|
Directed by: Tim Burton Starring: Johnny Depp It's not like Willie Wonka And The Chocolate Factory is some untouchable classic film that should never have been remade. When Tim Burton was first connected with the project, many folks were intrigued by the darker take on the tale that was to be the expected product. And with Marilyn Manson as an early rumored choice to play the elusive Mr. Wonka, it sounded even more crazy. Personally, I wasn't all that keen on making a new Wonka film, but you had to trust that Johnny Depp could pull it off. The Burton/Depp combo is almost as foolproof as Scorsese/DeNiro. From Edward Scissorhands, to Ed Wood, they've made remarkablel movies together, and with the exception of the Planet of the Apes, Burton has rarely had a mis-step. Ultimately, the remake curse strikes again, however, as Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is merely pointless. It's not an awful movie, it's just kind of there. It's a bit slicker and the effects at times are better than the original, but there's an emptiness to the whole thing that just feels phony. Depp is an inspired choice to play Wonka, but his creepy plastic appearance, girly hair, and "ewww that's gross" mannerisms wear thing awful quickly. I have a very hard time believing that Burton and Depp weren't trying to make fun of Michael Jackson with this movie. From his disdain fo adult figures, to his germophobic ways, to his misfit manchild personality, this Wonka is as much Michael Jackson as Charles Foster Kane was William Randolph Hearst. There were rumors that Burton was trying to make this film much closer to Roald Dahl's original book, but this characterization of the mad candy genius couldn't have been further from the source material. Dahl's Wonka is a red bearded crazy old man with a bit of a mean streak. Gene Wilder completely nailed it with his original and superior performance. Given little more than funny grimaces, and painfully bad outbursts like, "That's Gross!", "Keep On Truckin!", and "Let's Boogie", Depp really doesn't have much to work with here. If you were hoping for an "Okay" film with a brilliaint Captain Jack Sparrow performance to carry you through it, it just isn't there. The movie starts off with another hacked out score from the Elfman 3000 Soundtrack Machine. If you liked his work in Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands, you'll be thrilled to hear them blended together in this movie. Even one of the Elman composed Oompa Loompa songs seems to be lifted straight from his Oingo Boingo song, "Gray Matter." The 5 lucky children, for the most part, are at least better actors than their predecessors. The new Augustus Gloop is more vile and disgusting than the original, and the newly created tension/competition between Veruca Salt and Violet Beauregard is excellent. Mike Teavee, the gun loving TV addict from the book has been upgraded to a videogame junkie that reminds me of a young Alex Winter. And Freddie Highmore as Charlie is a better actor than Peter Ostrum by leaps and bounds. Even David Kelly as Grandpa Joe makes you never look back at Jack Albertson's nice take on the same character in the 1971 original. But despite the nice cast, it just seems to go through the motions from there. 80% of the film is composed of the same stuff in the first film, just reshot with a bigger budget, and sometimes with inferior results. The famous boat scene was a nightmarish scary classic bit of cinema in the first version. With Wilder reading his creepy poetry and insane images like chicken heads getting cut off complete with psychedellic lighting, it set the no-holds barred tone for the rest of the film. In the Burton version, it's just a silly roller-coaster thrill ride that merely serves as a transition point to get them to a new room. There was no artistic reason to make this movie. This movie is no closer to the book than the first one was. In fact, Burton tacks on an ending and a Wonka origin story that were far from the source material as well. I felt tired and antsy watching the whole thing. As they travel via the Glass Elevator and look at some random explosions, Mike Teavee comments with frustration about how pointless everything is. You can't help but agree with them. There's a few fun things worth watching out for if you do plan to see it. When Charlie's dad is shown working in the toothpaste factory, you'll see the brandname of the paste is Smilex, which is the deadly chemical the Joker used in his Batman film. Also you can't help but laugh when Wonka appears holding a giant pair of scissors in his hand. Burton can certainly take existing subject matter like Mars Attacks! and Pee Wee's Big Adventure and make wonderful movies, but his creative genius is far too wonderful to waste on remaking classic films. I wish I stayed home and watched the original on DVD again instead. RATING: 2 PROS: The new kids are good CONS: Johnny Depp's performance is annoying and grows tiresome to watch ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2005 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
I thought Depp was hilarious, personally. Anyway, this is copied from my post in the thread in CD: Saw it today, and I have to say: I was not disappointed. Then again, I really liked the previews and all Tim Burton movies I've ever seen. I even thought Planet of the Apes was okay, so my opinion is probably worthless. I really liked what they did with the ending where Charlie ended up living with his family, in the factory. It's been a long time since I've read the book, was that in it? I'm trying to come up with negative things, but I hardly can. The last part of the movie, after the glass elevator went through the roof of the factory did feel a bit tacked on but I'm happy it was there. All in all, great film. edit: also, the part with the chocolate palace was pretty unnecessary, but really amusing. Rating: 5/5 ---------------- follower_of_chaos fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jan 2, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2005 18:03
|
|
|
wow. that sucked. that sucked harder than a twelve year old boy sucking on a jawbreaker because he knows he's moments away from being able to destroy it. Really though, as I was watching, I was thinking of all these different problems, from the directorial to the story... Examples!!! -When they put the flyer on the post, and then they do a "night to day" effect, why can't the people already be standing there? It looks really, really, REALLY STUPID to have 100+ people running towards a sign at the same time. OMG A PIECE OF PAPER ON A POST THAT NO ONE IS AROUND! QUICK, EVERYONE! WE MUST READ!!! NO ONE'S THERE, SO IT MUST BE VERY IMPORTANT. -The boat, once a creepy insane ride, is now a preview of the next ride to be built at Orlando. Seriously. -O.L. are now slaves. Really, the galley ship did it. -O.L. songs sucked. I couldn't understand any of them but Veruca. -Mike TV was done completely wrong. He's Mike TV, not Mike 'Doom+Quake+retarded' TV. -Candy isn't magical if it's digital. -I have many, many more. Discuss in person to learn all the HORRORS. Then, there's the "This movie follows the book, that's why it's being made." BULLSHIT! There were so many ideas stolen from the original, it's sick. Plus, I don't recall any 2001 jokes in Dahl's book. Nor do I recall illusions to "Goodmorning Starshine," heavy metal, or all the other BS. Do you want to know what this movie got right that the other movie got wrong? Things that can be done now with CGI. That's it. They couldn't do a glass elevator, so they created the wonka-vater. They couldn't do squirrels, so they did geese (btw, "bad egg" sounds better than "bad nut"). Plus, they cut out rooms in the factory that were in the book. good job. I liked the talking blocks, thanks. Oh! Which to do first, Willy, or the story?! Oh... which one... ummm... Willy. He sucked. Big time. Now, I know no one can do it like Gene. I walked in expecting this. What I didn't expect, however, was a movie trying to sell to me a scenario of an IDIOT who makes the best candy in the world. Depp's Wonka couldn't invent the leaver if he had a diagram. Oh, he was eccentric. Was he a genius? No. Was he... somewhat intelligent? Hell no. Could he have been a hippy who traded half his brain for a high? hell yes. This isn't all Depps fault... some blame must go to the script. But then again... look at how Gene turns the words "Wait, stop, don't!" into character development... and look at how Depp tries to be insane. I know everyone says that Steve Martin was too old... but come on. Also, Jack Black? Why not? Carry's a bit overdone, but he'd be a much better choice than this Jackson/manson wonka. Makes me consider an alterior motive to wanting a child... Story: Blew. Started off ok... but drat, did it get bad fast. Do you want to know why the original was good? Moral value movie. The old fashioned "anyone can do anything," "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," "be good and good things will come to you," and Calvanism... fiber of the tale is gone, leaving us with a "family rules!" ending theme. In fact, the whole "Charley was the best" thing kinda never really manifests. it's just "you're left, you win," and no one says anything else. Where's my Wonka who quotes philosophers? Where's the story everyone's to cynical to understand? Where's that good warm feeling I got every time I watched the original? This movie was horrid... the end value of it is actually that, if hollywood wants to make money off of a classic... they should re release the classic. Or, as film critic Jay Sherman says: "If it's a remake of a classic, rent the classic." "If the movies bad, just don't go." -Sherman. This movie is bad. I know you have to go... but after Tim is done anally raping your childhood... buy the originial. It almost costs the same as a movie ticket now, anyway. I give this "film" a 2/5, because it had pretty colors... and I did laugh. Twice. Both times Wonka hit the elevator wall. Take that, depp. You wonka killing bastard. There's much more I could say about this movie... but... I've gotta go watch the original now. **UPDATE** I have skimmed through the book, and my suspicions have been confirmed: THIS MOVIE MAKES THE ORIGINAL LOOK LIKE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOOK! Besides the things mentioned above, the thing that is changed in the original movie is the Charley story ark, from slugworth to fizzy pop to gobbstopper give-back (which I think is an improvement, since it makes me feel like charley did more than just 'survive,' he proved he was a good person). The book doesn't REMOTELY mention Willie's father, there are NO puppets, and Wonka is a friendly, cheerful person, and NOT unable to talk to people. Oh, and Grandpa Joe didn't work in the factory!!! And while I'm here, I might as well point out that this movie has no wit. Therefore, I can come to only one conclusion: Those people who tell you that they read the book and that this follows the book are LYING TO YOU. Yawgmoft fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Jul 16, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 08:22
|
|
|
I dont have time for a long post, so here is my review, short and sweet. Simply put, Burton at his best. His directing is flawless and matched my view of the book almost exactly. The backstory on Willy Wonka was genius to work with the character, and Christopher Lee was an excellent choice as the freaky father figure. Johnny Depp is, as always, perfect. His depiction of Wonka had just the right mix of child, authority, sass, and a skewed view of family life to come out as the Wonka I was hoping for. The factory, inside and out, looks amazing, as well. Pros - Music is great, and the only songs are done by the Oompa-Loompas. They even pull a little AC/DC and Kiss in their final song. Depp's performance is flawless. Freddie Highmore as Charlie was damned perfect casting. They kept the scene of the kids exiting the factory. Basically everything about this movie is a pro. Cons - I wished it would never end, but it did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 18:30
|
|
|
This movie was highly disappointing. More like Charlie and the Special Effects Machine. I'd say more but the OP said it all already. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 20:48
|
|
|
I saw it last night and highly enjoyed it. The factory was very well done, although at times I felt like I should be on shrooms to fully appreciate it. Acting was very good, although Depp's Wonka was very different then Gene Wilders, didn't compare in my opinion. The two faces displayed by both actors were just different interpretations of course, but I preferred Gene's. Overall a good flick, and worth watching. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 21:03
|
|
|
The good: -The design. All the rooms, buildings, and machines look great, appropriately zany, and both Dahl and Burton-esque. -Most of the cast. The kids didn't suck, and the parents and grandparents were quite funny. Nice to have the dad in this version, too. -Deep Roy and Danny Elfman as the Oompa Loompas. Forget the creepy orange overalled things from the original and their repetitive song; these guys are expressive, funny, and truer to the original. No, they aren't the little bearded dwarves from before, but they aren't emotionless drones this time either. The songs for each kid range from okay (Mike and Violet) to awesome (Veruca and Augustus), with the original lyrics for a nice touch. -The dad subplot and new ending. I'm sorry, but while I was not looking forward to this initially, it turned out to be well-executed, a good reason for why Wonka is the way he turned out, and the source of a much more fleshed-out ending. It didn't feel cheap and timewasting; the part where they enter the office and Charlie looks at all the articles Dr. Wonka has collected is genuinely touching. -Grandma Georgina and Grandpa George. ("Dragonflies!" "You don't deserve that ticket, you little b-") The bad: -Some parts simply weren't paced right. Everything up until the factory entrance was perfect, but starting with the doll song (Which ended in an appropriately grotesque and silly way but took way too long to get to it), there were a lot of scenes that could have been cut in half and then some. "Oh, hey, look at that boat drop down fast! Now watch it again! And again! And again!" -I like how Mike was changed to fit this generation, but Violet? No. Okay, she's still a gum chewer, and I guess the "I'm the best" attitude is allowed, but what's the point of showing her being a black belt if you're not going to do anything with it? Mike kept making technical comments that were funny; she did very little. The awful: -Johnny Depp. Ugh. I wasn't optimistic about him when it was announced he had the role, I wasn't optimistic after each trailer, and I was right. So many things he said didn't come off as clever or funny; he came off as an uncaring jackass who likes to lash out at people. As for being calm and collected? Nope, this Wonka's just a bit more than a tad unstable. This movie could have easily been great if it had a Wonka who was played by a more appropriate actor and given better lines, but he brought it done a big notch. If it wasn't for Wonka, there's a chance I could have given this a 4. As it is, it's hovering between a 3 and a 3.5. I still recommend it. Behonkiss fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jul 15, 2005 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 21:37
|
|
|
This movie was just plain old bad. It's impossible for me not to compare it to the original, which I personally feel rose above this new rehash in every single way possible. -The Oompa Loompa songs were a mess! -The scene where Violet gets turned into a blueberry looks gross! I much prefer the original blowing up to this CGI failure. -I cringed seeing squirrels attack Veruca Salt. It looked like they were trying to either eat her or rape her. She was screaming in pain, and everyone else just stood by waiting for a key to a gate. Disturbing. -The glass elevator put me to sleep. Walking into it once wasn't funny, so why do it twice? -The whole ending was just crap. I didn't need to know that Wanka had father issues, and I didn't care that he got back together with his dad. The movie should have ened long before this. Over all 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 23:01
|
|
|
Well this was an interesting movie, but wasn't what I was looking for. From what I'd heard this would be much closer to the book than the orignal movie and it wasn't at all. Pros -The actors that played the children were great, I liked Mike TV quite a bit. -The first half of the movie I thought was well done. It fit well with the book, good plot. -The songs I thought were great, the oompa loompa's made me laugh often. -Johnny Deep fit the role well, he pulled off a crazy candy maker with a bad past well. The role itself is another matter. Cons -The written role I thought was pretty bad and not very fun. I liked the original interpretation of Willy Wonka a LOT more. This was just disturbing. -While amusing, the references to other movies and shows and the like were not needed. -The whole theme of family. Where the hell did that come from?I was quite unhappy when Charlie turned down the factory the first time, and I hated those flashbacks. They ruined the flow of the movie Overall a decent movie but nothing that's going places. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 23:30
|
|
|
Umm...wow. I guess I'm giving, like, the second positive review here. I loved it. I know the huge complaint is "Why remake a classic!?" but to me, it felt like an almost totally different movie. I mean, yes, it was still about an eccentric candy-maker leading a fat German kid, a spoiled rich girl, a gum-chewer, a TV addict and a poor kid through his factory, but Willy Wonka himself was entirely different, and each child (aside from Charlie) was no longer just a certain personality type, but now an almost grotesque, terrible version of it. Another reason the movie seemed almost entirely different was that there were so many flashbacks, and it went on for a bit longer after the initial movie had ended. I thought these added some interesting depth and backstory (okay, as liquorhead mentioned, the chocolate palace scene was completely pointless, but it did fit in well in the way that old people love to ramble on and drift off into tangents. The movie would have been no better or worse without it, and since it was a fun little scene it's forgivable). The only real negative point I can recall, and as other people mentioned, was the boat scene. It was one of the best parts of the old movie, and was now just more eye candy. However, the almost completely different Willy Wonka would seem fairly out of character saying it, so it's an understandable loss. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2005 23:42
|
|
|
The original movie is my favorite film of all time. I went into this with an open mind, and tried not to compare it to the book, or the original at all, because if Knew if I did, I'd be biased against it. I'm glad I did. I think this was a good movie. Wonka as portrayed by Depp was a messed up recluse with severe social issues. Character wise, that make sense for a man who's never been outside for decades. I think the decision to make him a lower status character was a good one, nowhere more evident then his discussions with Mike Teevee. It makes the whole theme of imagination more poignant...imagination is ALL Wonka has in this film, and all he asks of anyone. The children were brilliant. Every last one of them. Which is good, they really are the centre of the film. The flashbacks were a little over the top and out of place, but up until the ending I think they were intentionally so, they way they were timed. They got a laugh from the audience every time, if that wasn't Burtons intention, it was certainly Depps. The Oompa Lumpas were simply awesome, but I'm an Oingo Boingo fan so that bias couldn't go away. Now, as I'm back and comparing to the original, I still prefer the first one however. Not because Wilder was better, comparing the two performances is like apples and oranges. I prefer it because the sinister nature is more subtle, and the pleas on behalf of imagination more direct. However, I really did like this one, I think for the first time Burton has gotten elbow deep in someone else's story and not messed it up. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 03:51
|
|
|
It's been mentioned already, but I'm seconding that a few scenes go on way too long (case in point, TV and nut sorting rooms and the oompa-loompa songs seem a bit out of place (even though they're straight from the book) but for the most part it was enjoyable. Don't go in expecting a carbon-copy of either the book or the old version and you'll enjoy it. The set design is excellent and aside from the first scene spoilered above, the movie doesn't ooze pop culture references like most films targetted at kids. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 04:51
|
|
|
Honestly, I loved this film. I thought it was wonderful. Johnny Depp is a fantastic Wonka. He is quirky and mean, but still likeable in a bizarre way. The actors for the children and their parents were cast flawlessly. I enjoyed that they gave more character to those who had less of a personality in the original movie. The backstory for the oompa-loompas as well as Wonka's upbringing was a great addtition to the story. The additional explination of everything gives much more of a plot to it. The effects were stunning. The colors were bright and delicious looking. The oompa-loompas were hilarious as little people rather than just midgets. And I loved the ending.  5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 06:28
|
|
|
quote:bows1 came out of the closet to say: I felt exactly the same way, as a matter of fact. I thought it was wonderful though. It was just so over-the-top, so cartoonish, that while it may not have matched the book detail-for-detail, it captured the book's general spirit very well. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 06:52
|
|
|
I think I'm one of the few people to express this opinion, seeing is that I've never read the book nor have seen the old movie before. Johnny Depp did fit the role real nicely. I do admit that he himself was over-the-top a couple times, but I suppose you couldn't expect less from a man who holed himself from society for a decade or two. The kids were just magnificent. All the annoying kid stereotypes were there, and I suppose it was predictable to see which kid would end up getting the prize. Christopher Lee did an amazing job playing Dr. Wonka. Not to be biased towards his films, but I think that I got a kick out of seeing him more than any other character on screen. I mean, come on, if MY dad was Saruman and had decided to settle down as a dentist, I'd have a terrible childhood too. The visuals were just aFUCKINGmazing. Now again, I've never seen the old movie before, but I was just simply blown away by this setup. Burton does not disappoint with his visions. Also, Danny Elfman is a demigod when it comes to creating magnificent music. I had no idea that he crafted a good chunk of the Oompa Loompa songs. I loved it. Overall, I left this film more satisfied than I should have. The curse of the remakes has done a lot of damage to films this year, but I think this film (along with other great movies this year) doesn't fall victim to it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 10:30
|
|
|
The songs are very annoying, the duplicated oompa loomas are cheesy, the flashbacks are somewhat good but totally ruin the atmosphere (like a cheap made for tv, saved by the bell rip off, seriously), and overall it was like an Are you Afraid of the Dark episode except with the big budget and not scary. I saw the original and Depp's wonka character was way off (he never sang by the way). His voice is just wrong, and it should not be WRONG. On the plus side the graphics are awesome (so much snow and bright grass BURTON), and the children are entertaining... in my theater someone 3 rows back (they were in the last seat probably) WHISTLED "PHROOOT HOOO" (as in HOT) when the competitive girl "Violet" (movie poster picture) started doing some form of martial arts. She does resemble Mathilda from Leon, but, what the gently caress, small town with 10,000 people in the south! I bet they were jacking it when she becomes unblueberried and starts contorting her body in weird sexual manners - but who knows what fun fruit filled flavors they were spilling in that theater factory And when johnny depp said to the Veruca spoiled girl, Don't touch that squirrel's nuts, it leads me to believe all children cartoon makers try to slip at least one crude joke as if to leave their mark (a la Tyler Durden daaaang!) 2/5 ---------------- Chefboy RD fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 16, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2005 23:27
|
|
|
I felt this movie was no closer to the book than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was. I may be a bit biased as the original film is one of my favorites, but here are a few things thats just annoyed the hell out of me. 1. Willy's dad: What the hell was the point of including him? I don't recall him being mentioned in the book. The only reason I see is that it showed why Willy became so hosed up. But come on,they get in a fight over Willy eating a goddamn piece of candy and Willy decides to leave. He comes back and their place is loving ripped out of the building? Also, that bullshit of young WW walking through the flags? 2. The Oompa Loompas: Their songs were loving annoying and hard to understand. 3. The acting: I felt like none of the actors were putting any emotion in. In the original film you actually got the sense that Charlie wanted the trip to the factory more than anything. In this film it seemed an issue of money. Also, I was very unimpressed with Johnny Depp's performance. His lines all seemed very forced (as did everyone elses'). I had looked forward to this film and really wanted to like it, but I was left terribly unsatisfied. As always, Tim Burton's visuals were amazing, but without any substance they're nothing to me. I felt as if they were targeting this toward 5 year olds, who had never seen the original or read the book. Rating: 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 04:55
|
|
|
As someone who loved the book as a child, this movie was great. Some parts of the original movie annoyed me as much as some parts of the new one. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 05:15
|
|
|
It was a wonderful movie, I'm sick of everyone basing their ratings on comparing it to the old movie, because it really shouldnt be that way. Veruca was still a bitch, though. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 07:02
|
|
|
The movie was very, very "meh". The pacing wasn't right at all - there was no excitement or wondering what was going to happen next. Most of the time, after you knew what was going to happen, it got repeated two or three more times before the movie finally moved on (finding the golden ticket, disposing of the "bad" kids in the factory). It dragged on. The characters were painfully one-dimensional and cliched, especially the other children. Willy Wonka's "back story" was unnecessary and only made him creepier and even less likeable. Johnny Depp is a fantastic actor, but his performance here was painful, and I kept wishing he'd just drown in the chocolate lake and be done with it. Funny moments were few and far between (the squirrels were kinda funny, but that's about it). The Oompa Loompas need to die a slow and horrible death. It's a sort-of-okay movie, but a waste of two perfectly good hours. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 07:38
|
|
|
Good movie, the OL songs were pretty funny I thought, but I'm a big fan of Danny Elfman. Gene Wilder definitely was a better Wonka, but Depp did a prtty good job. Honestly its not really right to compare this with the old one. Two different directors with two different takes of the source material. I like them both, but the original is still the best. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 07:39
|
|
|
This rendition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory focused on being wacky over being whimsical. Covered in bright colors and silly jokes, this movie's style has more in common with Saturday morning cartoons than Roald Dahl's book. That said, it's an enjoyable movie for most everyone, and an excellent movie for some people. However, some plot decisions and presentation issues make this film a mixed bag. The good: Good visuals, good casting, very funny, great story. Oh, and all the Oompa Loompas have the same face, which I found amusing. The bad: The songs were hard to understand, Burton’s storyline additions felt forced, and most of the sets were underwhelming. Wonka is slighly annoying. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 07:53
|
|
|
So this one is a lot more like the book than the first movie. Not that I know that for certain, just that everybody I’ve heard talking about it says that it’s a lot more like the book than the first movie was. I did read the book, actually, when I was like nine, and I remember it differing from the movie significantly only in that there was no music. Really what does it matter whether or not it’s closer to the book than the first movie, anyway? The only people pedantic enough to obsess over the little details in film interpretations of children’s books are either A) Child nerds like Urkle on the first three seasons of “Family Matters” or B) Adult nerds, like Urkle on the remaining 9 seasons of “Family Matters:” the guys who have already read the new Harry Potter book twice and memorized Attack of the Clones even though they didn’t like it very much. I say nevermind the book. Reading is for squares. The only real way to review this movie is to compare it to the original, piece by piece: First off there’s the visuals. Like any other Tim Burton film (even the otherwise abhorrent Planet of the Apes), they are fantastic. From the very first shot you get the greatest feeling, this sense that Burton’s patented Misplaced Childhood Loneliness has finally found a proper out in Dahl’s story as the creation of the gold-ticketed chocolate bars is shown in insane Rube Goldberg detail. This wonderment is contrasted immediately with Charlie Bucket’s poor but still cozy-looking home, and right away the viewer thinks that he or she is in for a treat. Ahh… if only. I didn’t realize it right away, but there are no songs early in the film. Charlie’s penury isn’t showcased through his inability to join in the merriment of other children while they sing and dance to “Candy Man,” but Burton’s harsh visuals do a fine job of replacing it. The “it” of that last sentence refers not only to the early song, but to the entire feel of the original film. It’s an insanely hip, homey feel, in the same league as The Abominable Dr. Phibes or the Diana Rigg era “Avengers,” all the good parts are familiar and all the campy parts are deliciously foreign—watching them makes you let go of your adult inhibitions. Burton’s stunning visuals do the same job as the nebulous British “it,” and they carry the first third of the film, while we’re introduced to the children. Charlie is played by little Freddie Highmore. In all honesty, I don’t think they could have picked a better kid. Not only is he adorable, but he probably does the best job of any child actor I have ever seen in a English-speaking film. He imbues Charlie with just the right amount of earnestness, playing a child that’s loveable while still being believable. The character strays from the real world while going overboard in some of his more ideal proletarian moments, like when he tells his family he’s not going to take a trip to the chocolate factory because he knows they could sell the ticket and buy food. These moments are a bit much but can only be blamed on John August’s screenplay. The lines would be sappy if Highmore didn’t do such a drat good job of delivering them Next there’s Augustus, who is very much a straight-forward copy of the original and meant to feed our great nation’s hate of those fat, war-mongering Germans. Augustus is a fat, chocolate-covered caricature of a fat, chocolate-covered people and Burton made a wise choice in going over the top with him. Then we have Veruca Salt. Ahh, my lovely Veruca. Most American males have a little thing for Veruca, if we’re younger it’s a crush but when we get older it’s something different. Nothing sexual—it’s just that we want to maybe kidnap her and stick her in a room filled with stuffed animals and brush her hair every once in a while, just so we can make her happy. My precious little angel. The new Veruca looks uncannily like 70’s Veruca. Seriously—it’s goddamn freaky. This serves to make me feel like a dirty old man, because at least I can take some solace in knowing that the old Veruca is now in her 40s or 50s. A movie shouldn’t make me feel like a perv. Next there’s Violet, easily the best of the additional bits added by August. She’s still an annoyingly ambitious little skank, but placed in a modern context that we all already hate: the blonde daughter of a faked-tan woman from Georgia. After her we have Mike Teavee, who was probably my favorite character in the first movie but in this one comes off as a bit of a lifeless jerkoff who plays Xbox all day and can do fancy poo poo like math. Aside from a few lame jokes, the film is very much enjoyable until they get to the chocolate factory. Here Wonka is introduced not as a charismatic, dancing emcee but as a shy freak, a child enjoying a puppet show along with his guests. He’s bright white and has an annoying voice and you just want to hit him. Here’s a sentence I bet you’d never thought you would hear: Gene Wilder is a lot more charming than Johnny Depp. At least so far as this role goes. Wilder’s Wonka was a god; nearly omnipotent and insanely classy, full of confidence. His song and dance routine may very well have been meticulously rehearsed, but while watching it you would have sworn it was off the cuff (in this version of the film, the children actually wonder aloud how the Oompa Loompas can manage to sing such elaborate songs at the drop of a hat—a lame joke that I think they did on “Rocko’s Modern Life” several years ago). If Wilder’s Wonka was a chocolate-making Dean Martin, Depp’s Wonka is a bad Jim Carey Character dipped in bleach. He giggles and falls down and makes some really bad puns and pretty much single-handedly ruins the movie. For this I place the blame solely on Burton, like most everybody else who has seen the movie has done. Wonka’s social problems stem, we learn from a set flashbacks that have all the subtlety of a dead cow on the side of the road, from his overbearing dentist father. Dr. Wonka played by Christopher Lee, who really comes off as a working man’s Max Von Sydow, barking out his lines an a muddle accent and seeming vaguely threatening. I don’t blame Lee for doing a lovely job with the role; it’s just a lovely role. Is this supposed to be some grand irony, that a Chocolate Maker had a father who was a dentist! Ha ha ha Oh Mr. August I salute your wit and whimsy! I say that Depp’s Wonka “pretty much” ruins the movie by itself, because I haven’t mentioned what is easily the worst aspect of movie: the modern Oompa Loompas. I know that painting a bunch of midgets probably wouldn’t fly in today’s world, but Burton did possibly the most retarded thing he could have done and replicated a single Pakistani man over and over and over again and then made him look small. Let me clarify what I just said: all the Loompas were one guy. It was creepy for the first couple of seconds and then it got really lame. And the songs they sing. Oh lord, the songs they sing. “Horrendous” isn’t strong enough a word. It’s like if Barnes and Barnes got together with Blink-182 and their supergroup decided to make a genre-hopping concept record. I’m not kidding. Throughout the factory the visuals are still breathtaking, though, and there is great interplay between the children and their parents, particularly Violet’s overbearing whore of a mother. But the damage caused by the reinvented Wonkas is too much to bear. I’m not going to spoil the ending for you; the ending does a good enough job of spoiling itself. Suffice it to say that the magic of the original film’s brisk, happy ending, is completely ruined by a protracted happy ending that takes retarded stabs at profundity. There’s a lot of good to this movie, but more bad than good. Small kids will love it, yes, but they’ll probably love the original even more. And if you rent that instead of taking them to see this you’ll save a bunch of money and not be surrounded by 15-year-olds taking important calls on their cellys. 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 17:20
|
|
|
In short, I loved pretty much everything except for the music and Depp's performance. The world is fun and imaginative, a one-up of the original movie in every way. The fantasy element exists outside the factory for Burton, and the world is a gloomy, deteriorating view of an industrial city. The Bucket's home is charming and exaggerated, a twisted and crumbling shack in a field of rubble. The factory itself is great fun, as vibrant and silly as you'd expect, aided by CGI but not over-run with it. Charlie is played to perfection, as are the other ticket-winners and their guardians, all of whom are mostly intact from their original versions. The plot, although a bit drawn out, retains its charm and warmth and is not mucked with too severely. I was disappointed that there are no non-Oompa musical sequences, but there is plenty of things that take their place. The Oompa Loompas themselves are even cooler than in the original, this time with a fully fleshed back story which is one of the more entertaining sequences in the entire film. Their musical numbers are a huge disappointment however -- instead of catchy vocal numbers, Elfman does a generic and uninteresting survey of a few genres -- broadway, rock, funk. The Oompa Loompas take a backseat to the loud and professional instrumentation which comes from nowhere. Their words are lost amongst a screaming saxaphone and wailing guitar. Depp's performance is horrendous in nearly every way. The idea of doing Wonka as a silky-haired Michael Jackson is bad; the idea of giving Wonka nothing but gibberish to squeak out is bad; the idea of playing him like a creepy version of Mr. Burns from the X-files episode of the Simpsons is also bad. I can't help but give this a 3.5 though. If only Depp had played it straight, hell, even boring, it would've been 4.5 and one of my favorite movies this year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 23:49
|
|
|
I looked at the movie this way: A lot of the characters are two dimensional, and the fact that they didn't add any depth to them doesn't mean a whole lot. I thought that they made Charlie very two dimensional, which was a problem. Charlie is supposed to inherit the factory at the end because he understands what candy is all about. He shouldn't win by default, he should win because of his character. Grandpa joe kicked rear end, I really liked violet a lot. She and her mom were my favorites. The oompa loompas were pretty cool. Also, with Depp as Wonka, they tried to add depth by giving him a back story. It was interesting, and a very different way of looking at Wonka's eccentricities. Despite the fact that he acts like an idiot, he still comes off like he knows what he's a genius on the inside, but with the backstory you know that he's just a little kid inside. The thing with his father started out really tacked on, but in the end it seemed pretty natural. Though I thought the last ten minutes were kind of weak, sort of. I didn't like the changed ending. But overall, I enjoyed the movie, it was pretty funny, a lot of the jokes were wonderful. I went in thinking I'd hate it and came out smiling. 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2005 04:31
|
|
|
quote:pbow9 came out of the closet to say: I would like to point out at this point that some movies have these things called "jokes". The flag bit is one of these. But just so this isn't trolling, I rather liked the kind of jokey, not-taking-itself-too-serious aspect of this movie. I know a lot of people absolutely detest self-referential or self-parodying humor the crowd saying that the oompa loompas' songs seemed rehearsed, for example but I thought it was actually pretty funny and well-played. And as for the piece of the apartment still being there, the movie seemed to have a lot of little things like that, where, though time has passed, things don't actually change. You'll notice when Charlie's grandpa reminisces working for Wonka twenty years earlier, he looks exactly the same, only slightly less bald. Willy Wonka also looks exactly the same, but with short hair. Another interesting little thing I appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2005 10:57
|
|
|
What really made this movie for me was the excellent art direction and prop department. I mean, hey, neat, Japanese Wonka bars. Also, the wrapper on Augustus Gloop's Wonka bar is in German. You see it for maybe a second, but it's in German. It's a little touch, but I liked it. Oh, I'm pretty split on Depp's performance, too. On the one hand, it was miles from Dahl's Wonka or Wilder's Wonka. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the apparent disappointment he displayed whenever a child didn't die horrifically. And Oompa Loompas as tiny Pakistani men? Loved it. 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2005 18:20
|
|
|
Wow, looks like we have a very divided crowd about this film, which I knew was going to happen, and inevitably happens whenever there's a remake of a popular film. Honestly, I love this and the original film. They are so far different from each other, I can't really compare them. Good things: -- Johnny Depp. The most versatile actor in the business these days. He does so well in almost every role he's cast in. He was closer to my impression of Willy Wonka after reading the books than Gene Wilder was. I think he expressed more elements of Wonka, although I see bits and pieces in Wilder's performance also. If you combined them, then that would be the perfect Wonka. -- Oompa Loompa songs. Hands down my favorite aspect of this film. I'm a big Oingo Boingo fan. A couple of the songs took me back.. -- Special effects and scenery were typical dark Tim Burton, but as always, beautiful. Bad things: -- Plot deviance from the books. Too much in my opinion. I'm referring to the general story, not characters. Depp put his own spin on Wonka, and that's fine with me. I think it's a must. -- Supporting characters were kind of plastic and not well developed, nor acted very well. I did enjoy Deep Roy as the Oompa Loompas though. Well done. Overall: 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2005 23:14
|
|
|
After reading lots of reviews, I wasn't sure what to expect going into it. In the end, I thoroughly enjoyed it. As trilljester said, it's hard to compare it directly to the old movie in a lot of ways. They're both very good. Cons: I couldn't understand the words to most of the Oompa Loompa songs. And, overall, the songs themselves weren't very memorable. The dad plotline seemed a bit forced and somewhat unnecessary. It wasn't really bad, it just felt... out of place most of the time. Pros: Most everything else. Some highlights: Willy Wonka. Yes, I thought Depp's Wonka was great. The little one-liners that we saw in the previews seemed pretty stupid cheezy in the previews, but in the context of the scene in the film, they didn't feel out of place at all. The Oompa Loompas. The songs weren't memorable, but the Oompa Loompas themselves were highly entertaining. It was really funny to see the short Pakistani guy doing synchronized swimming and fronting an 80's hair band. All in all, I thought it was a very good movie that I definitely wouldn't mind seeing again. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2005 02:48
|
|
|
This movie was awesome, way more enjoyable than the first one. Depp does a great job, the Oompa Loompas are actually amusing and everything is just perfect. go see it! 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2005 05:06
|
|
|
Johnny Depp is no Gene Wilder. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2005 23:17
|
|
|
Just went through the motions. Same flick from 1971 but with all the special little moments gutted out. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2005 09:41
|
|
|
Personally, I got a laugh out of the Burned Puppet Ward. In some ways was better than the original, and some not. And frankly, I friggin' love the opening theme.  Danny Elfman. But this was definetly of my favorite films of the summer so far. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2005 03:09
|
|
|
I'm split down the middle. Mostly this movie lacked the heart that the previous movie had. I didn't like this Willy Wonka. He was creepy, emotionless and distant. I liked Gene's Wonka. I also liked the first movie's ending much better. I don't remember how the book went and I don't particularly care. The first movie's ending was more climactic and more heartwarming. The new movie's ending was just awkward. Also the boat in the tunnel scene was completely crap compared to the first movie. On the other hand the OL songs were much better and the effects and scenery were fantastic. I liked the childhood actors and I liked Charlie's family better. With a different portrayal of Wonka I could have really liked this. I didn't want to see Michael Jackson and the Chocolate factory, but that's what I got. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2005 04:38
|
|
|
Good: Tim Burton has always had a knack for satire and cultural critique. The flaws of the children are quite clear, and the lessons to be learned are presented concisely. The audience can relate to the children, because Wonka is very odd. The movie is different enough from the original that you don't feel as though you are seeing a lame remake. Scattered movie references are also enjoyable. Bad: The movie's pacing is way off, and there is no flow at all. The randomness of the movie is pretty disorienting, and ends up being a slide show of weird. Personal feelings: I it. It's certainly not better than the other one, but it is a lot of fun, and I appreciate the biting social commentary. The theater must have been filled with Teevees, Gloops, Salts, and Beauregards. No one laughed except my girlfriend and I for the first 20 minutes or so. They didn't understand any of the jokes except for the slapstick ones, and they really didn't like Wonka. I think they expected Depp to be a total hottie, and were sorely let down.4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2005 17:46
|
|
|
What an awful loving movie. I'm going to list what I hated because I don't feel like making it into a coherent paragraph: -Johnny Depp's character is absolutely awful. -It is just as unfaithful, if not more, to the book with all of the added and unnecessary crap such as Wonka's father. -The Oompah Loompahs, while more faithful to Dahl's, were uninspired and the songs were GOD AWFUL. The Dance Routines, camera effects and special effects were WAY TOO MUCH. It was a super-saturation, and not in a kitchy sense, either. -On a related note, the songs were trite and awful. I didn't care much for the original songs in the first movie, either, but they had some small sort of charm at least. -I know I've listed this but I could not get over how terrible Depp's portrayal of Wonka's character is. It's absolutely not charming, imprecise (which is not always bad, but was in this case), and just loving terrible. -Classic scenes in the old movie which were also part of the book (such as the wall-licking scene) were often left out in favor of more CGI-laden overdone garbage. -Speaking of CGI crap, every single rendered thing in the movie was unconvincing and looked outright stupid, ESPECIALLY Violet Beauregarde. -The kids, although good actors, had absolutely transparent one-dimensional roles, even moreso than the original characters. The characters were originally quite blatant in their flaws, but this movie stuck it out so obviously that it was quite clear that Burton felt the need to "dumb it down". -The ending was tacked on. Giving this sort of dimension to Wonka was unnecessary and entirely clashes with the actual original point of Wonka's character. In the book he is designed to be an ultimate paternal figure who conveys a side of myth, harsh reality, entertainer and necessary father figure where there currently isn't one for each child. He displays actual consequences to them. The origins of his family are not discussed nor important. Here are the good things: - Violet's mother was an absolute nail on the head in regards to semi-yuppy Georgia women. In the TV interview scene I laughed quite a lot. That was good. -Each kid had a better actor (but a poorer role). That's about it. I hated this movie and will give it a 1 only because I actually enjoy and respect Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, and every artist is entilted to occasionally make off-the-mark work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2005 07:08
|
|
|
I'm one of those poor bastards who didn't read the book nor remember much of the original movie. Pro: -The kid who played Charlie was good, and that bratty girl Veruca was good as well. The other kids were okay. -Tim Burton. -Depp had that weirdness factor that I couldn't help but love. -Elfman's music. -I was charged a buck less for the ticket than I should've. Cons: -Dragged on in some parts. -I would've like to have seen/heard the Oompa Loompas circa Family Guy or Futurama, these Loompas bored me. -The stupid loving ending. Rating: 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2005 20:14
|
|
|
Ugh ugh ugh. I loved the first one; it had so much more meaning than this new one. What was the point? I tried and tried and tried not to compare it to the original movie but I couldn't help it. The original just about everything much, much better than this one. Especially Willy Wonka's character. I agree with Sir Victory on every point. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2005 08:19
|
|
|
I really didn't want to see this because I had poor expectations, and did not like what I saw from the trailers. I'm a long time fan of both Depp and Burton, and did not want to see them embarrass themselves. I also tend to hate just about every remake of something I know about. Primarily it's those cartoons turned into circus freaks: Flintstones, Cat in the Hat, The Grinch etc. And there just seems to be a lot of remakes in general these days, and the majority of them are really terrible in my opinion. I'm also a fan of Roald Dahl and his other stories I read as a kid. So I decided to give it a chance since I heard Burton was trying to do his interpretation of the book moreso than an improvement of the Wilder version, which I also loved, but haven't seen in a long time. The part where my worries vanished is when the annoying Willy Wanka song played when he introduced them to the factory. I mean I was fearing the whole movie would be gay in a Jar Jar Binks sort of way since it made me cringe so much from watching the trailers. But when it turns out that Wanka's display and song is almost purposefully crappy, and Wanka loves the fact that it sucks and is going on fire. Right there Depp went from what I thought was supposed to be a new loveable version of Wilder's Wanka to a modern hilariously disturbed Wanka. And they never played that song again as far as I can recall. Maybe they played it in the credits I don't know. And the rest of the singing loving cracked me up. The way it was almost a routine chore to have a fruity and strange sing along after each kid screws up and comes close to death. To me it was like Family Guy and how they sing in just about every song, just because, even though the show's audience is obviously mostly rear end in a top hat'ish males who hate musicals and stuff. As others have pointed out, I think the kids were very well developed characters. Charlie and his family were just great. I kind of felt a slight attachment to them emotionally for a second, kind of like when watching Big Fish. What else to say. The visuals were very nice. Christopher Lee was phenomenal as always. The whole thing about Wanka's childhood being deprived of candy by his dentist father was great. I agree that Depp wasn't all that funny as Wanka, but he was still pretty good. He wasn't bad at all, but he just wasn't the center of attention in the whole film like in the Wilder version. He was more of a creepy what the gently caress weird, which is hard to pull off as well as he did. I might actually hate it more if I were a kid in the 70s. I never saw it till the mid 80s, so it was kind of old to me, and not as amazing as it was to some older people I bet. I did think Wilder was really funny, but I didn't care for the original movie all that much. I never really liked kids' movies as a kid though. I still have kind of a phobia of anything Disney. Anyway, my rating gets an extra half a star or so for absolutely blowing away my expectations. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2005 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
I enjoyed this in light of the recent trial of Michael Jackson. Gave Willy Wonka a whole new light. And a quick reminder to all the purists who demand that everything adhere to a proper logical course: it's a kids' movie. One that doesn't pander to the intelligence of the kids, nor the audience, nor does it include intensely annoying characters that parents will undoubtedly hate. This is a gift horse to those with kids. 4/5 as a kids' movie 3/5 as a movie
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2005 07:38
|
|
