Charlie & the Chocolate Factory

[GeorgeC]

I guess I have to start it.

Yes, I saw the picture this weekend. I saw it with a parental unit since I was visiting. It was the first time in months that ALL my siblings and I were at my parents' house at the same time so I paid a short visit. (One day is enough when you're grown up -- you generally DON'T want to spend too much time visiting relatives!) Good news -- the parental unit DIDN'T fall asleep and that's amazing since we saw the 9:40 showing of the film!

It's not a half-bad film. Better than the Wilder version? Hmmm... I don't think so.

Whether this film is true to Roald Dahl's vision, I don't care at this point in time. I've heard tons of people complain about changes from the LOTR novels to screen and about every major fantasy novel you can think of. What matters is how the film stands on its own two feet.

Again, not-too-shabby. The film actually works fairly well. Tim Burton is so hit-and-miss with me that I don't take what his cult of worshippers have to say very seriously. I'm surprised that for the second time in a row I've liked one of his recent films.

But back to the points of comparison with the Wilder Wonka film.
A) Hands-down, the Burton film wins with respect to production values and technology. It can't lose here because there's 3 decades worth of FX improvements and a budget 15-20 times greater than the 70's film had to work with;
B) The kids are about equal with respect to acting talent in both versions, but the Burton film edges them out with pure rottenness -- you can't wait to see THOSE little sh**s get what's coming to them!
C) Music is where the Wilder version pulls ahead... The music in that film, at least some of it, became iconic and remains so. I didn't hear a bit of music in the Burton film that stands out as great or timeless. Yes, the music is loopy and might be worth buying on CD, HOWEVER... The problem here is that the composer DID stick too close to the book and adapted Dahl's words for his lyrics! Somehow, "Candy Man" and "Pure Imagination" stand out as better pieces of music even if they WEREN'T in the original Dahl books;
D) Gene Wilder was a better Willy Wonka than Johnny Depp. Depp's Willy Wonka gives off a creepy pedophilish vibe and it's real obvious he based his characterization off of Michael Jackson. I wouldn't trust his Wonka with kids. Wilder's Wonka, on the other hand, has a puckish charm and double entendre sense of humor that's appealing to all ages. He's P.T. Barnum and Dr. Seuss rolled into one.

The other problem with the Depp Wonka is that for some reason the film's screenwriter felt it necessary to give him a backstory and introduce Wonka's father so that Burton could use Christopher Lee in another co-starring/cameo role. The backstory is NOT in the original book, by the way (as far as I can remember), but still feels obviously grafted into the film. Score another point for the Wilder Wonka since they kept him mysterious and didn't explain away his complete story;


And

E) No two ways about it, but the Burton film is definitely more mean-spirited than the Wilder version. It doesn't mean it's a horrible film, but it's not as innocent and it's unfortunate that it's been released in the wake of what's happened at Neverland Ranch. Yes, the Burton film has a happy ending, too, but the overall tone of the film is meaner -- not Ren & Stimpy/Bob Clampett mean --, but it's definitely not your typical kid-friendly film. Not that that's a bad thing, either.

The Wilder and Burton films are two films adapted from the same sources that are wildly different in the end. There's enough differences that you can't consider the Burton film a remake. Which film is the better one is up to the individual viewer, but neither in my opinion is really a completely faithful adaptation of the Dahl books since a lot gets added, deleted, or changed from the original Wonka stories.

Me personally, if I had to choose the better film by lead performance and music, I'd go with the older Wilder film. If I had to choose the film by backgrounds and special effects, there's no question the newer films wins hands-down. As far as classic goes, the Wilder film is no question still a classic even with the recent update...

[ShyViolet]

) Gene Wilder was a better Willy Wonka than Johnny Depp. Depp's Willy Wonka gives off a creepy pedophilish vibe and it's real obvious he based his characterization off of Michael Jackson. I wouldn't trust his Wonka with kids. Wilder's Wonka, on the other hand, has a puckish charm and double entendre sense of humor that's appealing to all ages. He's P.T. Barnum and Dr. Seuss rolled into one.

I kind of agree about Depp's Wonka, even though I liked him. He was definetely interesting, but he freaked me out a little. I also totally picked up on a weird "vibe" he had with the children, he actually seemed resentful of them for some reason (hence the thinly veiled hostility) as though he wants to get back at them for having the indulged childhood he never had. (Well, maybe.) He keeps trying to be like them, be like a child but instead he's a just a freak... (sound familiar?)

***MORE SPOILERS!***Depp's Wonka obviously had all these issues with his dad and thus he could never truly begin to mature until he sorted them out. He had never really been a "son", so thus he could never really be a "father figure" to the children. He just seemed to float in his own little crazy world, his "Neverland" and so when he *SPOILER* asks Charlie to live with him in his factory and then says: "Your family can't come!" that's a TOTALLY different ending from the sweet scene at the end of Wilder's Wonka when he tells Charlie the good news. Completely different, and rather disturbing, implications....he (like a certain someone) wants to exist in his child-world FOREVER with the child of his choice and never have to change or grow up. The last scene in the film, when he's having dinner with Charlie and the fam at the factory and begins to come out of his shell-like weirdness, is the begining of his "therapy" into a mature, developed man. That's what the film's really about--unlike Wilder's film where Charlie is the victim saved by the heroic Wonka, it's the other way around. Charlie is really the one who "teaches" Wonka.

[Menace]

Alrighty then. I saw the movie last night (finally) and if what I write here and now offends anyone--screw it! I'm too honest for my own good.

First let me say this much: anyone who thought that Depp was following a Michael Jackson theme here or was putting out a pedophilic vibe in the movie should be bitch slapped because you are delusional! Creepy...yes. Slightly off his rocker even...sure. Pedo....don't think so!

Naturally as I was watching this movie I did a lot of comparison with the 70s version. One of the biggest differences I noticed was the fact that they chose to step away from having a musical theme of sorts. Keeping the song singing strictly to the Umpa Lumpas. My wife dug the new jams.

Some of the plot did seem a bit off...though the general story remained the same. For instance, what happened to Slugworth trying to get the kids to steal the secrets from the factory? I liked the deception. And wtf was up with them inserting the whole Wonka's got Daddy issues? That was a little off to me. I know a lot of people already mentioned that wasn't in the book. I never read it, but you can just tell it's added in, ya know?

I must admit I was a bit shocked that they kept most of the lines verbatim when it came to this remake, call it what you will. And while I kept an open mind about the movie, I was wondering why they were remaking a classic movie and giving it a different title. Something that would be nice to see: Charlie taking over the factory as an adult. When I saw the title on bill boards months ago, that's what I originally assumed it was.

Good movie though. Made me laugh a lot too, cause Depp is a riot. Gotta love that "ha!" he inserted into the character, too. Definately will be adding this DVD to my collection when the time permits.

[Ben]

Have to say that "Charlie And The Chocolate Facotry" was the name of the original book.

The first movie was obviously renamed "Willy Wonka And..." because there was a Wonka candy bar brand it it was more about tying into sales more than anything - did you know the first film was financed by the Quaker Oats Company??

This new one sticks much more closely to the book - apart from the Burton flashback insertions - so is rightly named "Charlie And..."

I think the main reason they re-made it is that the studios are looking at their older properties that they can franchise a-new. Since they never made a film sequel to the original, it makes sense that they have re-made it, essentially to get the ball rolling on a "Charlie" franchise that can then see the first film version of the second book, "Charlie And The Great Glass Elevator", which sees Charlie and Wonka go to the land of Oompa Lumpas.

Of course, after that, they could dream up their own Wonka stories...

[ShyViolet]

Ben have you seen Charlie yet??

Some of the plot did seem a bit off...though the general story remained the same. For instance, what happened to Slugworth trying to get the kids to steal the secrets from the factory?

That wasn't in the book either. (It was written for the first film) The first time I saw the Wilder version I was like "Huh? What's that about?"

[Ben]

I tried to go last weekend, but it just filled up.

MAD week this week, but hopefully Friday night.

[Meg]

That wasn't in the book either. (It was written for the first film) The first time I saw the Wilder version I was like "Huh? What's that about?"

Actually...I'm pretty sure it was.

[ShyViolet]

I think Slugworth stealing from Wonka was mentioned in the book, but the whole bit about the "fake" Slugworth convincing the kids to get him an Everlasting Gobstopper...I'm pretty sure that was invented for the film, although I could be wrong.

[Wonderlicious]

I think the main reason they re-made it is that the studios are looking at their older properties that they can franchise a-new. Since they never made a film sequel to the original, it makes sense that they have re-made it, essentially to get the ball rolling on a "Charlie" franchise that can then see the first film version of the second book, "Charlie And The Great Glass Elevator", which sees Charlie and Wonka go to the land of Oompa Lumpas.

I thought something similar too...I hear that a Dakota Fanning production of Alice in Wonderland is possibly coming, and a few years ago, there were rumours of a Queen Lattifah remake of Mary Poppins. Another possible reason for some of these remakes (though rather idiotic) is due to lack of famous children's books left to adapt. Hollywood has done most of the big ones so far (Harry Potter, The Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins, Alice in Wonderland etc), not to mention the number of Roald Dahl tales that have leaped from page to screen, so perhaps studios are tepid to try out adaptations of obscurities, thus going back to the classics for inspiration? I know it's a stupid theory, but still...

Of course, after that, they could dream up their own Wonka stories...

Run!

[Ben]

Well, I saw it last night...

Loved the look and feel - Burton at his best and thought that this film equally co-exists with the Wilder one while neither step on each other's toes.

I'd forgotten (not having read the book since I was 11 or so), how little Charlie actually does in the whole story! At least the Wilder one put in a little action for Charlie and Joe in the factory.

Annoying points: why, if it was ostensibly set in England, was Charlie offered 50 and then 500 DOLLARS for his Golden Ticket? Everyone else had English accents, Charlie's family had so little money I find it hard to believe they upped sticks and lived in the States...

Likewise Wonka (I'll get to Depp in a minute) - why was he an English kid and then an American adult?? The forced-flashbacks did feel a little crammed in, but they kinda worked. The film would be better without them (keep Wonka a mystery), but did provide the biggest laugh - flags of the world!

Ompas - great and much better than I was expecting. Wonka finding them? Terrible scene, in which Depp NEEDED the hair along the sides of his face and the pale make-up. Without them, as he appeard in this scene, he was just Johnny Depp, and not Willy Wonka. In fact, he reminded me more of his Fear And Loathing and Ed Wood characters at that point.

The ending: overlong, but ultimately nice. Won't say anymore, BUT... how come Wonka was looking for someone to take over the factory because he felt he was getting old when he was grown up and his Dad was still around?? He still has a many good years in him yet, so that didn't sell me too good.

Depp as Wonka - strangely, he didn't make much of an impression on me. At times he was just as awestruck by the factory as the others, and at others he took the lead. The balance wasn't quite right there, but he played it as amazing as usual and really pushed the boat out again in some parts. I think, ultimately, Wilder's Wonka was more sinister as he was totally in control and didn't care about the kids fates. Depp didn't either, but he also didn't come across as being totally unsympathetic.

Overall - a great, unexpected delight, with a few problems but none to offset what is a fun, enjoyable outing in this fairly dark and stuffy summer.

[ShyViolet]

I watched it again on Friday night. It is a really excellent film. My favorite Oomp-Loompa song was the one with Mike Tevee!

[Macaluso]

So yeah I just saw it.
And I friggen loved it.
SO. MUCH.

Agustus Gloop's song was my FAVORITE.

[ShyViolet]

Also the chocolate castle in India!

[Macaluso]

That movie did, infact, make me crave some chocolate REALLY friggen badly.

[ShyViolet]

This may be kind of off-topic but I thought Charlie's parents made a very cute couple. (The dad was so sweet.)

BTW did anyone notice that the name of the toothpaste that the dad worked for was called "Smilex" as in the toxic products the Joker made in Batman I?? (They killed their victims with a paralyzing smile.) That was another Tim Burton movie, of course.