Rotten Tomatoes while the 2005 version has 83% . The original has higher
The reamke wonka is actually a genius in his own way like finding about an uncharted country just for more weird yet delicious flavors for his sweets, understanding and communicating easily with the oompa loompas and knowing that they worship cocoa beans he used his chocolate to gain theyre trust, and even being able to create magical flavorful lifeforms like baby chocolate birds or making a reality warping teleportation portal technology and even warping on how normal humans know science and be able to create some weird candies from mixing chemicals and having some overkill yet kinda desirable results
Doug Walker had a good point about the movies, the first movie was called "Willie Wonka and the chocolate factory," but it focused more on Charlie. Where as this movie "Charlie and the chocolate factory," focus more on Willie Wonka. And yes I do know that the book was called Charlie and the chocolate factory.
This remake was more accurate to the book
@Brandon Spain S/he never said that. S/he stated a fact, but said nothing about an opinion on the actual film. And honestly this is far more harsh than most tend to be on this film. Most will usually say it's not the worst, it just doesn't measure up to WW.
I thought the Oompah Loompah songs in the old one were annoying. The other songs in both films were much better. It takes skill to write new melodies rather than reuse the same one three more times. The child roasts in the old one often seemed like random singing and poems like the ones Wonka would often recite throughout more so than proper musical numbers like the rest of them.
Burton has run out of ideas, and Depp's continued partnership with him just produces a weird, slightly effeminate guy with pale skin and a weird voice, who makes his sad way through a weird, cartoon set, with no depth to the story and no character development... just weird for the sake of weird... using famous titles to sell tickets to the same old crap.
I don't mind weird for the sake of weird. The problem is that it's done for money. Compare this to stuff like Tim And Eric, Lalala, and The Eric Andre Show. THOSE are weird be weird. But stuff like 2005 Wobka, and Most of TB's stuff clearly tries to appeal to the dark, moody, Hot Topic crowd.
I remember getting mad over your opinion when I was younger. But now, I really love this video and your channel
Thanks for staying around. Reviews and opinions are subjective. Enjoy what you want. These reviews are meant to give my opinion, but mainly to have fun and make some jokes.
@@StitchedTogetherPictures exactly. You're fantastic. Also can you rank the Nightmare on Elm Street films pls?
@@StitchedTogetherPictures I don't disagree on which is the better movie but I would like to point out this wasn't actually so much a remake of the original movie as much as it was a more faithful adaptation of the book.
PUH LEASE! The remake was JUST as creative as the original. I know it had its flaws, but at least it stayed true to the story. The Fizzy lifting drinks in the original was pointless. The songs (Oompa loompa songs) were the same. Whereas the remake stayed true to the book
wlliamson53 The fizzy lifting drinks were added so as to give a reason for Charlie to be initially denied the lifetime supply of chocolate. For which he redeems himself by giving Wonka back the ever-lasting gobstopper. Otherwise Charlie would have simply walked out the door with the gobstopper proving that he was unworthy of the ultimate prize. The act of giving Wonka the gobstopper distinguishes Charlie from the others. That is why it was added. Besides, the remake was mainly a CGI showcase with very little soul, dull characters and a generally unlikable Wonka, completely void of the charm that made the original the wonder it is today.
wlliamson53 It was not pointless, it was an awesome sequence, that was funny, beautiful and scary.
wlliamson53 Johnny Depp sucked and the dentist story was boring, as was Charlie.
"It was closer to the book so it's better!"
1. Not a valid argument. Shut up.
2. The dentist story wasn't even in the book.
wlliamson53 Johnny Depp sucked and the dentist story was boring, as was Charlie.
"It was closer to the book so it's better!"
1. Not a valid argument. Shut up.
2. The dentist story wasn't even in the book.
Henry Kane Who gives a fuck
3:55 There's no suspense and excitement because it's supposed to shock Charlie when he opens the bar and finds the ticket. In the book, hes forgotten about the ticket search. In the movie, he thinks all the tickets are found already. He's genuinely surprised to see the ticket there.
I saw this before I saw the original
Disagree with everything you said. I much prefer this movie, and not just because it's more faithful to the book. People need to stop looking at this as a remake of the first movie and more as a re-adaptation of the same BOOK. This movie honestly felt like it was trying to right the mistakes of the first film and actually trying to adapt the book instead of being a commercial masked as a movie. I prefer the grungy edge of this movie to the fairy tale nature of the first, even the variety in the Oompa Loompa song genres stand out and aren't just the same damn song copy-pasted with a few changes. Putting the songs side by side, you honestly convinced me the newer songs are BETTER and catchier. Evil kids aren't as developed? Is this a joke? The original characters feel so flat and one-dimensional and the new characters have personality beyond their main ones and interact with others more. Even the fact that they're nastier in this version honestly makes them more interesting. The grandparents beyond Joe also have life to them, you be forgiven for forgetting the other three grandparents even existed in the first movie (even Augustus wasn't too memorable in the previous one). This movie also has an epilogue and more complete ending, plus Wonka's backstory was a neat touch. And I could go one about why this is the superior version, but I'll let a channel named Media Mementos explain. Seems like the only reason the original is praised more is because of nostalgia and because it's the oRiGinAL (one which people overlook the flaws of). The absolute nerve to say one Oompa Loompa is lAzY when it was actually really exhausting for Deep Roy to have to film each individual shot to not use CGI, and that they were described as the exact same in the book
4:55 I have no idea what you're talking about here. The other three grandparents in the 1971 film have virtually no dialogue and might as well have been cut entirely. The 2005 grandparents are much more memorable.
I like the format of this show: funny scenes with Andy's alter egos giving their opinion and occasional sketches mixed with the actual review. But I'd also like to listen to original Andy just talking about stuff, like horror movies in general or interesting pop culture stuff at length. Does he have any podcast-style videos?
the first boots to reboots episode I ever seen R.I.P gene wilder
13:55 The Oompa Loompa songs in the 2005 film slap hard, and I know the complete lyrics to all four of them. The only reason you don't have them memorized is because you haven't watched the film enough times. Also, the songs aren't supposed to all be the same. They are supposed to differ and fit the tones of each kid they're singing about.
Ok Agustas gloop song has been in my head for years... I definitely cant forget that song
In fairness, the cow part made me chuckle when you pointed it out. Whipped cream? Heh
9:40 Did you even watch the movie? He couldn't rescue her because Wonka couldn't find the key. And he's clearly shocked seeing Veruca get attacked.
While I do love the Boots to Reboots theme song that eventually became a staple of the series, it's nostalgic to come back to older episodes and hear what the theme song was before then.
6:15 - 6:24 oh Good Andy, you crack me up sometimes.
9:03 Wonka does the same thing in the 1971 film. He describes the way things work.
The 2005 film isn't a remake of the 1971 film, they're both adaptations of the same book. Tim Burton even went to great lengths to make his version different from the 1971 version by being far more faithful to the book.
I actually really liked this movie. Not sure why but I thought it was very pleasant. I have no reason to back that up with.
You probably grew up with this movie, like many did with the original. However, videos like this look at the movies objectively and prove that the original is the superior film
Nice name, tho
I hate to admit it, but I really enjoy the remake, I’m sorry.....lmao
I grew up in an abusive household and Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka really gave me hope that if I stayed true to what I knew was right then maybe one day I, too, might have the wonderful dilemma of getting everything I always wanted and living happily ever after. I imagine that same kid watching Tim Burton's monster-piece..if I can just withstand the horrors and outlast the others, I win. There is no ray of hope for that kid. Survive, not thrive.
I'm sure Gene Wilder is looking down at you with happiness that you destroyed the movie that was insulting. One should not insult Gene Wilder.
The old film insulted Roald Dahl. It all comes full circle.
@@TheNotverysocial To quote Nostalgia Critic "Who cares if a movie is more faitful? When a film is good, it's frickin good."
@@jeremyusreevu237 What makes Gene Wilder so much better than Roald Dahl? They both brought joy to the world and piqued the imaginations of children, and I don't think anyone should take such personal offense to Burton's film, and this critic clearly took it far more personally than Doug did, like it murdered his whole family. I read/saw all three versions of this story, and love the lot of them. Bobsheax and Bandgeek both made far fairer and less biased criticisms of this. Even the guy you mentioned was willing to throw a bone to this film.
Furthermore, everyone who calls this a remake of *Willy Wonka* rather than another adaptation of Dahl's novella is either a fool or a blatant liar who no one should listen to. Both films are based on the same book. Bandgeek, Bobsheax, and ThatFellowCoat and Doug Walker to a lesser extent all have far more integrity than this critic. They did not tell blatant lies or make undue attacks on Roald Dahl's character.
This is one of my favourite comparisons between the films :-)
Jessica Canakis Thanks :)
Man I have to thoroughly disagree when it comes to the Oompa Loompa songs. Granted, this is just my opinion, but even as a kid I always felt the Oompa Loompa songs in the original were more annoying and repetitive than anything. Having read the book before seeing either version, I personally also didn't like that I didn't get to hear the original lyrics in the Gene Wilder version. I think Danny Elfman's songs are hella creative and love the fact that they have their own unique spin on them. Also, the rock song and the whole concert/Gene Simmons bit actually works well considering that it's Mike Teavee's song si it would make sense that that one would be filled with random pop-culture references, obnoxious music-video-style shots and editing since obviously he's glued to the TV.
I like both movies, and it just seems to me like this guy hates all remakes of all movies just because they're labled a remake, if Depp's Wonka was too much like Hackman's then people would complain about that.
I'd just like to say that this movie was anything but lazy. For starters, they used practical effects to a stunning degree, even creating a chocolate room complete with a working chocolate waterfall, creating a miniature of the factory and town that took up an entire studio, and training squirrels for the squirrel attack. Even using Deep Roy as each Oompa Loompa was far more difficult than just casting a bunch of little people for the role considering Roy's each individual movement for the songs had to be timed perfectly so they would be in sync.
I loved this film as a kid but now I don't like it and I can agree with all your critiques
Actually, the Fizzy Lifting Drink is in the book, just nobody uses it.
So, just got done watching this review of yours.
While I do in some aspects appreciate the remake a lot more (I prefer that it's closer to the book, and darker in overall tones), you do make some excellent points.
I think in fairness, I prefer the message behind Mike TeeVee here than in the book or the original film, since the original message behind him was 'too much tv rots the brain'; whereas here, it's more of a general 'Don't be a know-it-all smartass punk'. I do enjoy the songs in both films, though I agree the original songs are far more memorable and easier to quote.
Overall, while I do enjoy the remake more, I rather enjoyed hearing your thoughts and views on this.
Luni25 Thanks for watching and commenting :)
I always thought that was an odd message for a movie I was watching on tv to be telling me!
5:10 LMAO That´s why i love your video´s
The biggest problem for me with the remake is Johnny depps Willy wonka always has a psychotic look every time something bad is going to happen to the kids
That's pretty close to the book version of wanka. Which is what they were going for. In the books wanka is borderline insane.
Since I grew up with the original, and among other classic films, this remake didn't held my interest and that's mostly because it didn't feel uplifting and felt kinda underwhelmed. I'll be honest, I never read the book and if I did, I'd probably be mixed about it, but since I watched Willy Wonka, the songs and characters will always stick with me. I felt kinda bad that Tim doesn't have any original ideas and even if he does, I don't think anyone will give them a chance because after all the shitty Remakes and shitty adaptations. This film just makes me cringe when I see his name on the credits, and I instantly know its gonna be bad, and won't out due the originals. Gene Wilder to me, is a lot more creative and definitely a guy I can idolize, so sorry Johnny I just like Gene Wilder a lot more.
You can give burten crap for making a bad movie but not for the ideas in it. He was actually Making it as close to the book as he could. In the books wanka is borderline insane and kinda creepy. The author of the books normally wrote x rated novels (pretty weird and trippy ones). And even snuck dirty jokes into the willy Wonka. The line "the snozz berries taste just like snozz berries" for example, Snozz berries is slang for a dude's balls.
this movie should've been a sequel to the first one ! Charlie is grown and owns the factory but looses his joy for making candy. He has a similar contest to give away the factory . Again five golden tickets with five weird kids ! finely a child from a split home tells Charlie his purpose in life isn't making the greatest candy ever made or making $$$. it's making children's lives happy for even a moment while they eat candy ! And it brings the child out in adults also . Charlie makes the good kid his partner for his factory !
Sometimes being more faithful to the book isn’t a good idea?
I prefer the remake
Fun fact: aside from the animated BFG, Roald Dahl hated every adaptation of his work, even the original Willy Wonka.
He never lived to see *Matilda, James and the Giant Peach,* this film, nor *Fantastic Mr Fox.* No one can ever know whether he would have or not, but I think the latter two would earn his approval more than most. He loved Angelica Huston in *The Witches* even if he detested the tacked on ending.
To be honest, I like all three versions of this story. I know, that's a rarity for anyone, right? I take them back to back.
@@TheNotverysocial Yeah. But of the remakes he has seen, BFG was the only one he liked. Also, he definitely would've liked the Tim Burton Wonka, and definitely detested James and The Giant Peach.
@@jeremyusreevu237 Likewise. Incidentally, there is a difference between these two movies not addressed, and that is one of them is a musical and the other is not. I don't know where Roald Dahl stood on this, but I presume he liked musicals about as much as Tim Burton does, which isn't very much at all. Music and musicals are two separate things, and writing stories with poems in them or short stories like Theodore Geisel have no bearing on whether one likes the medium and genre or not. This film is a straight narrative movie, as are most films this director is involved with. Nearly everything musical with his name on them are films he either only gave approval of based on his work or had a co director. Only one did he actually direct.
looking at rotten Tomatoes 83%
Yep, and Ghostbusters 2016 is also certified fresh.
+StitchedTogetherPics I don't have a problem with ghostbusters 2016 being fresh but Charlie and the chocolate factory has to be rotten
Should be Certified Trash.
Diarmuid O'Neill ture i think its ok 5/10
The idea to play Wonka as Michael Jackson must have seemed hilarious on paper. But it hasn't exactly aged well
Actually it aged fine. Michael Jackson is much closer to the book version of wanka which is what the movie was going for
The biggest problem was that mike teavee looked like jacob sartorious
Jacob Sartorious may as well be the modern day, social media Mike Teavee. Both are completely dominated by such things and lack any common sense
I always thought gene wilder was too creepy, and not much for the music, I liked burtons version, go ahead and hate me for it
+d. allen spencer Well, I respect your opinion but, YOU'RE WRONG.
"Well, you're wrong!" -The Captain.
Sorry for having an opinion that differs from everyone else, I still can't watch the original, gene wilder is creepy
Remake was more accurate based on the book
Well I kinda disagree on charlie not earning his win. He survived the tour that was his test. Also if they are going by the book wanka is actually supposed to be creepy and disturbing. I mean the book was written by a pretty weird guy. The closest the original comes to the book wanka is the trippy boat scene and when he says the snoze berries taste like snoze berries. For those who don't know snoze berries is slang for male genitals. The original movie might be a better movie but the new movie is much much more faithful to the book. Remember this was a children's book written by an adult book(as in x rated books) author.
When he was waiting for Charlie to open that wrapper I lost it😭😭
Personally, I think the remake was a better movie. Although, I did see the 1974 version AFTER I watched the 2005 movie, so that might have affected my thoughts. Last thing I want to say is this- Stop comparing the 1974 and 2005 films. They are completely different aside from the main idea. The 2005 movie was never intended to be a remake, and it isn't. It's simply a more faithful adaptation.
(Also this may be a shocker, but Roald Dhal aka the author of the book, hated the 1974 movie because it was nothing like his book and he was constantly shunned out of making decisions despite being one of the writers. He hated this movie so much, he put it in his will that, The Great Glass Elevator will never be adapted. When Tim Burton talked to Roald Dhals wife about a 2005 adaptation, she only trusted him when he said he would base the buckets house after Roalds childhood cabin. Despite people hating Johnny Depps Wonka, Gene Wilders Wonka was NOTHING like what Willy Wonka was supposed to be. I know that I said a while ago that the comparison of these films was the last thing I wanted to mention, and I'm sorry that this has turned into a rant, but I needed to say this and remember, you can have whatever opinion you want. Just because I dislike the 1974 and the 2005 film is probably one of my favorite movies ever, doesn't mean you have to agree. I'm going to actually end this comment with my biggest pet peeve in terms of the 2005 movie- Wonka's backstory isn't even a backstory. Who cares if shows the past of a character thats shrouded in mystery. Showing the Oompa Loompa backstory sure, I can definitely see why people don't like that, but come on, Wonka's flashbacks in this movie dont explain shit about the character. Here's what we learn from the flashbacks; His dad was a dentist. That's it. It doesn't explain how he founded the factory, what he did while he was locked away, his life after he ran away or anything. A backstory is the tale of someone's life before the events of the present. Yes, we see one event of his past, but that's it. One thing, we still don't know shit about Wonka, except his dad was a dentist play by the incredible Christopher Lee btw- Ok, rant over.)
Songs in 2005 are accurate to the book
Johnny Dept actually said he based the portal on his close friend Marilyn Manson.
6:15 Good Andy's Kubrick stare
12:00 That is 100% wrong. They didn't copy and paste him. He performed each of the guys individually, even during the musical numbers. I am so sick of people saying that its copy and pasted and by doing so revealing that they didn't do their research.
Edit: 12:14 Oh wow, it got even worse. You outright contradicted yourself within the same minute.
See, you've got it wrong - this isn't a remake! It's a different take on the same source material (Roald Dahl's children's novel). It's actually much closer all around to the book. Do you consider every subsequent film version of Romeo & Juliet a remake of the previous? Of course not. Same thing here.
That still doesn't make it good.
Well, that's your opinion.
+The Cinema Cowboy I like it
Ed Guy I don’t mind the 2005 film except for two problems
Charlie and Wonka suck.
Finely someone else that understands
Even though i grew up with the 2005 version I still prefer the 1971 version
“Oh hey that thing I wanted”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂