Discussion in 'Movies' started by Robert Crawford, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator

    Dec 9, 1998
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

    Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

    If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.

  2. Adam_S

    Adam_S Producer

    Feb 8, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a damn good and deliriously fun movie that is full of creepiness, goofiness and the bizarre inventions of Dahl and Burton. Everything is very well done, but there are some caveats that may upset a few people lightly. On the other hand, this is a VERY audience friendly film, and the kids that were sitting in front of me were extremely into the movie throughout. This is not in the slightest bit too scary for any kid over four--and the reason why is Grampa Joe. So long as the kids see Grampa is always there behind Charlie (in almost every scene although he has very little dialogue) they will instinctively know that it's okay and Charlie is safe because Grampa is still there--the themes of family are very well handled in the film and make it somewhat more resonant than the simple morality tale of the book, and to some degree the original film.

    The opening credits are classic Burton-style animation (though not clay mation, they're not making an attempt at photo realism). The Oompa Loompa songs all use the lyrics from the book, which is delightful, and there are two of the best tributes to classic films I've seen in a long time. The introductions of all the children is better than in the original and overall the style and life of the film is much more magical, otherworldly and delightful than the original film. It doesn't have extraneous songs like Pure Imagination or Cheer up Charlie, only the Oompa Loompas sing.

    Most importantly is that Wonka is no longer the super duper friendly fellow that Wilder essentially made him (except for the very end when he gets angry at Charlie), instead he is the unbalanced creepy and fascinatingly disturbed creature from the book, which in my opinion is a big improvement.

    Also Freddie Highmore is so far beyond the previous Charlie its not even funny, for one this kids a good actor, for two you believe him as Charlie--a poor kid who doesn't know/care he's poor, because that doesn't really matter--in a way the other actor never managed.

    onto the caveats
    Sometimes Wonka is thrown off balance or into a flashback and the film just holds slightly too long on this, it's a matter of slicing 20-40 frames of each of these, but they're played long for a joke, but the joke plays out too long, these moments still needed to be tweaked slightly.

    The flashbacks are great, great fun to watch, but the only one that seamlessly integrates with the chocolate factory story is the story of how Wonka brought the Oompa Loompas to the factory. The two about Wonka's backstory are major abrupt transitions that jolt you a little bit.

    Mike Teevee has some babble about 'cracking the system' but you never believe the kid is anything more than an obnoxious brat. His character was the one most in need of updating, and his character is the one whose development is never too solid. It is nice though the first time he smiles in the film.

    The Oompa Loompa songs are great because they are the Dahl lyrics, unfortunately some silly sound engineer decided to bury the lyrics in tons and tons of obnoxiously loud music. I was able to understand about half the lyrics, my companion had no trouble understanding any of them, but I was continually frustrated at the extremely annoying modern musical processing. the different styles of song were absolutely fine with me, I thought they worked wonderfully for the film--its just a shame you can't hear the lyrics for the music. The Mike Teevee song has the best lyrics of any of them and it was the one I could hear the least, so I was very frustrated there.

    The only respect that the original is really superior to this version is in the boat ride. It's a shame because that's the one place in this movie where a tribute to the original would have been appropriate was with the boat ride, it's simply not as good as the original.

    Not a caveat, but a delightful moment I don't want to spoil but must comment on
    The small world melt down and Wonka's introduction as "what a finale... WOW!" is so absolutely perfect and incredibly fun, loved it.

    And I really wish the trailers hadn't used the 'candy doesn't have to have a point' line from the movie cause its such a good moment that its lesser because we know it out of context. [​IMG]

    Overall damn good film I would see again. [​IMG]
  3. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator

    Jun 30, 1999
    Likes Received:
    I was pleasantly surprised by this film, and 20 minutes into it, I was really into it, laughing at all the silly gags, and taking in the bizarre set design that enhanced the look and feel of the film. Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is very strange, in an odd way, you never quite know what depths lie his mischievious streak, perhaps that's the idea, but a little off-putting, nonetheless. Using one guy for all the oompa loompa's was a push for me, some of it was good, but such uniformity in a race sort of dulls my interest in them, even if they have different voices. The children are pretty good in their roles, Freddie Highmore continues to impress with his wisdom beyond his years, and his earnest portrayal of a boy with a good set of values, in spite of temptation that awaits him. The film seldom drags, lots of funny little quips, and big sight gags were a treat, plus I almost fell out of my seat towards the end of the film as Mike TeeVee's segment came to bear. That was good stuff.

    Tim Burton's directorial flavor certainly enhanced this film, and this is the sort of material that suits his odd cinematic eye, and he does a fine job transporting the audience to another place while maintaining that fine line between humorous winks to the audience and out and out strangeness for such an environment that is the Wonka Chocolate Factory.

    I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A- (deducting for Johnny Depp's choices while portraying Willy Wonka as he did.)
  4. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Sep 30, 2002
    Likes Received:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - 8/10

    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.
  5. Ron-P

    Ron-P Producer

    Jul 25, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    I loved it, had a smile on my face the from beginning to end. From what I can remember this is a very good representation of the book.

    Depp did a fantastic job. The kids did a great job as well. The over all feel of the movie was dark with some humor bits thrown in every so often. The inside of the factory didn't have a huge Burton'ish feel to it like Charlie's house did, that is about my only gripe.

    Elfman's music was excellent, reminded me a lot of the old Oingo Boingo music. It fit the film perfectly.

    This gets a 10/10 from me. I'll be going back for a second viewing in a week or so. Best film of the year so far.
  6. Rhoq

    Rhoq Supporting Actor

    Mar 1, 2004
    Likes Received:
    I grew up on 'Willie Wonka & The Chocolate Factory'. Aside from the 'Star Wars' films, I would have to say that it was my favorite movie when I was a kid.

    I love Tim Burton and Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors. Every Burton/Depp collaboration is pure magic. I went into 'Charlie & The Chocolate Factory' with huge expectations. While, I enjoyed the film - I can't say that I loved it. All of the performances were great (shit, I even welled-up a bit when Charlie found the golden ticket, LOL) and Depp was delightfully demented as "Willy Wonka" but I have to say that as much as I enjoyed Depp in the role, I still prefer Gene Wilder's interpretation of the character and the 1971 film.
  7. Shawn_KE

    Shawn_KE Screenwriter

    Nov 25, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Thought it was a entertaining movie, Depp played the part well. Almost all the parts were well acted. It did slow in parts and the fx weren't the the best. I give it a 4 of 5.

    I loved the 2001 usage with the music, the monoliths voices and the Wonka bar in place of the monolith.
  8. todd stone

    todd stone Screenwriter

    Dec 1, 2000
    Likes Received:
    great movie. the flashback scenes reminde me of sleepy hollow *in regards to the grey overtones and overall vibe*

    the only part I would consider scary for kids was

    the part with the squirells all chasing the girl and running on her. many kids were frightened around me

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
  9. Chuck Mayer

    Chuck Mayer Lead Actor

    Aug 6, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Northern Virginia
    Real Name:
    Chuck Mayer
    Saw this yesterday at a fairly packed house with a few friends.

    I have to admit, it enchanted me from the get-go. One of Burton's most accomplished films. It doesn't maintain the high level of magic the first section of the film creates (which centers of Charlie's family) throughout, but it stays high enough for me to praise it unabashedly.

    The kids are all great. The adults are as well, and Depp hits the right notes. I agree with some of the above issues, but none were major. Only Tim Burton can still make fairy tales, and make them really work at that level.

    I expected to like it, and I loved it. A visual stunner for sure. With a real heart (something not always found in Tim B. movies [I think he can get carried away])!

    Looking forward to the Corpse Bride!

  10. Colton

    Colton Supporting Actor

    Jan 12, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Am I the only one who didn't care for this movie? It never warmed up to me. The children are quickly introduced and then used as props to move the story along. Perhaps I'm spoiled with the 1971 version where the children had more character and personality. Who can forget the constant whining and evilness of Veruca Salt from the Mel Stuart version? These new characters (except for Charlie) felt flat and void of emotion.

    Also, something I enjoyed from the 1971 version was the exciting build-up to the Golden Ticket winners. The grand introduction of Willy Wonka as he opens his factory as a huge crowd gathers outside the gates, the band plays, the bell tolls and people cheer and the doors magically swing open to reveil Willy Wonka - limping on a cane and then fooling everyone as he falls and leaps to his feet. He's a hopeless eccentric (Gene Wilder) that you like instantly. The long contract with the very small print that each child has to sign. Everything from the 1971 version was colorful and charming.

    Tim Burton's version, although more faithful to the book, has some additions of his own. The backstory of Willy Wonka slowed the movie down. This should have concentrated more on Charlie and not how Willy Wonka's past influenced his behavior - which I also found dull. Was Johnny Depp the perfect actor for Willy Wonka? Hard to say. His colorless character wasn't what I pictured Willy Wonka to be. I was disappointed how rushed the entire journey through the Wonka factory went. There's hardly any time enjoying the ediable environment of the candyland atmosphere.

    Also, I found it disturbing when Charlie retires to his room that has this huge hole in the ceiling where he can look out from his second floor bedroom. Keeping in mind that this is taking place in a wintertime season. What does this poor kid do to keep warm? What if it rains?

    I'm sorry, I just didn't care for this version of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. It feels too manufactured and sugar-coated to cover up for this tasteless treat.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] / [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    - Colton
  11. Robert Ringwald

    Robert Ringwald Cinematographer

    May 16, 2001
    Likes Received:
    I enjoyed it very much, but felt Depp was out of place. Otherwise it was very magical. It had the same feel as James and the Giant Peach in some parts, and I can imagine that film not working had they cast a huge name in certain roles. This movie felt really great, and I just feel like Depp gave it too much of a weird vibe as opposed to mysterious.

    Wasn't too keen on the explanation of Wonka's oddities, and the final act was unnecessary. Can you imagine how Matilda would have been if the Trunchbull's anger was traced back to an abusive family life and Matilda took her by the hand and led her to reconnect with her family? It was a useless addition to the film and I with they'd have cut the subplot from the movie. Other than that, it was a fun and inventive film. Part of me thinks Depp's performance wouldn't have bothered me so much had he not eaten up so much of the run-time. The movie started off about Charlie... and as it continued it just spent too much time on Wonka. Other than these minor complains it definitely took me by surprise. I also loved the lack of toilet humor. So many kids movies stoop to a low level to get laughs. The scene in the teaser with the chocolate river and the fart noise had me worried. Obviously just a bad choice by whoever cut that together. This one was intelligent and a great tribute to the original novel.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] / [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
  12. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Mar 23, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Quote - "The children are quickly introduced and then used as props to move the story along."

    I felt the same way. While I really liked the movie, and liked the kids, I never felt the kids were bratty enough, they just seemed like any other kid off the street, except for Charlie who was a little too good. In the 71' version the kids were brats and they seemed to have more to do.

    Grandpa Joe was very good as were all the elements of Charlie's world. Johnny Depp was okay too, though he did seem too much like Michael Jackson and I could have done without the childhood flashbacks. Plus the ending did seem to go on ten minutes after the story had ended.

    The effects were great! Loved the squirrels, the blueberry bit and the suction pipe. The ommpa loompas? were very good also (or shall I say the one guy who played all of them.)

    While I like the movie, I did miss Gene Wilder's wild and psychotic take on the role, you never knew when he was going to blow and he had a meanstrike in him that was in good contrast to the bratty kids. The children just didn't seem to deserve their fates in this version.
  13. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Founder

    Jul 3, 1997
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein

    For me, like most of you, Willy Wonka has been
    a staple of my childhood. Though I was 8 years old, I
    still remember the day I saw it at the Paramount
    Theater in Asbury Park. The film was utter magic,
    and to this day, it remains amongst my favorite films.

    Shortly after seeing the original film, I read Dahl's
    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as well as the
    book's sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.
    The latter book is kind of neat as it picks up right
    after the first book as the glass elevator soars into
    space and Wonka and Charlie's family are put face-to-face
    with Vermicious Kinids. Interesting reading.


    When I heard that Burton was planning on doing a
    reworking of this classic film, I was worried. It's
    a very difficult task to take a beloved film such
    as this and give it a fresh new interpretation. It's
    almost as if someone decided to remake The Wizard
    Of Oz
    . There are just some films that will
    never be able to succeed beyond the original.

    I'll immediately tell you that Burton's Charlie
    and The Chocolate Factory
    falls short of
    Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I can't
    see any fan of the original movie walking away thinking
    that this interpretation is any better.

    But that's the problem to begin with!

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on its
    own merits is a pretty amazing effort and if not for
    the original film, it would not be judged as harshly.

    I'm a huge fan of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. For
    that reason, I went into the theater with very high
    expectations which can easily cause disappointment.
    Despite the fact I sat through the film during a
    bargain matinee with screaming kids, I was kept
    very well entertained throughout.


    I don't think anyone but Tim Burton could have
    pulled this film off. Anyone familiar with the
    director's knack for visual flair will appreciate
    the smorgasborg of creative set pieces whose attention
    to detail is nothing short of stunning. I particularly
    enjoyed the initial glass elevator ride and the
    following sequence that involves the demise of Mike
    TeeVee with homage payed to Stanley Kubrik.

    It is my understanding that the book's author Roald
    Dahl was not happy with the the 1971 adaptation of
    his book. Charlie does follow more closely to
    the original book this time around, but the film's
    biggest flaw is when it completely sidetracks by
    introducing a background story that introduces us
    to Wonka's father (Christopher Lee). It is this
    side story that not only drags the film down, but
    causes it to run 10 minutes more than it should have
    by introducing an ending that was never in the book
    and subsequently, not as good.

    If I remember correctly, the film ends as Wonka,
    Grandpa and Charlie break out of the factory in
    the glass elevator. They then pick up the rest of
    the family members and take them along for a ride
    where they are promised to be kept together.

    Another initial problem I had was Johnny Depp's
    high-pitched, frop haired, purple-gloved, ultra-weird
    portrayal of Willy Wonka. It's Burton's most bizarre
    character to date and I warn that it's a drastic
    departure from the charm of Gene Wilder. Depp's Wonka
    doesn't hide the fact that he can’t stand children, and
    you can see that he's quite excited by their demise.

    I am guessing the acceptance of Depp in this role
    will be the "make" or "break" factor for anyone's
    enjoyment of this film.

    Another problem is that Charlie seems to
    concentrate on visual flair rather than its characters.
    Whereas the charm of Willy Wonka was based
    upon its characterization, in Charlie we are
    hurriedly introduced to the main characters and the
    children as if we are getting purposely rushed into
    the factory. We never seem to learn or care enough
    about these characters.

    Eventually I warmed up to Depp's peculiar Wonka
    and it was at that point I was able to sit back
    and really get into this film.


    Once inside the renowned Chocolate Factory the
    movie turns into a non-stop amusement ride that
    looks like it was designed by Walt Disney on
    hallucinogenic drugs. It's signature Burton!
    It's this ride that keeps the film running at a
    comfortable pace as 5 children and their parents
    travel from one skewered set piece to another
    enhanced by an entourage of Oompah Loompahs (all
    played Deep Roy). At certain moments the film
    almost turns into a quasi-musical as we are treated
    to Loompah renderings of Busbey Burkley, disco and
    rock numbers. It's these moments that take the film
    to fresh new highs, and I must admit, I was tapping
    my feet along.

    The most shining performance of this film comes
    from Finding Neverland star Freddie Highmore.
    His portrayal of Charlie Bucket is as pure as the
    chocolate Wonka makes -- and I dare say is a better
    Charlie than that portrayed in the original film.


    In all, I really enjoyed Charlie and The Chocolate
    for doing the impossible -- taking a
    tried and true favorite and putting a new spin upon it.
    Though I had my share of complaints throughout this
    review, they are all based upon comparing to the original.
    In the end can't help but admit that I liked this
    film. I really liked this film!

    To rate this film would be difficult. If I were to
    compare it to the original, it would lose a STAR.

    However, to be fair, this film needs to be rated
    on its own merit. For that I give it a solid 4 stars.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] / [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    This is one film that will be demo material for DVD
    and a large widescreen display. It is already placed
    as my most anticipated purchase this year.
  14. Jonathan T.

    Jonathan T. Stunt Coordinator

    May 6, 2005
    Likes Received:

    I have to confess. I would LOVE to see remake of the Wizard of Oz that was faithful to the book. The original is such an enshrined classic that a remake could do nothing but compliment it. A modern version of the wizard of Oz, ture to the book, with modern special effects would be magical.

    As for Charlie, Depp was a huge disapointment. There is nothing seriously wrong with this film at all, except for Depp, and that is truly surprising. As I said in the other thread, this movie is more ture to the book in it's storyline, but Wilder more accurately caputured the character of Wonka as he was written.
  15. Jeffrey Nelson

    Jeffrey Nelson Screenwriter

    Sep 4, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Seattle, WA
    Real Name:
    Jeffrey Nelson
    My take on the film, which I saw over the weekend with my boy (SPOILERS):

    Parts of it I did like. The fact that David Kelly played Grampa Joe was most heartening; I didn't even know he was still with us! (I was introduced to him through the classic Fawlty Towers episode entitled "The Builders", in which David plays O'Reilly, a hilariously inept Irish builder who's hired to remodel part of the hotel, with disastrous results.) While not as perfect for the role as Jack Albertson (who could be?), he was still damn good, even though the script lamentably didn't give him much to do. I also liked the fleshing out of Charlie's family, i.e. he has a father now, as in the book, and his job in the toothpaste factory is even shown. I thought the toothpaste cap sculpture was a nice touch. It was also nice to see that the other grandparents had more part in the story, especially the hilarious David Morris as Grampa George. Freddie Highmore was very good as Charlie, if different than Peter Ostrum's take, which I still love. I liked what was done with the characters of Violet and her mother, the obnoxiously self-obsessed rise-to-the-top-at-all-costs clones.

    I much appreciated the squirrel scene, straight out of the book as I'd always envisioned it. (The blending of real squirrels and CGI squirrels is about as seamless as it could be done, and I'm usually pretty critical of CGI.) Ditto the scene featuring Prince Pondicherry and his melting chocolate palace...great stuff. Other previously unseen details from the book were nice too, like the actual Great Glass Elevator, and when the Oompa Loompas are seen climbing Fudge Mountain and hacking off hunks of it. BUT...

    The Oompa Loompa songs didn't work at all, despite the lyrics being straight from the book. Sorry to say, but Newley and Bricusse's work in the first film surpassed Dahl's lyrics, possibly because they're songwriters, and Dahl wasn't; perhaps they would have been better left as chants, like in the book, instead of being set to none-too-impressive Elfman orchestrations in wildly varying (and clashing) styles. Wonka's Welcoming Song just didn't work either; actually, the entire introduction of Wonka's character fell amazingly flat, especially in comparison to the same scene in the original film. No musical moment in this film can touch "Pure Imagination" (which should have won Best Song in 1971) or "Candy Man". And the one extremely important scene of Charlie finding the Golden Ticket is, incredibly, completely muffed. No dramatic buildup or payoff whatsoever; it just happens, almost as an afterthought. Blah. I just couldn't believe it. (I'm beginning to think that Mel Stuart is an underrated director; he may not be too flashy, but he sure knows how to tell a good story. I've loved both the original Wonka as well as IF IT'S TUESDAY, THIS MUST BE BELGIUM.) The entire end is bollocks, and is seemingly only there to tie in with Wonka's newly-created backstory. Julia Winter is no match for Julie Dawn Cole as Veruca Salt. And is it just me, or does Augustus Gloop look computer-generated in some scenes?

    And finally...I just didn't buy Depp's take on the character. His performance came off forced, like he was trying too hard to be weird, although it was a valiant try. And since I didn't buy the central character, that damages the film beyond repair for me. Wilder didn't seem to be acting at all; he was a living, breathing Wonka.

    The new film is supposedly closer to the book, and in some ways it is closer to the LETTER of the book, but in other ways it strays just as far as the original, farther in fact, and in no way is it closer in SPIRIT to the book, which I thought the original had covered 100%.
  16. Jonathan T.

    Jonathan T. Stunt Coordinator

    May 6, 2005
    Likes Received:
    I agree with your entire first paragraph, Jeffery. Those are all good things about the film.

    I disagree about the elevator. In fact, the more unrealistic the factory became, the more the magic was destroyed. It was left out of the original because of budget constraints, and a damn good thing. What works in print can be ridiculous on screen.

    I also disagree about the Oompa loompa songs, high point for me.

    Everything else, including Depps terrible Wonka ruined the film for me. The script is sloppy, the characters are reduced to charicatures all around, especially the parents, the ending is indeed awful, and the whole flashblack to wonka's childhood nonsense. But alas, I have already details my complaints in the discussion thread. And I will say no more here.
  17. Lev-S

    Lev-S Second Unit

    Jun 29, 2003
    Likes Received:
    This movie was insulting. And by that I mean that I felt like my intelligence was being b*tch-slapped as I watched it. I love the original, and as I got older and watched it as a teen and then adult, I picked up on so much more that was in the film (Gene Wilder's quips still occupy a fairly large portion of my sub-conscious). The story of the finding of the golden-tickets, the magic of entering the factory and seeing all sorts of weird and wacky contraptions, and the dramatic climax all remain fairly timeless. When compared to the original which had many jokes and lines intended for adults, "Charlie" was watered down to expository dialogue-only which I found quite boring. The whole movie felt like a "color-by-numbers" ordeal aimed at young children only. Not to much dialogue stuck out for me as being memorable, which I found peculiar considering the plethora of resources at the writer's fingertips.

    I thought that the kids were all forgettable, save for Charlie who I think did a better job than the actor in the original. Highmore was very impressive and was just a little more believable than Peter Ostrum. I also enjoyed the buildup of the original when it came to the ticket finders, something that was glossed over way too quickly here.

    Depp seemed to be severely restrained in his interpretation of Wonka. I have to admit that I was watching the movie more for him than for Tim Burton, and I couldn't help but feel a little let-down when Depp did little else than explain plot and seldomly make a funny quip. Where was the hint of Raoul Duke that his character so desperately needed? I felt like I was watching a less funny Dr. Evil from "Austin Powers".

    The Oompa Loompa's songs were a veritable train-wreck, mashing annoying "pop" music for the kids of today with indecipherable lyrics which pale in contrast to the original. You could actually sing along with the original if you wished, unlike here.

    Overall, I just couldn't get into it. The movie was constantly shifting gears, trying to cover all the narrative bases, that I couldn't identify with much on-screen. While the original focused on Charlie, the kids and the tour of the factory, the new one goes all over the place: Charlie, the chocolate Taj Mahal or whatever that was, the factory tour, Wonka's character, the Oompa Loompas, the kids. It just didn't commit to one thing long enough before jerking you into something else. More on this later...

    And as for the factory in particular, Mr. Burton, if you're going to make a weird and wacky factory you might not want to make everything about the "real world" weird and wacky as well; it kind of kills the contrast between the two places. But I digress...

    I think it is also important to note that while "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" may stay truer to the narrative of the book, the screenplay just wasn't written very well. As I mentioned previously, the dialogue was just too simple and mostly there to drive the plot. Books are a totally different medium than movies and as such need to be accomodated appropriately (as evidenced by the LOTR trilogy). Dahl understood this and adjusted accordingly for the original release, this writer did not.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] /[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
  18. Craig J. Koban

    Craig J. Koban Stunt Coordinator

    Apr 26, 2004
    Likes Received:
    This was a pleasant film, one of great visuals and of high spirits. I thought it was kind of capitivating and fun!
  19. Eric Peterson

    Eric Peterson Cinematographer

    Aug 2, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Overall, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed by this film. Although I do enjoy the original film, I'm far from being a huge fan of it, and looked forward to Burton's interpretation, but in the end it left me wanting.

    There were definant highs & lows during this film, and one of the highs was was definitely the casting. All of the children were cast exceptionally well excpet for Mike TeeVee who just annoyed me (Maybe that was the point?), and all of Charlie's family was cast equally well. I was looking forward to Depp as Wonka, but I don't think that his characterization worked very well. I was defnitely quirky (as it should've been), and I liked the makeup & costume, but something about it just didn't work for me.

    The sets were wonderful, but the CGI seemed a bit too fake for me, but then again there is very little CGI that ever convinces me.

    At this point, my review sounds pretty good, but here is where it goes south. The Oompa Loompas were flat-out irritating and their songs were horrible (..and I like Danny Elfman). What was he thinking? I had to strain to hear the lyrics behind the overdriven instrumentation on every song. The idea of turning them into Busby Berkleyesque numbers was also a big failure in my book. The Oompa Loompa flashback story was unnecesary as it was simply extraneous information, and an added excuse to add some pretty visuals and a gross-out moment. This did nothing but slow down the movie.

    The addition of a backstory for Wonka was also unnecessary in my book, although the concept was very sound, and I enjoyed Christopher Lee as the evil dentist father. I did get a chuckle out of the rubber glove moment near the end though.

    I feel a bit generous with this review, but here goes.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
  20. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor

    Apr 19, 1999
    Likes Received:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    In short, I thought it was inferior in every way to Mel Stuart's classic 1971 film.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] (out of 4)

Share This Page