Stemming from word of mouth, some films get a lot more flak than they deserve, I feel. One of the ones that bugs me the most is the Tim Burton version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can understand why many people would take issue with it, but I've seen people condemn the film for merely existing when there was already the Gene Wilder classic.
The film isn't that bad. What's there to say that a person cannot enjoy both films on their own merits? Both of them take a lot of liberties with the source material, and both have their own interpretations on the story.
The film isn't that bad. Its a Tim Burton film, so its a love it or hate it affair, but it gets targeted more than any of his other films for bashing, which I don't get. If you want to rip on a bad Burton film, go ahead and tear apart Alice in Wonderland. It is far worse than Charlie.
Why does this film get all the flak?
The film isn't that bad. What's there to say that a person cannot enjoy both films on their own merits? Both of them take a lot of liberties with the source material, and both have their own interpretations on the story.
The film isn't that bad. Its a Tim Burton film, so its a love it or hate it affair, but it gets targeted more than any of his other films for bashing, which I don't get. If you want to rip on a bad Burton film, go ahead and tear apart Alice in Wonderland. It is far worse than Charlie.
Why does this film get all the flak?