HBarnill
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 478
- Points
- 73
It's not a good movie by any means, hell, I'd argue it's one of the worst kids' movies ever made, but hey, it at least had more personality than Chris Pratt's Garfield, who barely had much character. It was at least interesting enough to have Garfield look like Tony the Tiger's testicles. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but that's a lot more interesting compared to the generic, bland, cookie-cutter stuff we saw with the latest Garfield movie. Again, ambitious or interesting (again, compared to the other movie) failure > safe success.I think this is the first time I've seen "creative risks" and "Bill Murray's Garfield" in the same statement.
Both suffered from product placement for Olive Garden, though.

I can see Carrey play Sherlock. Can Cumberbatch play The Mask?
Burton's had more respect for the novel, right down to the Oompah-Loompah's songs being straight from the book. Ok, Depp's Wonka, both the performance and the backstory, were the worst part, but the set design, the tone, the direction, it all felt like Dahl.![]()
Paul King can do no wrong.
As much as y'all like the Wilder movie, that was made for money. Burton has said in numerous interviews that he was ok with this bombing since this showcased his love for Dahl and that was the most important thing about it.
This new movie gave us Olivia Colman doing her worst Helena Bonham Carter impression.
Last edited: