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

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-24-2005, 11:40 PM

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.

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.

It's such a shame.

CoasterMatt · 07-25-2005, 05:43 AM

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 · 07-25-2005, 10:47 AM

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 · 07-25-2005, 11:15 AM

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 · 07-25-2005, 11:28 AM

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.

dsnylndmom · 07-28-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Both of my boys yelled "it's the Matterhorn" during this part!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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"

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 07-25-2005, 11:43 AM

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

Ghoulish Delight · 07-25-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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 · 07-25-2005, 02:33 PM

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 · 07-25-2005, 02:38 PM

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.

07-24-2005, 11:40 PM	#1
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? (non-tagged spoilers) 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. 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. It's such a shame. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you Last edited by Cadaverous Pallor : 07-24-2005 at 11:41 PM. Reason: Fixed title
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 05:43 AM	#2
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	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 __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 10:47 AM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 11:15 AM	#4
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 11:28 AM	#5
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 11:43 AM	#7
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	There were a few Disney nods, it seems. That was by far my favorite, though.
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 02:33 PM	#9
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	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. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2005, 02:38 PM	#10
DisneyFan25863 Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stevenson Ranch, CA Posts: 464	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.
	Submit to Quotes