Scrivener Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 This is one of those movies that reminds you just how great the original was. This is your typical happy-goofy-silly-haha junk they try to pass as family entertainment these days. In other words... it's less Lemony Snicket (especially coming from Tim Burton) and more My Little Pony. Safe, sanitary, and irritating. I really want to blame Depp's performance but it seems like it was just a really bad shooting script. The movie dips into Wonka's past a bit and explains away his behavior as him being a bit of a manchild... except that his childhood counterpart is much more human and mature than his adult counterpart. Bah. This movie was complete and utter crap. Rent or purchase the 1971 version with Gene Wilder - and spare yourself the agony of this retread. 2/10 In other words:
LostInSpace Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 Yup, that's pretty much what I've been hearing. The TV commercial trailer should have been a clue. It just didn't sit well with me. It looked more stupid than good. Pity that Depp and his young costar are doing this on the heels of their other movie "Finding Neverland" which I really really liked. The original version of this movie is simply brillant. I think one generation after another would agree.
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 I never did like it from the trailers anyway. I think I'll spare my daughter the agony. Besides, she wants to go see Madagascar again. Go figure.
Scrivener Posted July 17, 2005 Author Report Posted July 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Pity that Depp and his young costar are doing this on the heels of their other movie "Finding Neverland" which I really really liked.Definately. Finding Neverland was an excellent family film. This is not.
LostInSpace Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 Egads, just spoke with my nephew (he lives in pittsburgh now) and he just saw the movie. He said he enjoyed the movie and Depp was hilarious but he did say that a lot of it was kind of SA.
Guest Hellbinder[CE] Posted July 18, 2005 Report Posted July 18, 2005 family movies *SHOULD* be safe and sanitary. The problem with movies these days is that 99% of the Time PG-13 movies are really R rated movies. "kids" do not need to see sex jokes, vulgar language, obscene levels of Violence and outlandish rude behavior. A PG movie should have very low levels of more adult themed content. and i dont mean *adult* in the way most of you do. I simply mean themes that 18+ year olds can understand and relate to. The G movie is almost unhear of now. Its so bad that if a movie is rated G no one likes it becuase the whole population has been decencitized to mature content and they think that 11 year olds should be seeing decapitations and people screwing like bunnies without Concequences like VD's and abortion "to get rid of the problem".. Ok i'll stop now.
Guest Grayfox Posted July 18, 2005 Report Posted July 18, 2005 quote:99% of the Time PG-13 movies are really R rated moviesand what planet is this on? comparing pg-13 to r is like comparing liz taylor to jenna jameson... now THERES some adult themed content babay *makes porn music sound* honestly... i think they need to give up on the whole pg13 horror bit and go back to r or even better nc 17... pg13 horror is like military intelligence... an oxymoron. leave the pg13 thing to comedies and drama.
teknocack Posted July 18, 2005 Report Posted July 18, 2005 Well met Grayfox. Couldn't agree with you more. Hellbinder, while I think you are somewhat extreme I certainly welcome your viewpoint. Rampant immorality couldn't exist without your kind of view to define it. Just like ugly defines and brings into existence beauty and vice versa. Where I absoluty agree with you is the disturbing trend to push the boundaries of what can be done within a particular rating. PG-13 of a few years ago was nothing like it is today. But you know what, people are buying it in droves. The problem isn't really with the movie companies is it?
Scrivener Posted July 18, 2005 Author Report Posted July 18, 2005 Hellbinder, it's the ratings system thats changed. Not movies. Most PG13 movies these days would have been PG not 20 years ago. What makes The Grudge (PG13) or The Ring (PG13) so much worse than The Haunting (G) or House of Wax (PG)? Nothing except color... and yet these newer movies get the higher rating. Its worse for family films. Look at Spongebob - the movie made PG but how is it any worse than Snow White (G)? Heck, Snow White was dark and sinister and Spongebob is... silly and jovial. Then LOTR gets PG13 but how is it any worse than the westerns and pirate movies of the 60s and 70s? Josey WAles is PG, Jeremiah Johnson (PG), Rooster COgburn (PG), etc... these would all be PG13 if released today for two stupid reasons: Cleaner, clearer, higher quality picture & sound... and they have people shooting each other with guns. It seems like Hollywood is only just starting to release the kind of family movies I grew up with again. Stuff like Lemony Snicket, Finding Neverland, Lord of the Rings, and 2003s Peter Pan. It seems like movies these days only make G or PG if there is no hint of sinister anywhere to be found. This means stupid bad guys, weak morals, and you walk away all the dumber for it.
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 18, 2005 Report Posted July 18, 2005 It was #1 with $55m. I wanna hurt someone. Anyway, since this thread seems to be about religion and which usually gets out of hand (like the political discussions), I think I'll step over here and keep my mouth shut.
teknocack Posted July 19, 2005 Report Posted July 19, 2005 You know what? I will defer to Scrivners words here. Brother you are obviously a student of movies and well reasoned. I too will step to the side on this subject.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now