MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Johnny Depp In Michael Jackson: The Movie?

1895r_v2

40 Responses to “Johnny Depp In Michael Jackson: The Movie?”

  1. Ray Pride says:

    “NEVERLAND was only the first stop on a magical journey for boys and boys of all ages!”

  2. Lota says:

    scary.

  3. Lota says:

    shouldn’t his glove be more sparkly?

  4. Martin says:

    If Johnny Depp is the Hollywood Michael, what does that make Tim? Joe Jackson?

  5. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    Hunter S shot himself when he saw Johnny in that pub still.

  6. L&DB says:

    If this is scary. Then may an Oomp Paloompa show
    up in your room, and talk dirty to you.

  7. bicycle bob says:

    for one thing, mj would love the oompas.

  8. mosser says:

    trying for satirical brilliance, but what looks to be mediocrity, a la Mars Attacks

  9. Terence D says:

    It will be hard to top Gene Wilders Wonka. Thats what my generation will remember.

  10. thedoom says:

    I’m surprised Lindsay Lohan isn’t in the movie. She looks more like an Oomp-Paloompa every day…

  11. Sandy says:

    This is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and is darker than the other version and is more faithful to the original book. It is for a new generation so I don’t think you should compare the two.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    Wasn’t the original “Willy Wonka” something of a box-office disappointment back in the 1970s? I know it’s now viewed as a classic, but — kinda-sorta like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “The Wizard of Oz” — isn’t it a movie that attained classic status primarily through TV revivals?

  13. bicycle bob says:

    its pretty safe to say burton and depp won’t recreate the 70’s wonka version.

  14. TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra says:

    We already have the perfect actor to play Jackson: Lara Flynn Boyle.

  15. Sayuri says:

    jeffrey boam’s doctor?? How dare you say something like that… Show a little respect for Christ’s sake!

  16. bicycle bob says:

    jeffrey just had an acid flashback. he’ll be ok

  17. Lota says:

    Naah not Lara Flynn Boyle. too skinny and cranky. First person I thought of looking at that picture wasn’t Depp but Mary Tyler Moore subject to time travel.
    and there should be a sparkly glove please.

  18. nick says:

    I pray to god that this is good; I have a fear that it’s gonna turn out to be like Ron Howard’s The Grinch, a movie I was DEEPLY disgusted by…though Burton is better than Howard any day.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m a fan of Tim Burton and a fan of Johnny Depp, but I have zero interest in this movie. Just does nothing for me.

  20. Mark says:

    Burton always does interesting things and has a different take. I’ll see it but its not like I’m waiting with baited breath.

  21. David Poland says:

    Don’t forget John August’s contribution… you know, that little thing called “a script!”

  22. I think Johnny just wants to get Augustus Glopp and Mike TV drunk on boxed wine and show them his barberpole.

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    As long as it’s more Big Fish & Go and less Titan A.E. and Charlie’s Angels 1 & 2.

  24. Lota says:

    and for Tim Burton, more of his pre-1996 darkness.

  25. L&DB says:

    IF any generation remembers such a mediocore film
    as Willy Wonka, then that generation are more out
    to lunch than I originally thought. What an utter
    abomination of a film. Ewwwwwwww.
    This flick should at least be interesting and have
    a nice warped sensibility to it. That other film
    just had poor Wilder trying to carry it to no
    avail.

  26. KamikazeCamel says:

    Willy Wonka wasn’t THAT bad. For a kid (who it is aimed at) it is actually a lot of fun. an “utter abomination” it is not.
    “trying for satirical brilliance, but what looks to be mediocrity, a la Mars Attacks”
    …what? Are you talking about the movie or David Poland? Because I don’t ACTUALLY think they’re satirising Michael Jackson. In fact I’d put a bet on it that they’re not.
    And lastly, I think the person who should play Michael Jackson is right here…
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/kamikazecamel/michaeljacksonfranniefine.jpg
    and while I’m scaling the depths of my internet picture uploads, take a look at THIS (it does relate to what we’ve been talking about… vaguely)
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/kamikazecamel/lindsaylohan_omg.jpg
    holy hell.

  27. Dan R% says:

    Holy hell indeed. Why’s her face orange? Been playing with the makeup too much?
    As for Depp, he looks great for the film…I’m hoping it’ll be more of a Pee Wee’s Big Adventure like Burton film…with some dark humor thrown in for good measure.

  28. Dani says:

    wht the f***? johnny is hota than ne1 else… i would marry him if i was given da chance.. so no more bad words..
    he makes a film succesful.. if he wasnt in from hell,,, it would hav been crap.
    he made pirates of the carribean da best… he is jus toaly beta than evry man alive..!!
    daniXXxxXX fiance of JD

  29. Lisa says:

    I am an adult who has the orginal movie memorized and read two of the books which inspired the movie. I thought the movie was funny with one liners which you have to listen and pay attention to get, they are strung throughout from scene to scene. Not crazy about the new Oompa Lumpas– they were creepier than the original ones (not little people in the new version). Depp and Burton did a wonderfully dark version of the original. Enough of the old text to make sense and a lot of new views to entertain and not just a re-make. I agree this movie is not for everyone. Very much in line with Edward Scissorhands in humor and darkness.
    humble opinion and post.

  30. LeBaron Stewart says:

    I am so surpised that others see what I saw in J D. The fact that he was channaling Micheal Jackson. A role MJ would kill for.

  31. Alex says:

    I think Johnny is 1 of the best actors ever in all his films like willy wonka, from hell, potc, sleepy hollow, edward scissorhands hes played a complete different person in each 1 and hes amazing in all of them and he was ace in edward sissorhands and tim burtons amazing nightmare before christmas is 1 of my fav films with from hell!

  32. Miss DEPP says:

    JOHNNY DEPP IS SEXXY i dont care if he played a monkey hes hot .his voice is sexy his hair is sexy he can look homesless and make it look hot. and he dosent care if you like what he dose.he acts for the art of it and not for show. i love eveything hes done you may not like wonka but you went and still paid to see it right? Johnnys got the last laugh ha ha

  33. Keone says:

    I personally think the second on is better, and Charlie Bucket doesn’t look as much of a weenie. The second one definitely seems more intentional on Willy Wonka’s part that the children would get themselves in a fix, but the lines are more true to the book.

  34. Em says:

    I really liked this movie. Ok, the “Willy Wonka” song is still stuck in my head, but other then that…anyways, Johnny Depp is the hottest thing since the sun, so any movie he’s in is immeidiatley a favorite of mine.
    ~Em~

  35. debbie says:

    i think johnny depp who plad wonka is so cute and funny he made me lauth all the way to the end of the film hes so sexy and fit lovin him madxxx

  36. debbie c says:

    JOHNNY DEPP is so sexy yea be in every film o yea lovin the choco factoryxxxxxx

  37. danielle ariztmendy says:

    i think there is nothing better or supirior
    to johnny depp he is hotter than hot.!

  38. Jessica Depp says:

    You people suck! Never ever make fun of Johnny Depp!!! HE IS MY HUSBAND!!!!!!!!!

  39. amanda santana says:

    what r u talk I so would not like it if johnny depp played michel ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  40. someone says:

    Johnny Depp:
    Awsome
    Cool
    Funny

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin