I like some old movies. The Wizard of Oz was okay, and the old Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But the new one was dreadful. Has anyone ever noticed that Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka bears a striking resemblance to Michael Jackson? And all that stuff with the changed ending and Willy Wonka's mean father who burnt his candy was nonsense that just distracted from the main story.

I know! Has anyone ever noticed that Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka bears a striking resemblance to Michael Jackson? And all that stuff with the changed ending and Willy Wonka's mean father who burnt his candy was nonsense that just distracted from the main story.

^^ that's just creepy.....because you're right!
I saw the Johnny Depp version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I have to say that I was very disturbed! I didn't like it very much.....

Has anyone ever noticed that Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka bears a striking resemblance to Michael Jackson?

At least Johnny Depp has a nose and a well put together face rather then MJ. It's just what the makeup artists wanted him to look like. However I do agree with Charlie Bucket, he has the most weirdest haircut.

I think at times his face gets a bit weird when he acts random and creepy but over all the look was neatly handled I just think he's a bit too pale.

I also like this movie a lot. It's more like the book rather then the other one.

To be fair the newer version is closer to the original book, which is dark and disturbing in a fantastic/weird way. I much prefer the latter version, even though I do recognise the Oompa Loompas as being more memorable in the original movie (although far different from the book). Also, the ride in the boat through the tunnel was much scarier. The original was a good movie until they got to the factory, then it was just lame.

I didn't entirely like the old one, because too many things were changed (that scene with the bubbles and the gobstoppers, the geese instead of the squirrels, ect.), but it had a much better Willy Wonka. The only good part of the new one was the squirrels. The whole ending was just lame and totally changed from the book. Why did they have to turn Wonka into some kind of anti-family man with a grudge against his bad father? He was supposed to be funny--and kind of sad at the same time--not some 'troubled' character with a past full of angst.

Supposed to be funny? No. Have you even read the book? He seems like a pleasant enough man but there's something disturbing about him, it's more of an undercurrent than anything else but it's there. I agree that the ending was a bit strange though, also referring to chocolate as 'candy', that was just stupid. You do not read Roald Dahl novels for a good laugh. They have funny moments but they're very much dark humour.

Yes, there is. In 'James and the Giant Peach', two mean old ladies get squashed by it; in 'Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator', there is a very disturbing adventure with age-reducing pills. I just mean that the kind of funniness and the kind of creepiness that Willy Wonka is supposed to have don't have anything to do with a troubled past.

Because Lady Haleth a good character cant want something, they need something. That's why Tim Burton is so creative, he builds his characters up in a creative and well thought out way instead of just pasting things and changes here and there with no meaning behind it. He build up to Wonka's past with his visions throughout the movie as to why he created the factory. Wonka's need is to loved while not being told what to do. His father wasn't bad as Charlie said "Mainly because he loves you and trying to protect you." He was a hardcore dentist only looking out for his sons future in teeth but that's not Willy's path that he wants to take. He loves candy and studied them is what he was passionate about. Willy was only frustrated as a boy when his father didn't like to live up to Willy's dream, and this was left as his memory into adulthood after he started his lifelong factory and traveled the world like he told his father. And why he doesn't like the word of "parents" or "family". It's great to see his change towards the end.

Warrior4Jesus, In my opinion the first movie was lame with its' random musical and Charlie got on my last nerves, there was really no story behind a lot of things. The newer version I find to be the best because of every ones background story, Charlie didn't seem as spoiled or negative, you understood and saw everything that went on in flashbacks and in that moment.

I personally prefer Willy Wonka to be more mysterious than to have all of his reasoning and motives spilled out before me.

Looking at many of the great characters in cinematic history, many of them just exist, and part of what makes them great is that you don't know why they do the things they do. Thinking off the top of my head, the Joker in TDK, Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, Han Solo. These characters exist and the audience knows nothing about what brought them to the point where they are now.

I would argue that Darth Vader and Han Solo are more compelling characters than Luke Skywalker, and even his background is shrouded in mystery. Similarly, the Joker is more interesting than Bruce Wayne.

When filmmakers have tried to give these characters back-stories, the results have been lackluster and have humanized the characters in a way that makes them less compelling (Star Wars prequel trilogy and Hannibal Rising).

In the same way, I much prefer Gene Wilder's portrayal and Mel Stuart's take on the character of Willy Wonka, where he was mysterious and at times creepy without ever knowing why, than Depp and Burton's, who, while still creepy, is shown to be a more sympathetic character with an unoriginal past of a conflicted relationship with his father.

Also, the original film was a musical, hence all the musical numbers, whereas the new version is not, although it still has the strange Oompa Loompa songs.

I agree with you. With some characters, like Willy Wonka, they work better if you don't know their pasts.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005),
I swore I'd never see this movie, didn't look like I'd like it. This past week I got a random urge to see it. I rented it through Netflix and am seeing it now. I can say that the first 45min were very entertaining, I love the scenes with the interviews/therapy (whichever of the two it is)...

It was great to the end. Very enjoyable movie.

narnian1, about a year ago I saw that, expecting it to be mindless entertainment, and it while it wasn't particularly DEEP, it was pretty well done and I'd definetly buy it and watch it again. I especially like the scene where Mr and Mrs Smith are at the neighbor's house party, and you can tell how different they are from the rest of their "friends".

I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory much more than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. A bit less weird, in certain ways. I do NOT think that Johnny Depp looked like Michael Jackson at all. And MJ's face and nose are fine. I can't STAND when people criticize him. But anyway, I do kinda wish they hadn't had the whole thing with Willy's father. It wasn't really needed. How was the ending changed though? Was it b/c

I might be a bit biased to like the new movie better though since it has Tim Burton and Johnny Depp along with *drum roll* Freddie Highmore (who I love and adore ) so...

Not much movie watching going on here. However we did watch the first Hornblower movie, The Duel. I like movies that have a lot of action and one thing that makes the Hornblower movies that much better is being able to watch most of them with my younger siblings.

I need to see these. I read some of the books a few months ago and I liked them a great deal. The movies would probably be good too .

Glenstorm: What I was saying is that thing affect you differently at 20 than they do at 12, that's all. Things that I thought wonderfully tragic and moving at that age might strike me as rather sentimental and melodramatic these days, whereas now I can appreciate the tragedy in more everyday situations. Clear as mud?

I see...kinda. Haha well I'm still in the "dramatic" teen stage so I probably won't get it till I'm older and, maybe, less emotional .

I don't like her as Emma, for instance,

shameful shameful words .

I do LOVE the '95 S&S . Great movie except that

. I was shocked when I first saw the movie and they didn't have that scene, although the reasons that he should have told them, are mentioned in passing. The new version ('08) is better in my opinion .

I love the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory better then the older movie. The older movie was very boring and too adult to me rather then a family film can actually sit down to enjoy, but that's just my opinion. I'm with DJP, I think the plot between Willy and his father added a lot to the story. It's not like the plotline came at random in the middle of the film, it was actually built up.

bkey: I personally prefer Willy Wonka to be more mysterious than to have all of his reasoning and motives spilled out before me.
...
When filmmakers have tried to give these characters back-stories, the results have been lackluster and have humanized the characters in a way that makes them less compelling.

I completely agree. It's funny though that I found this not only with Tim Burton's adaptation of Willy Wonka but also with the newer Alice. I totally get what you're saying about 'humanizing' the villains to the point where they lose that special power over your imagination. It doesn't make the film of a lesser quality, in fact I enjoy the ordinary human villain every now and then, but it does change these epic-fairy-tale types of stories to ones that aren't really true to the spirit of the originals; they become a different sort of film altogether.

Humanizing the Queen of Hearts from Alice for example, really put her on a level with the audience; she became relate-able and pitiable but at the expense of her awesome fear-factor. Characters who are explained don't leave much up to our own imaginations; it's basically appreciate Tim Burton's or you won't like it. Fortunately for me, I do enjoy some of his concepts.

Random comment: the Oompa Loompas from the Old Movie had far more character than the newer, computer duplicated (?!) ones in the New Movie. . And Gene Wilder is one of my favourite actors, so seeing anyone but him in the role of Wonka was strange; so it seemed fitting that Depp was even stranger.