*** Official CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

Very good film. I liked it a lot. My only caveats are that the Oompa Loompa songs, while great, were difficult to hear the lyrics to due to the style in which they were done. Loved the style, would've liked to hear the words more clearly. Also, the last act is a little anti-climactic, but it's still good. It's just that once you see the kids leaving the factory it's hard to be up for another 15 minutes instead of another 5.


Could not agree more. I hope he finally gets an Oscar nomination for this film, because he REALLY deserves it.

 

[SteveCallas]

Alas, the brilliance of the 70's version reveals itself again! In that version, "funky" 70's lettering was used to subtitle some of the songs. In all honesty though, I am considering checking this new one out.

 

[Brandon Conway]

2005 version > 1971 version.

By a scale of 8/10 to 7/10.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Considering they essentially only really wrote one Oompa-Loompa song for the first movie you pretty much were set for the rest of the film. I was loving the different styles of the different songs in this one.

THe minute the first song starts though, you realize how trippy the Oompa-Loompa songs are going to be and none of them dissapoint as the movie continues.

Great big audience reaction to Depp's "I don't care" line!!! It didn't come across well at all in the trailers, but works wonderfully in the context of the film.

 

[todd s]

My friend and I kept getting that creepy Michael Jackson feel from Wonka. He only likes little kids, invites them to his playground, Not found of his parents, Was bizarre and quirky.

 

[DavidPla]

I got the impression he wasn't too fond of children at all.

 

[GuruAskew]

As perfect as I thought Tim Burton was for "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", I was always a bit worried because of "Planet of the Apes". I'm a huge "Planet of the Apes" fan and his films commonly revolve around an outsider and "Apes" is the ultimate outsider story. Unfortunately, he didn't know what he wanted to do. He kept claiming that he was overlooking the original film and going back to the novel but the final product turned out absolutely nothing like the original source material and it borrowed heavily from the 1968 film without capturing what made it great. I'm a fan of the original "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and I remember reading Roald Dahl's book when I was a kid and realizing, even at a young age, that the film version was not very faithful to the book. Well, even though I had mixed feelings about another Burton remake but I see all the guy's work and there was no way I was gonna skip his new flick. I have to say that I really liked it. I think it's better than the original and I have to give him credit. "Apes" is the only film of his that I didn't like. He really showed that he understood the source material and the darkness of it. As for the casting, I thought Depp was terrifically bizarre and eccentric and Freddie Highmore was absolutely outstanding as Charlie. Danny Elfman has been turning in some uninspired work in the past 5 years or so but "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is a return to form and I'm really looking forward to his songs for "Corpse Bride". I wouldn't put "Charlie" as high as Burton's best like "Pee-wee's Big Adventure", "Big Fish", Beetlejuice", "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (I know, Burton didn't direct it, technically) "Edward Scissorhands" or "Ed Wood" but I prefer it to the "Batman" films, "Mars Attacks", "Sleepy Hollow" and "Planet of the Apes", which as I said before is the only Burton film that I don't enjoy.

 

[Jonathan T.]

I just have to add to my earlier comments now that I have seen the film.

Way back when the original teaser trailer came out I was intrigued. When the full trailer came out and showed off Depps strange performance I was worried, but had faith.

Now that I have seen it, I don't know what to think. As a kid I was a huge fan of the original movie. I was also a huge fan of the book, and every other Dahl book for that matter.

What we have in these two movie is a rather odd case where neither one of the movie fully hits the mark. The '71 film was made by amateaur who altered the story way too much in the mistaken belief that it was neccessary for the film to make sense. Slugworth, et al. But they had the genius to cast wilder, who not only looks the part, but clearly took it very seriously, and I would wager read the book cover to cover a dozen times in order to make his wonka ture to Dahls portrayal.

Burton makes his version specifically faithful to the book. He mentions in several interviews that he loved the book but didnt like the old movie and wanted to make a movie faithful to the book. He suceeds in all respects, except in the most important task of making Willy Wonka himself true to the book. Depp appears never to have read the book, and if he has, he appears not to have respected it much. His portrayal of Wonka is so far off the mark, that it comes just short of ruining the movie. Roger Ebert said it best. Depp's wonka is a strange mix of michael jackson and carol burnett.


Now as a film judged on it's own mertis, it is a good movie. But because of one major miscalculcation is fails to be a better film that the 1971 version.

I can't help but wonder, what would this film had been like had Burton cast someone else? Maybe an unknown British actor?

 

[TheLongshot]

I'll lean toward Jonathan's view. This movie just doesn't come together for me. It's pretty good, up until we meet Willy Wonka, than it becomes very offputting. Depp's performance is somewhat of a mixed bag. I like that he comes off as a recluse who isn't used to dealing with people, but some of the decisions felt a little odd to me. I'm still digesting some things about it.

I think one thing I missed about the original was the sense of wonder. It felt like this film was filtered through the mind of an adult, rather than the mind of a kid. It seems like a rather cold place, that I don't think many kids would find as a place they would want to stay. Maybe that was the point.

Some additional comments:

I liked the update of Mike Teevee.

Violet and her mother probably would have been more effective if they had southern accents. In general, the accents seem to be inconsistant. (The lady who offers Charlie $500 certainly doesn't sound british.)

The whole backstory and aftermath did not seem to mesh well with Dahl's vision.

Loved the squirrels.

To be honest, I still prefer the Wilder version, inaccuracies and all. It just seems to come together as a movie, unlike this version.

Jason

 

[Michael Allred]

#1 for the weekend, hardly surprised:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050717/ap_en_mo/box_office

 

[todd stone]

with a kids geared/themed movie, it was destined for #1

 

[Robert Ringwald]

I agree with Depp's arrival putting a stop to the flow of the film. It starts off about Charlie and then as soon as they enter the factory it becomes "Depp acting bizarre."

Really think they should have removed the Wonka flashbacks and the second ending. Would have made for a much more wonderful film. Still good though.

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

I would say this was a worthy remake but that overall it felt slightly unnecessary. Did this movie really go that far beyond the first version? No, in fact a lot of scenes were very similar to the first movie--the chocolate room, the entrance hallway that shrinks to a small doorway at the end, the TV room (although there's only so much you can do with a white room). Lots of nice little touches and funny parts, but often these little parts were distracting from the main thrust of the story. Overall I'd give it a B.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Is there someplace that lists ways that both the 1971 version and this one compare to the book? I've not read it in years and would be curious to see a detailed discussion of changes made in both.

BTW, I MUCH preferred the original movie. Whether or not it's faithful to the book, it works significantly better. I can think of little in the new one that I prefer.

BTW BTW, I've seen some comments like this one I read in the reviews thread:

"Most importantly is that Wonka is no longer the super duper friendly fellow that Wilder essentially made him"

"Super duper friendly"? Did I see the same movie? Wilder was usually superficially friendly at best. His introduction sets us up to never trust the character, and he keeps us off-guard throughout the movie. Taken from my review of the original movie:

"Most of the pleasure I derived from the second half of Wonka came from Gene Wilder's deft performance as old WW himself. Wonka's a shifty character; it's very difficult to decide from moment to moment if he's a decent fellow or if he's quite malicious. He's definitely somewhat sadistic; he doesn't look terribly upset when the nasty little children receive their comeuppance. In fact, he borders on being the John Doe - from Se7en - of the candy bar set!

To his credit, Wilder worked to make sure we never quite got a handle on Wonka's true intentions. Even at the end, when what appeared to be his true desires and thoughts emerged, I still remained suspicious of him. Wilder managed to show us the positive and charming side of Wonka while he always kept that touch of semi-perversity and eccentricity fairly close to the surface. Wilder's performance seems to be one of the main reasons this film stays so well regarded."

 

[Brent C]

I loved the 71 musical growing up and still enjoy it today, but really only because of Wilder's performance and some of the exchanges between him and the parents.

However, I can totally understand Dahl's frustrations with it. For one, the character of Charlie Bucket was terrible in it. He wasn't any better than the other kids, especially when he whined to his mother about wanting to find a golden ticket more than any of the other winner(which leads to the cringe-worthy "Cheer up Charlie") and of course when he and Grandpa Joe stole the fizzy lifting drinks.

The concept in Dahl's book is rather simple, Charlie is a thoughtful and good kid who follows the rules and wins out in the end. I'm glad the Burton film stayed true to that, because the whole Slugworth subplot in the 71 film was unnecessary.

 

[Shawn_KE]

The boat ride in the original was much better. Wilders Wonka seemed so freaky in that part watching his "guests" react to the images.

I liked the new one, but still think the original, while not faithful, is better.

 

[Geremia P.]

Depp's performance didn't bother me so much, but it was strange how Charlie's POV is abandoned for Wonka's once the kids enter the factory. I still enjoyed myself, but am a bit perplexed by the Dahl purists' support of this one.

 

[Jason Adams]

Honestly, I like the fact that he stole the drinks because hes just as curious as any other child, BUT, he redeems himself when he gives Wonka back the Everlasting Gobstopper, which proved that he was a really a good kid with his heart in the right place.

I dont like the new Charlie, he was unsufferably good.

 

[RobertR]

I disagree. He clearly wasn't a spoiled brat like the other kids. Of course he wants to win the golden ticket, that doesn't make him bad (can anyone imagine having to put up with Veruca Salt?), just a kid with dreams.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I like the Slugworth plot. The Charlie in this flick is too passive. He wins not because he DOES anything but because he DOESN'T do anything. He's not really virtuous - he's just not horrible.

In the original movie, Charlie made a choice. He could have sold out and helped his family but he elected to do the right thing. (This one does too at the end, but it's not as easy an option - 1971 Charlie would simply betray someone he doesn't even like, whereas 2005 Charlie would abandon his family.)

1971 Charlie actually shows some character. He makes some wrong choices but redeems himself in the end. 2005 Charlie is a bland nobody whose best quality is that he doesn't offend. The actor's much better - Peter Ostrum was atrocious - but the character in the 1971 movie was better defined...