Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? (non-tagged spoilers)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Looks like I'm the first with a full review.

What you should (and probably already do) know about me: I'm a freak for the book. Read my copy until it literally fell apart. At the same time, I'm a freak for the old movie version. Seen that until I practically memorized it. Both hold a special place in my heart. I'm also a Burton/Elfman/Depp fan.

So how did I like this film? It was a letdown. :(

Ok, we'll start with the positives. It was beautiful. Colors, costumes, art direction, all very nice. Great set for Charlie's house. I was thrilled to see stuff from the book that wasn't in the old movie - Charlie's dad's job, for instance. At the same time there were some great new lines and angles on things.

The songs were great, lyrics straight out of the book. A lot of the music styles (and there were many) were a bit of a stretch for Elfman, but were definitely Elfman underneath. Loved that.

There were some wonderfully frightening moments - burning dolls, drowning in chocolate, attack squirrels, etc - and they had me giggling like mad. I love the idea of letting a kid's movie be scary. That stuff was awesome. :evil:

Depp's angle on Wonka - silly, childlike, socially inept - was fun. Most of the main players were great, most notably Charlie and his family, Augustus, Violet and her way creepy mom.

The effects were awesome.

Now for the not-so-good.

I just checked who wrote the screenplay and turns out it's the same guy that wrote Big Fish. Well big friggin' surprise. The added bit with Wonka dealing with his evil dentist father were fun for a while but the ruined ending, with its reconciliation between father and son, was totally giving me Big Fish flashbacks (I didn't like that one either). Why oh WHY did Wonka need a story arc? Didn't they think the book was good on it's own? I admit, again, that Wonka being a child unable to eat candy was great, but the ending was a total disaster.

Plus, Wonka's backstory took the focus of of Charlie, which Greg pointed out to me as the big irony - the old movie was called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" yet was actully about Charlie, and this one had it the other way around. I kept thinking that if they hadn't included all of Wonka's flashbacks they could have had more about the kids. We saw nearly nothing from Mike Teevee and I was intrigued about his character.

Speaking of Mike - the character was taken in a whole new direction, which at the outset, seemed like a really cool concept. Instead of a braindead TV watcher that lives in a TV world, Mike was a modern generation gamer - tech smart. Not stupid, but a smart ass that thinks he's all grown up. I loved his introduction, with his bewildered parents. But yet when the Oompa Loompas sing his song they keep the old book lyrics about TV "killing imagination dead....he cannot think, he only sees" which don't make sense anymore. I would have forgiven them for changing lyrics to fit the character. Like I said, I'm bummed we didn't see more from him.

During the sequences where children were in trouble, there was hardly any reaction from the other people. No screaming, no fright even. Sometimes even the kids themselves didn't look frightened at all. The peak of this oddness is when Veruca is attacked by squirrels. The images are incredibly frightening, straight out of a horror movie, but she barely makes a sound. I think at one point, after battling squirrels for ages, she simply says, "Daddy, I don't like this!" Anyone, child or adult, facing 100 squirrels jumping on them would be shrieking and fighting like crazy. And everyone else watching doesn't even twitch, especially her dad, who barely makes an attempt to get through the gate to save her. Veruca was terrible in general, but this "style" was throughout the movie, where the characters just absorb whatever's thrown at them, and only sometimes do they make the wonderful quips from the book. (In the old movie they added a lot of fun quips as well, which made their reactions better). I guess I have to blame Burton for this odd direction.

All in all I had a good time at the movie but as a fan of all the stuff I mentioned above, this was a letdown. There was no earthly reason to add in Wonka's backstory. No reason at all. It gave the movie a second moral that, by using it as the climax, eclipses the old moral. This wasn't Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this was Willy Wonka Learns His Lesson.

:mad: It's such a shame.

[CoasterMatt]

When the original movie was made, the Vietnam War was going on - "Charlie" was the enemy, otherwise, it would have kept the original title.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory plays wonderfully on IMAX, too :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I was similarly disappointed. Not that the movie was bad, there were some great things in it. But it wasn't as good as it needed to be to justify its existence. The original version was excellent. This, at best, was equally good. So why make it? Burton didn't seem to work very hard to make it extraordinary. For example, the factory itself was really unremarkable. It just didn't have that Burton stamp on it that I was hoping for.

Like CP, I though the music was fantastic, and the Oompa Loopmas were great. Some individual moments stood out as very good, but on a whole I thought the movie fell flat. Big Fish is a good comparison. Technically a good movie, but I left feeling like there should have been something more to it.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Heidi really didn't care for the backstory, which is understandable. One shouldn't over explain a strange and mysterious and seemingly inexplicable character. In smaller doses, I would have liked it just fine. It certainly didn't require the cheery resolution at the end. Though I didn't mind the auster father. I *loved* the walk through the flags, etc.

I really don't care for Wilder's Wonka movie. I mean, I almost hate it. It irritates me. A lot. And Wilder (who I really like) comes across like a child molestor. Just isn't my bag of tricks.

The stuff I loved about this movie I loved so much it almost erased what was bad about it. I laughed out loud a lot. The dialogue was fantastic. I think the only child character I prefer in Wilder's movie is Violet. Also, the only song I enjoy from Wilder's is Veruca's. That was kickass. Though I love the actress who played Violet's mother in the Burton version. The music and songs were fantastic, though I wish you could hear Dahl's lyrics better.

Yeah, I liked it a great deal. I just think Burton goes too far sometimes with adaptations and backstory, but ultimately he preserved what I loved most about the book, and - in my opinion - improved on some of the humor. I was thrilled they kept in all the mumbling lines, though. Ah, this movie had so many good quotes.

And the Bucket family was wonderful.

So, I give the film my hearty thumbs up.

It's certainly the Burton film I've most enjoyed since Ed Wood.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I do have to mention the blatant Matterhorn shot. There was a flash of it in the trailer. It was the Matterhorn, with the great glass elevator running behind it looking exactly like the skyway, and then a closeup shot with guys in red climbing it.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

There were a few Disney nods, it seems. That was by far my favorite, though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There were a few Disney nods, it seems. That was by far my favorite, though.Yes, such as the Small World bit. But the glass elevator-come-skyway just made the Matterhorn bit.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Just to make sure I didn't overstate my negatives -

I did enjoy watching it, and most of it was great. Laughed out loud, etc. I'd have to agree with GD though, it's about as good as the old movie.

Pulling the rug out from Charlie himself and making it Wonka's story sucked, and for me, that pretty much wrecks the whole thing as a "classic". It's funny, I used to be somewhat annoyed at the slightly modified ending to the old movie, where Wonka tests Charlie with the temptation of selling out to Slugworth, and Charlie prevails even though Wonka is rude to him. But compared to this modification, that one looks like nothing - it stays within the original moral of the story.

[DisneyFan25863]

I didn't really like the movie as much as the old one. To me, Wonka was way too.......Michael Jackson. Like, when he was talking about taking Charlie to live WITH him at his factory, and that he can't bring his family? Yeah, kinda got some wrong images from that.


Oh, and the Doll Burn Treatment Center thing was just stupid. But I liked the Matterhorn reference.


Oh, and anyone notice the amount of Wonka-themed comedy shows out now? The Simpsons had one, Family Guy had one, and I think I saw a Futurama on the other night parodying it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, now's the time to replay the Wonka spoofs, but all of those are several years old.

[Tref]

I liked it. Too many jokes fell flat, even some good ones (the flag walk comes to mind. Good joke. Bad execution) Depp was in fine form and I enjoyed his performance quite a bit, but in the end, Depp was The Knack to Wilder's Beatles. Or, maybe that is being unfair. Maybe he was the Raspberries. OK, I got it. He was Andy Partridge to Wilder's John Lennon -- that's still pretty damn good.


Wait, wait ... he's Emmit Rhodes! That's a good one.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Funny, I liked the gags that others didn't - the doll burn treatment center, the flag walk. The bit with the flaming dolls and Wonka appears next to them was hilarious - "What a finale, wow!" "I couldn't watch the show from up there, could I?" That was some inspired writing and a great Wonka moment.

[wendybeth]

We finally got around to seeing the movie today, and it was better than I thought it would be. I wanted to give him a better haircut in the worst way, but overall I liked it really well. When his dad came on the screen, Tori said "Saruman!"

[Boss Radio]

Christopher Lee is Burton's new Vincent Price.

I did not enjoy the film - I found it overwrought, calculated to appeal to a modern disaffected Goth audience, forced and completely lacking the MAGIC of the book and the Wilder version.

And why was it so necessary to create a backstory based on (surprise!) childhood trauma? Like the Hulk and Dr. Evil before him, this Wonka just wants to love...

Depp is a great actor, but he was misdirected in this strange echo version...

[dsnylndmom]

I do have to mention the blatant Matterhorn shot. There was a flash of it in the trailer. It was the Matterhorn, with the great glass elevator running behind it looking exactly like the skyway, and then a closeup shot with guys in red climbing it.
Both of my boys yelled "it's the Matterhorn" during this part!

The bit with the flaming dolls and Wonka appears next to them was hilarious - "What a finale, wow!" "I couldn't watch the show from up there, could I?" That was some inspired writing and a great Wonka moment. This was quite possibly my favorite part of the movie, Kyler and I LOVED this part.

I liked the movie okay, I love Depp's portrayal but I defintely prefer the original. Oh and Kyler and I were both like "ewwww Violet's mom is SCARY"

[mousepod]

OK, I've avoided this thread (and the reviews) until we saw the movie. We just came back from a well-attended matinee and well, I guess it was just alright.
I'm also a fan of the book, the original movie, Tim Burton (most of the time), Johnny Depp, Danny Elfman, etc. And yet, I somehow didn't feel any of the elation that I wanted to feel. The pre-chocolate factory scenes with Charlie and his family were touching - I felt myself choking up when Charlie and Grandpa Joe opened up the wrapper to the Wonka Bar - but once the tour started, I could start to count the disappointments.
I remember hearing Tim Burton say that the screenwriter hadn't seen the original movie - but I'll bet the set designer did! There were too many similarities to make me forget the original movie, which was a shame, because the dialogue, actors and plotline didn't bug me at all. In fact, I really liked all of those elements.
The blue screen effects looked cheesy and out of place, which really got in the way of the magic for me, and the shifting scale of the Oompa Loompas just seemed sloppy.
But my greatest disappointment with this film? The songs. Big time. Every time an Oompa Loompa song started, the film stopped. Elfman's overwrought parodies were distracting - and the crappy choreography just pulled me right out of the story. The sound mix pushed the vocals way down, and I found it a strain to make out the Dahl lyrics. In the original movie (which was a more standard "musical"), the non-Oompa Loompa songs were sung by individuals, and the camera focused right on them - when the group Oompa Loompa songs were performed, they cleverly put the lyrics right up on the screen, showing that they were as important as the rest of the visuals. Anyway, I'm still an Elfman fan, but I really think they missed the boat on that one.

I'm not sure what happened to Tim Burton. There was a time (before PotA) where he could do no wrong. Now, I'm not so sure. While I've been trying to get excited about Corpse Bride and not think of it as an attempt to cash in on the NBC fanbase, the trailer for it that we saw before Charlie - which featured the Nightmare music - didn't really help...

[Tref]

I'm not sure what happened to Tim Burton. There was a time (before PotA) where he could do no wrong. Now, I'm not so sure.


I have always enjoyed Tim Burton movies ... having said that, I would like to add this one, albeit, blasphemous, point -- despite everything TB may believe about himself -- he doesn't do "weird" very well. He does it -- OK. What Burton is truly good at is telling an off beat story. I submit that his one true masterpiece is Ed Wood. Next is Big Fish. And then Edward Scissorhands. Even, the great, Pee Wee's Big Adventure was more character driven then a showcase for over the top production design. It is my belief that as the production costs rise (Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes, Mars Attacks) so proportionately does the quality of the film go down. Like Lynch being Lynch for no good apparent reason (see Highway, Lost) both directors need a solid footing in reality to do their best work (see, Story, Straight, The)

In closing, ladies and gentleman of the jury, I hope TB makes a simple family movie next, like, say, A Confederacy of Dunces. I think he could do that film quite well. I thank you.

Before you exit I hope you'll take the time to look under you seats and fill out the suggestion cards I have left in each one of your homes. If you want to include a small donation I will not complain. Please address each card
c/o my wallet.

Thank you again. Drive safely.



The hot sun. Unplugged refridgerator.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory more than most of my friends. But I tend to prefer Burton's more original pieces. Pee-Wee maybe being the exception: I thought that was fantastic, and a perfect blend of his directorial style and Paul Reuben's creation. His adaptations often play a false note. I really, really didn't like Big Fish. But I really, really liked the book. I just thought Burton's added "weird" elements were tiresome and unnecessary. Surprisingly, I preferred the contemporary aspects of the film: the scenes between the father and son, and the father and his daughter-in-law. I totally think, with adaptations, a writer and director should add something of their own to the piece; otherwise, what's the point. But it should still draw primarily from the source material, and not just your own crazy imagination. Sleep Hollow was beautiful and Depp was perfection, but there was too much backstory and I felt really let down when the credits started rolling.

Edward Scissorhands will forever be my favorite, l think, even if Ed Wood is a superior movie. It is quite brilliant, that one. But ES has a sentimental hold over my heart, so I'm swayed.

I'm super excited for Corpse Bride, though. And, MP, you may be right about the tie-ins and the music in the preview, but maybe the music hasn't been completed yet, and so they didn't have an original score to use in the preview at this time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think what I've decided about Burton is that his body of work is just too small to get a good handle on him. I've tried the "he's best when working with his own material," but it just doesn't hold. I found both Charlie and Big Fish weak which supports that, but on the other hand, I love Batman and PeeWee and enjoyed Sleepy Hollow (not his best work, but a good movie).

Looking over his credits, perhaps a more accurate statement to this point is, "He hasn't gone wrong with his own material." While there are examples of adaptations he's done right, I don't see anything on the list that he wrote that's been bad (sorry Tref, I find Mars Attacks a ton of fun). So I suppose my conclusion would be that if it's his own material, odds are it's a good movie. If it's not his material, then it's a crap shoot.

I remember hearing Tim Burton say that the screenwriter hadn't seen the original movie - but I'll bet the set designer did! There were too many similarities to make me forget the original movie, which was a shame, because the dialogue, actors and plotline didn't bug me at all. In fact, I really liked all of those elements. Exactly! I came away feeling disappointed that Burton had completely failed to put his stamp on the movie. I absolutely adore Burton's sense of artistic style and he really didn't use it at all. There was some of it in Charlie's house, but it ended there. Such a missed opportunity.

[flippyshark]

Depp's gimmicky performance didn't work for me at all. Every time he did that stupid high-pitched giggle, I sighed and wished I were watching another movie. Some of his lines were funny, as written, but his delivery squelched some of the laughs. He wasn't a character, he was an actor trying out various ticks. I never once forgot that I was looking at Johnny Depp trying too hard to be weird. This is such a far cry from PIRATES, where his gimmicky performance paid off, producing a distinctive character I could believe, however outrageous. I could go on about how much he didn't work for me, but I'll let this one paragraph rant suffice.

On the up-side, I thought the squirrel sequence was brilliant, and I want to ride Fudge Mountain.

[Tref]

I invited some friends over last night and we watched the original Willie Wonka. I think it was the first time I had seen it in over two decades, maybe even since it first came out! Overall the film holds up well, though a few scenes have played better in my head then they did on screen. Wilder was great but the big surprise was the actress who played Veruca Salt -- she was truly wonderful. But who remembers Veruca calling her father's employees (and I am paraphrasing) "a bunch of twats"? Mercy! I do not believe that particular line was carried over into the remake.

[Matterhorn Fan]

On the up-side, I thought the squirrel sequence was brilliant, and I want to ride Fudge Mountain.I had a weird "why are they flying past the Matterhorn?" moment before I realized that we were supposed to believe that that was just "a" mountain that was inside of the factory. I half expected them to fly over a sub lagoon next.

Whoever said the movie wasn't different enough to justify its existence--that's exactly how I felt.

I didn't hate the movie, but I didn't love it either. Chances are I'll see it again, but given the choice, I'd rather watch the Willy Wonka over Charlie.

[mousepod]

But who remembers Veruca calling her father's employees (and I am paraphrasing) "a bunch of twats"? Mercy! I do not believe that particular line was carried over into the remake.

I had to pull out the movie after your post. I know that Dahl wrote the screenplay, but "tw*ts"? Wow.
Sadly, it's just "twerps". This could be a great urban legend, though.

[Tref]

I had to pull out the movie after your post. I know that Dahl wrote the screenplay, but "tw*ts"? Wow.
Sadly, it's just "twerps".

My friend still has the dvd but I will have to wait until later to verify, but check the subtitle option ...

[mousepod]

check the subtitle option ...

I did. *sigh*

[Tref]

I did. *sigh*

Damn! Oh well.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

To me, the DL references really popped out. Pirates' waterfall, Tower of Terror/elevator-cum-skyway, Small World, fireworks, 3D movie glasses dispensers, of course the Matterhorn...

I thoroughly enjoyed myself on the first outing. I responded to the humor. And I dig on wee Freddie Highmore (who isn't so wee anymore, as he's now my height, 5'6") so actually my favorite parts of the movie involved family, not the factory. As Aud said earlier, I really detested the backstory (like I did for Howard's Grinch) but it didn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the other bits.

Second time around, though, I actually fell asleep. It didn't hold me captive. I wonder if I was, to quote somebody witty, stoned on nerd juice of pre-Potter and -fiftieth.