• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Movies Rate and Discuss the Last Movie You Saw v.16

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

After taking the family to see a matinee of Wonka last week I thought I’d show my kids the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory which in my opinion is a classic with an iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka by Gene Wilder. My kids liked it, and the funny thing is my kids can’t pick up on sarcasm so my 8 year old son commented when we were done that Wilder’s Wonka was “such a nice man” lol.

In any event, I had never watched Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, so we watched it the other night. I hated everything about this movie. Depp and Burton have a long history of making movies together, most of which are good, but just nothing worked in this movie for me. I hated Depp’s portrayal of Wonka. Dude was a mentally ill creep with literal daddy issues and a patently obvious disdain for children. The new musical numbers for the Oompa Loompas were atrocious. Even the portrayals of the children weren’t as memorable. OG Veruca Salt was a world class cunt. The new one was just whiny. And the new Mike TV was a vicious little bastard.

Even the story wasn’t as good. I’ve heard the inclusion of Slugworth as red herring villain was something they added for the 1971 movie and wasn’t in the novel, but to me that was somewhat critical to the plot as it gave Charlie the opportunity to do something good to prove his trustworthiness and values by returning the everlasting gobstopper to Wonka at the end of the original movie. In the 2005 version Charlie “wins” the competition simply by not being eliminated due to bad behaviour like the other children.

I wonder if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory partially kind of marks a bit of a turning point for Burton movies for me. I love Beetlejuice and his Batman movies, and also enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, but I didn’t like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I also didn’t like Dark Shadows either. I haven’t seen Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo, but if they’re anything like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I’m not particularly interested.

5/10
 
Tangerines (2013)

-

Estonian-Georgian film produced directed and written by Zaza Urushadze. It is set during the early 90s war in Abkhazia.

its one of those films that takes place all in one small area. Lembit Ulfsak plays and Estonion farmer who gets caught in the middle of the aftermath of a small battle between Georgian and Chechyn mercenaries on his land.

There aren't many big action sequences or major thrilling beats. Instead it is a character driven film, the film puts it's attention on the 4 main ones, their interactions, discussions, and especially differences. It does a good job of making the growth of their relationships between each other and character development feel natural and believeable within a short runtime of 80 minutes.

In the end, the film delivers a nice emotional touch that doesnt feel forced or overly melodramatic.

7.3/10 range.
 
Law Talkin’ Guy said:
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

After taking the family to see a matinee of Wonka last week I thought I’d show my kids the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory which in my opinion is a classic with an iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka by Gene Wilder. My kids liked it, and the funny thing is my kids can’t pick up on sarcasm so my 8 year old son commented when we were done that Wilder’s Wonka was “such a nice man” lol.

In any event, I had never watched Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, so we watched it the other night. I hated everything about this movie. Depp and Burton have a long history of making movies together, most of which are good, but just nothing worked in this movie for me. I hated Depp’s portrayal of Wonka. Dude was a mentally ill creep with literal daddy issues and a patently obvious disdain for children. The new musical numbers for the Oompa Loompas were atrocious. Even the portrayals of the children weren’t as memorable. OG Veruca Salt was a world class cunt. The new one was just whiny. And the new Mike TV was a vicious little bastard.

Even the story wasn’t as good. I’ve heard the inclusion of Slugworth as red herring villain was something they added for the 1971 movie and wasn’t in the novel, but to me that was somewhat critical to the plot as it gave Charlie the opportunity to do something good to prove his trustworthiness and values by returning the everlasting gobstopper to Wonka at the end of the original movie. In the 2005 version Charlie “wins” the competition simply by not being eliminated due to bad behaviour like the other children.

I wonder if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory partially kind of marks a bit of a turning point for Burton movies for me. I love Beetlejuice and his Batman movies, and also enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, but I didn’t like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I also didn’t like Dark Shadows either. I haven’t seen Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo, but if they’re anything like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I’m not particularly interested.

5/10
Click to expand...

I always put this one off because it didn't look like it would be that good and I think I might keep right on doing that.
 
Law Talkin’ Guy said:
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

After taking the family to see a matinee of Wonka last week I thought I’d show my kids the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory which in my opinion is a classic with an iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka by Gene Wilder. My kids liked it, and the funny thing is my kids can’t pick up on sarcasm so my 8 year old son commented when we were done that Wilder’s Wonka was “such a nice man” lol.

In any event, I had never watched Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, so we watched it the other night. I hated everything about this movie. Depp and Burton have a long history of making movies together, most of which are good, but just nothing worked in this movie for me. I hated Depp’s portrayal of Wonka. Dude was a mentally ill creep with literal daddy issues and a patently obvious disdain for children. The new musical numbers for the Oompa Loompas were atrocious. Even the portrayals of the children weren’t as memorable. OG Veruca Salt was a world class cunt. The new one was just whiny. And the new Mike TV was a vicious little bastard.

Even the story wasn’t as good. I’ve heard the inclusion of Slugworth as red herring villain was something they added for the 1971 movie and wasn’t in the novel, but to me that was somewhat critical to the plot as it gave Charlie the opportunity to do something good to prove his trustworthiness and values by returning the everlasting gobstopper to Wonka at the end of the original movie. In the 2005 version Charlie “wins” the competition simply by not being eliminated due to bad behaviour like the other children.

I wonder if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory partially kind of marks a bit of a turning point for Burton movies for me. I love Beetlejuice and his Batman movies, and also enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, but I didn’t like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I also didn’t like Dark Shadows either. I haven’t seen Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo, but if they’re anything like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I’m not particularly interested.

5/10
Click to expand...

I havent seen it in a while but I didn't hate it. Compared to the original though it is no competition imo. OG Wonka has it beat in pretty much every way.

Dark Shadows....I actually thought it starts pretty well. And there is an interesting contrast between the old gothic vampire Depp against the hippie love movement of the 60s. However it really goes downhill toward the end. So I cant recommend it to someone who isnt interested in the first place.

Alice in Wonderland.....I saw it in theatres in 3d with two of my friends. We got especially high before we got in the theater. So the whole movie is kind of a fog but I kinda liked it I think. But again, very very high.

Havent seen dumbo but dont really have any urge to.
 
BisexualMMA said:
I always put this one off because it didn't look like it would be that good and I think I might keep right on doing that.
Click to expand...

Yeah another one where if you arent already interested just skip it. Like I said I dont think it's bad, and it is different enough (a lot) from the OG movie but again, outclassed against it.

A lot of the online discussion I've read around it really puts focus on being closer to the book. But I mean, who really gives a shit about that.
 
revoltub said:
Tangerines (2013)

-

Estonian-Georgian film produced directed and written by Zaza Urushadze. It is set during the early 90s war in Abkhazia.

its one of those films that takes place all in one small area. Lembit Ulfsak plays and Estonion farmer who gets caught in the middle of the aftermath of a small battle between Georgian and Chechyn mercenaries on his land.

There aren't many big action sequences or major thrilling beats. Instead it is a character driven film, the film puts it's attention on the 4 main ones, their interactions, discussions, and especially differences. It does a good job of making the growth of their relationships between each other and character development feel natural and believeable within a short runtime of 80 minutes.

In the end, the film delivers a nice emotional touch that doesnt feel forced or overly melodramatic.

7.3/10 range.
Click to expand...

This one has been on my list for years. I need to get around to finally watching it. Thanks for review
 
Law Talkin’ Guy said:
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

After taking the family to see a matinee of Wonka last week I thought I’d show my kids the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory which in my opinion is a classic with an iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka by Gene Wilder. My kids liked it, and the funny thing is my kids can’t pick up on sarcasm so my 8 year old son commented when we were done that Wilder’s Wonka was “such a nice man” lol.

In any event, I had never watched Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, so we watched it the other night. I hated everything about this movie. Depp and Burton have a long history of making movies together, most of which are good, but just nothing worked in this movie for me. I hated Depp’s portrayal of Wonka. Dude was a mentally ill creep with literal daddy issues and a patently obvious disdain for children. The new musical numbers for the Oompa Loompas were atrocious. Even the portrayals of the children weren’t as memorable. OG Veruca Salt was a world class cunt. The new one was just whiny. And the new Mike TV was a vicious little bastard.

Even the story wasn’t as good. I’ve heard the inclusion of Slugworth as red herring villain was something they added for the 1971 movie and wasn’t in the novel, but to me that was somewhat critical to the plot as it gave Charlie the opportunity to do something good to prove his trustworthiness and values by returning the everlasting gobstopper to Wonka at the end of the original movie. In the 2005 version Charlie “wins” the competition simply by not being eliminated due to bad behaviour like the other children.

I wonder if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory partially kind of marks a bit of a turning point for Burton movies for me. I love Beetlejuice and his Batman movies, and also enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, but I didn’t like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I also didn’t like Dark Shadows either. I haven’t seen Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo, but if they’re anything like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I’m not particularly interested.

5/10
Click to expand...
Yeah, there seems to be some diminishing returns with Burton's work. But I enjoyed Big Eyes from 2014

 
In Time (USA, 2011)

Science fiction action film directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War) and starring Justin Timblerlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy.

In a dystopian near future, technology exists to make humans immortal. In practice, at the age of 25 everybody has a body clock that starts (readable with a neat glowing printout on their forearm). As long as they can earn/buy/borrow/steal enough time for their internal clocks, they can stay 25 forever. If their time runs out, they die instantly. The rich amass millions of year of time. The poor literally live day to day. Everybody who is alive looks 25.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is a blue collar factory worker who struggles to earn enough time to live to see the next day. He comes into possession of 100 years of time and decides to journey to the zone where all the rich people live. There he meets the beautiful Sylvia (Seyfried), the daughter of one of the richest men alive.

A poor person like Will possessing a fortune of time is a threat to the system. Will finds himself threatened on all sides by both thieves, who want to steal his time, and by a Timekeeper (police detective, played by Murphy), who believes that Will stole his time.

The premise is interesting and there are some fun ways that idea plays out. For example, a waitress in an expensive restaurant can tell that Will was not born rich because he eats too fast. Being unhurried is a mark of wealth. On the flip side, the rich are terrified of getting injured or sick because that is the only risk to their immortality.

After the initial set up, the movie is mostly a pretty dumb action film. It is competently made but generic. The social commentary is incredibly heavy handed.

I have always liked Timberlake as an actor and he is good in this role. Seyfried does not get to do much except look incredibly hot but she hits that mark with style.

Overall it is a passable streaming movie but it could have been so much better.

Rating: 5/10

 
eddymotto said:
In Time (USA, 2011)

Science fiction action film directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War) and starring Justin Timblerlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy.

In a dystopian near future, technology exists to make humans immortal. In practice, at the age of 25 everybody has a body clock that starts (readable with a neat glowing printout on their forearm). As long as they can earn/buy/borrow/steal enough time for their internal clocks, they can stay 25 forever. If their time runs out, they die instantly. The rich amass millions of year of time. The poor literally live day to day. Everybody who is alive looks 25.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is a blue collar factory worker who struggles to earn enough time to live to see the next day. He comes into possession of 100 years of time and decides to journey to the zone where all the rich people live. There he meets the beautiful Sylvia (Seyfried), the daughter of one of the richest men alive.

A poor person like Will possessing a fortune of time is a threat to the system. Will finds himself threatened on all sides by both thieves, who want to steal his time, and by a Timekeeper (police detective, played by Murphy), who believes that Will stole his time.

The premise is interesting and there are some fun ways that idea plays out. For example, a waitress in an expensive restaurant can tell that Will was not born rich because he eats too fast. Being unhurried is a mark of wealth. On the flip side, the rich are terrified of getting injured or sick because that is the only risk to their immortality.

After the initial set up, the movie is mostly a pretty dumb action film. It is competently made but generic. The social commentary is incredibly heavy handed.

I have always liked Timberlake as an actor and he is good in this role. Seyfried does not get to do much except look incredibly hot but she hits that mark with style.

Overall it is a passable streaming movie but it could have been so much better.

Rating: 5/10

Click to expand...


Yeah, super heavy handed with the commentary, eye rolling at times. Also agree it couldve been better than it was. Decent for a one time watch and that's about it.
 
Law Talkin’ Guy said:
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

After taking the family to see a matinee of Wonka last week I thought I’d show my kids the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory which in my opinion is a classic with an iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka by Gene Wilder. My kids liked it, and the funny thing is my kids can’t pick up on sarcasm so my 8 year old son commented when we were done that Wilder’s Wonka was “such a nice man” lol.

In any event, I had never watched Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, so we watched it the other night. I hated everything about this movie. Depp and Burton have a long history of making movies together, most of which are good, but just nothing worked in this movie for me. I hated Depp’s portrayal of Wonka. Dude was a mentally ill creep with literal daddy issues and a patently obvious disdain for children. The new musical numbers for the Oompa Loompas were atrocious. Even the portrayals of the children weren’t as memorable. OG Veruca Salt was a world class cunt. The new one was just whiny. And the new Mike TV was a vicious little bastard.

Even the story wasn’t as good. I’ve heard the inclusion of Slugworth as red herring villain was something they added for the 1971 movie and wasn’t in the novel, but to me that was somewhat critical to the plot as it gave Charlie the opportunity to do something good to prove his trustworthiness and values by returning the everlasting gobstopper to Wonka at the end of the original movie. In the 2005 version Charlie “wins” the competition simply by not being eliminated due to bad behaviour like the other children.

I wonder if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory partially kind of marks a bit of a turning point for Burton movies for me. I love Beetlejuice and his Batman movies, and also enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, but I didn’t like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I also didn’t like Dark Shadows either. I haven’t seen Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo, but if they’re anything like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I’m not particularly interested.

5/10
Click to expand...


It had its moments, but I thought it just was nowhere near the quality of the Wilder film. Enjoyed the Christopher Lee cameo and Wonka backstory lol. Highmore was a perfectly good Charlie. Depp was a bit of a mixed bag. I thought he was funny and entertaining but his characterization was also weird for the sake of weird and distracting at times. Wilder hit, what I thought was, the perfect note of seemingly being slightly off but only slightly.


First one is a classic. Burton film is a decent watch.
 
The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior (2005)

A documentary from pro wrestlers in the industry including Jim Hellwig-Ultimate Warrior. The documentary reviews his arch rivalries with Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, and Rick Rude. In summary, the film recaps the Ultimate Warrior's legacy. In despite of Ted DiBiase, Sr. and Bobby Heenan's poor account of the Ultimate Warrior. I recommend
 
Last edited:
revoltub said:
I haven't seen it yet but I might this weekend
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that a prequel to First Blood was spoken about at one time not so long ago. Obviously they'd need a new actor but it follows Rambo's life as a child through high school as a happy star athlete and then into the military and how Vietnam turned him into a completely different person. I would watch that.
 
AFanNotAFighter said:
I read somewhere that a prequel to First Blood was spoken about at one time not so long ago. Obviously they'd need a new actor but it follows Rambo's life as a child through high school as a happy star athlete and then into the military and how Vietnam turned him into a completely different person. I would watch that.
Click to expand...

That might be interesting but sounds a lot like Born on the Fourth of July
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,240,527
Messages
55,700,774
Members
174,903
Latest member
romanych

Share this page

Back
Top