"It's one of the worst remakes of a film based on a book, right up there with Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
Unpopular Opinion Alert: I think the Tim Burton version of the book is MASSIVELY superior to the 1971 version.
No matter how wrong your opinion is, you're entitled to it.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Just a nitpick to TT 454; Tim Burton didn't direct the film, Ron Howard did.
He's talking about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, though it might have had a chance if Burton directed it.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
The Charlie and the Chocolate Factory film has the sort of excuse that it's more a different (and somewhat closer) adaptation of the book than a remake of the first film.
Ah, whoops. -facepalm- Sorry about that, I misread it. Never mind.
"No matter how wrong your opinion is, you're entitled to it."
Because having an opinion that is unpopular automatically means it is wrong. Obviously.
Want to know why I absolutely prefer the 2005 version of CATCF?
Well, firstly, let me just say this - I watched the 1971 version before the 2005 version at the age of 8 or 9, and I hated it. I found the 1971 version ugly and boring, and that scene with the tunnel I thought was horribly disturbing and even today, I don't know what purpose it's meant to serve. In my opinion (note the word opinion, everyone has them) the 2005 version is better by an enormous distance. The sets are massively better, the visual effects are fantastic and far more realistic than the 1971 sets, the costume design is better, the soundtrack is better, the intro sequence is absolutely phenomenal (probably my favourite opening to a movie tied with the opening to Toy Story 2), and as Pannic said, it's far more faithful to the book, featuring the book's actual, creative Oompa-Loompa songs instead of that "Oompa-Loompa doompedy doo" thing four times (not to mention Deep Roy playing every Oompa-Loompa, a massive feat), a more faithful Wonka, who is creepy and childlike like he is in the book, instead of a sarcastic, smug snarker like he is in the 1971 movie, actual trained squirrels (which are in the novel) and not golden geese, the chocolate river looks more realistic, Grandpa Joe isn't a grump like in the 1971 version, the four naughty children are better acted, and the extra stuff in the movie (like the construction of Prince Pondicherry's chocolate castle, the history of Wonka's factory, where Wonka found the Oompa-Loompas and Wonka's gothic childhood flashbacks) are all great and clever inclusions. It's an excellent adaptation in my opinion, getting almost everything right.
For me, there are only two issues with the 2005 version. Firstly, Charlie himself isn't a good character. His "goody-two-shoes" personality gets irritating after a while, and he doesn't have much to do in the movie. And the other issue is the Wonka theme tune. Yeah, it's pretty awful, but I think it was meant to annoy people.
I think this pretty much goes with a lot of my feelings on the Tim Burton film:
http://home.comcast.net/~tom.brodhead/burton.htm
Also, another thing. I liked that Burton allowed the Bucket family to be British in the 2005 version instead of American. In the 1971 version, the only prominent British characters are Veruca Salt and her father, which paints the impression that all British people are stuck-up and rich with extremely spoiled, bratty children. In the 2005 version, Veruca and her father are still British, but because the Bucket family are British as well (and the Salts are made to look more exaggerated and caricatured), the film better respects the country that produced the source material in the first place.
^ They never explain which country Charlie is from in the 1971 film; and there are quite a few characters that have British accents (e.g. Charlie's teacher, the candy shop owner)...
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Oh, and by the way, I didn't like the Grinch movie either. Or the Chuck Jones film. Or the book. Or anything by Dr. Suess.
I repeat what I said above.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
OK, I just read that review you provided. I disagree with pretty much all of it, because it's way too nitpicky. Different strokes for different folks.
Nostalgia Critic, is that you ?
Just kidding. This move really is crap I don't think it's as bad as the Cat In The Hat movie, but only because it's not as terrible.
Leave a Comment:
The three words that best describe this film are as follows, and I quote: Stink. Stank. STUNK!
A bit of backstory... I actually saw this when it was in theaters. I was barely out of diapers at the time. I remember the film watching experience being unpleasant and unenjoyable. Yes, even at that tender age, I knew this film blew.
I love the works of Dr. Seuss. I did then and I still do now. His works are some of the greatest things to come out of children's literature. Yet we let people take his great work and make them into mediocrities, this being the worst of the lot. Even The Cat in the Hat is a superior film. (I have never met anyone else who shares that opinion. Maybe they're too scared to speak up.)
Very little about this film even works. Sure, some of the jokes work, but most just fall flatter than Wile E. Coyote. It might have been interesting to see how the Grinch became a misanthropic Yule-hater, but the way they do it makes you wish you never asked. Practically all the new material was unneeded and unnecessary. The fact that the Whos are portrayed as materialistic douches contradicts the message in the book. The Whos redeem the Grinch by showing that the presents don't matter to them, and they celebrate Christmas anyhow. It's simple and well-done, which this film is not.
While I won't criticize the acting and music, because neither of those registered to me, I will mention that "Where Are You, Christmas?" is up there with "The Christmas Shoes" in the list of awful Christmas songs. The filmmakers at least had enough decency to include "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch," though no rendition will ever measure up to Thurl Ravenscroft's.
I think the best opinion on this film came from Maurice Noble, one of the animators on the original special, who said about it: "When it was over, I just sat there and cried."
How right he was. The film makes such hash of Seuss's book that it almost seems like an insult to him and his work. All the work he put in to making a beloved classic upstaged by this mediocre piece of shit. It's one of the worst remakes of a film based on a book, right up there with Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
So - what should you do? Here's what I suggest. Watch the Chuck Jones version. It is infinitely superior. When the Ron Howard version comes on TV, turn it off or switch the channel. Get your friends to do this, maybe.