Jump to content

VHS and Betamax You Have Recently Rented


Frankie Crisp

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Chest Rockwell said:

The 1971 movie has some really shit songs

It has 1 shit song and we all skip it.

The problem with Tim 'I like German expressionism don't you know' Burton's film is there's no contrast to the world of Charlie and the factory. Everything looks mad, so what's even special about them going into the factory? Its just more ugliness with Oompa Loompa's with shit songs.

Whats even the point of Grandpa Joe in that remake? He worked there but then that's never brought up when he's in the factory. At least in the original, Grandpa Joe is basically the villain.

Johnny Depp's performance, if one can call it that, is an abomination. Weird as he could have been excellent at it, but he is never reigned in. Someone should have been saying 'what are you doing?' but he was riding off Pirates where a barmy character choice actually worked.

Gene Wilder is sublime in the original film. You're not exactly sure what he's up to. He's hilarious and scary. As it should be for a reclusive madman in a chocolate factory.

Also, if you go back and watch the 70s film, the little vignettes with the Golden ticket searches are actually brilliantly funny. Especially the woman who's husband is kidnapped, and Tim Brook Taylor with his computer.

Fair play people like what they like, but I genuinely cannot see the comparison between the two. I've also just had a coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
15 hours ago, Gay as FOOK said:

I didn't like it at the time and it was far worse when I watched it again before Christmas. It just tries so hard to bring out that weirdness in the source material that it's far more goofy than Wilder's Wonka. Which at times was genuinely sinister. It seems to mark a turning point in my mind where Tim Burton overstayed his welcome with the whole do a movie with my mate Johnny and slap a Siouxsie & the Banshees skin on it thing. 

It's definitely a tipping point, along with his Alice in Wonderland, where his whole deal started to be, "you already know the story, but imagine if Tim Burton did it, how wacky would that be?!" rather than actually trying to make a compelling film. Problem is, it's not difficult to imagine a story as presented by Tim Burton, just throw some stripey goth tights on it, cast Johnny Depp and get Danny Elfman to do the score. Job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
2 minutes ago, Factotum said:

It has 1 shit song and we all skip it.

The problem with Tim 'I like German expressionism don't you know' Burton's film is there's no contrast to the world of Charlie and the factory. Everything looks mad, so what's even special about them going into the factory? Its just more ugliness with Oompa Loompa's with shit songs.

Whats even the point of Grandpa Joe in that remake? He worked there but then that's never brought up when he's in the factory. At least in the original, Grandpa Joe is basically the villain.

Johnny Depp's performance, if one can call it that, is an abomination. Weird as he could have been excellent at it, but he is never reigned in. Someone should have been saying 'what are you doing?' but he was riding off Pirates where a barmy character choice actually worked.

Gene Wilder is sublime in the original film. You're not exactly sure what he's up to. He's hilarious and scary. As it should be for a reclusive madman in a chocolate factory.

Also, if you go back and watch the 70s film, the little vignettes with the Golden ticket searches are actually brilliantly funny. Especially the woman who's husband is kidnapped, and Tim Brook Taylor with his computer.

Fair play people like what they like, but I genuinely cannot see the comparison between the two. I've also just had a coffee.

There is a reason one is called Willy Wonka and other is called Charlie & the chocolate factory. The things you like are quite different to the book, whilst Tim Burton's  is far more faithful to the source material. It's why I find both can be enjoyed, but each to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
11 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

It's definitely a tipping point, along with his Alice in Wonderland, where his whole deal started to be, "you already know the story, but imagine if Tim Burton did it, how wacky would that be?!" rather than actually trying to make a compelling film. Problem is, it's not difficult to imagine a story as presented by Tim Burton, just throw some stripey goth tights on it, cast Johnny Depp and get Danny Elfman to do the score. Job done.

It used to be that a Tim Burton film was short-hand for something dark and unusual, whereas they've increasingly become a franchise where you know exactly what you're going to get.

The last film of his I really liked was Sweeney Todd, and I've had increasingly little interest since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
10 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

I only really liked his Batman movies and Mars Attacks, but I am a self-professed Philestine. 

Mars Attacks is always completely overlooked in my opinon. His last great film for me. He does still make the odd good film, but for every Big Fish or Dumbo there is a Dark Shadows. A frustrating director in terrms of qualuty.

Just watched both Psycho (60) and Psycho (98). I can see why the original is seen as an important part of cinema history, and other then a few hokey bits, is actually really good. The 98 one, I am still struggling to understand it's purpose. It's just not good is it.

And yeah, I have seen most of Psycho over the years, just never watched the whole film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'll be honest - I haven't seen the 1971 movie in a long time so I should probably rewatch that before making too many direct comparisons. But the newer one stood up on its own in comparison to the book for me, anyway. Which I think was more the point I was originally trying to make. Or should have been anyway.

Also I don't watch films I think will be not to my liking so I don't have the Burton fatigue going on. Although I'm aware most of his films look and feel the same I haven't watched them. So I feel like I can judge this more on its own merit rather than with that context, which I think is fairer.

Edited by Chest Rockwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Also, if you go back and watch the 70s film, the little vignettes with the Golden ticket searches are actually brilliantly funny. Especially the woman who's husband is kidnapped, and Tim Brook Taylor with his computer.

The simple fact that chocolate is the main news headline when the family sit in bed to watch the news every night kills me, as well. Me and Mrs. FOOK will also still occasionally exclaim "Wow, we'll have a real feast!" when one of us comes back with a shit bit of shopping or there's nothing but bread and cheese left in the kitchen. 

Edited by Gay as FOOK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Awards Moderator
19 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Mars Attacks is always completely overlooked in my opinon. His last great film for me. He does still make the odd good film, but for every Big Fish or Dumbo there is a Dark Shadows. A frustrating director in terrms of qualuty.

Just watched both Psycho (60) and Psycho (98). I can see why the original is seen as an important part of cinema history, and other then a few hokey bits, is actually really good. The 98 one, I am still struggling to understand it's purpose. It's just not good is it.

And yeah, I have seen most of Psycho over the years, just never watched the whole film.

Literally this morning finished listening to this podcast 

 

Where they watch the AFI top 100 including Psycho. There was a whole discussion of the 98 version too. Drew my attention to this video:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The definition of an idiot, in this case as relates to Gus Van Sant, is claiming to make a shot-for-shot remake of a film and then not actually making it shot-for-shot.

Artistically it's an interesting experiment but only if the two versions actually match. They don't, and therefore it's completely worthless. Much like most of the rest of Van Sant's career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devon Malcolm said:

The last good Tim Burton film was Ed Wood. He should retire.

I’d say Big Fish and he should retire. 
 

I actually preferred his Dumbo to the original but the original is so shit and his one reminded me of Big Fish so it clouded my judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devon Malcolm said:

The last good Tim Burton film was Ed Wood. He should retire.

Yeah ED WOOD is fantastic. So quotable as well. It was the last time his style wasn't so big it overpowered a film. BIG FISH is enjoyable enough, but Ed Wood is probably his best film (and may be Johnny Depp's best performance thinking about i)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...