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

[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]

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!

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"

[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]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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.

Spoiler:

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.