Charlie in the Chocolate Factory

1:38 on the second video XD LMFAO

I like the 2005 one better, more because there's less super-cracked out musicals.

I cant believe no one has said this, at least to be a n ass, but the list is messed up cause there was only a book and one movie entitled CHARLIE and the chocolate factory

your completely right i noticed this when i saw the thread but didnt really feel like pointing it out

I go with Roald Dahl.
So, the book.

Oh, fuck I hate the 1971 version.
Stupid as fuck music, a 2 year old baby could make racket more pleasing to the ears, with a tin can and a spoon. When I watched the 1971 movie, I had to change the channel every time they broke out into a musical.

2005 version is 1million times better, it had bearable music, anyone who says otherwise is deaf. Plus some actors that could actual act.

TNine wrote:You were watching this on Disney Channel last night I presume?

Nope...

I actually watched it a week or two before. I visited Blockbuster and remembered I wanted to see the new one as I had seen the commercial but never got around to it.

Ukurse wrote:Oh, fuck I hate the 1971 version.
Stupid as fuck music, a 2 year old baby could make racket more pleasing to the ears, with a tin can and a spoon. When I watched the 1971 movie, I had to change the channel every time they broke out into a musical.

2005 version is 1million times better, it had bearable music, anyone who says otherwise is deaf. Plus some actors that could actual act.

You think this is better?

With that kind of ear rape, I'D PREFER TO BE DEAF.

loved the book, loved the old film. The new one was just weird, random and boring.

Vigil wrote:

Ukurse wrote:Oh, fuck I hate the 1971 version.
Stupid as fuck music, a 2 year old baby could make racket more pleasing to the ears, with a tin can and a spoon. When I watched the 1971 movie, I had to change the channel every time they broke out into a musical.

2005 version is 1million times better, it had bearable music, anyone who says otherwise is deaf. Plus some actors that could actual act.

You think this is better?

With that kind of ear rape, I'D PREFER TO BE DEAF.

Agreed.

Gold Spartan5 wrote:

Vigil wrote:

Ukurse wrote:Oh, fuck I hate the 1971 version.
Stupid as fuck music, a 2 year old baby could make racket more pleasing to the ears, with a tin can and a spoon. When I watched the 1971 movie, I had to change the channel every time they broke out into a musical.

2005 version is 1million times better, it had bearable music, anyone who says otherwise is deaf. Plus some actors that could actual act.

You think this is better?

With that kind of ear rape, I'D PREFER TO BE DEAF.

Agreed.

agreed

plus when your a child the music is sorta magic in the 1971 version

Vigil wrote:

Ukurse wrote:Oh, fuck I hate the 1971 version.
Stupid as fuck music, a 2 year old baby could make racket more pleasing to the ears, with a tin can and a spoon. When I watched the 1971 movie, I had to change the channel every time they broke out into a musical.

2005 version is 1million times better, it had bearable music, anyone who says otherwise is deaf. Plus some actors that could actual act.

You think this is better?

With that kind of ear rape, I'D PREFER TO BE DEAF.

I'd kill myself either way. It's just '05 had less of the super-cracked out musicals.

Now put all four of my links on one after each other.

ULTIMATE EAR FUCK.

what? i had an eargasm...