"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Mr Cat Dog]

The Factory Opens July 2005
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/1226084.jpg
"Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy." - Charlie Bucket

Release Date: July 15, 2005
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, Helena Bonham Carter, David Kelly, Noah Taylor, James Fox, Missi Pyle, Christopher Lee, Jordan Fry, AnnaSophia Robb, Julia Winter, Philip Wiegratz.

Plot Summary: Acclaimed director Tim Burton brings his vividly imaginative style to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," about eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka, and Charlie, a good-hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka's extraordinary factory. Long isolated from his own family, Wonka launches a worldwide contest to select an heir to his candy empire. Five lucky children, including Charlie, draw golden tickets from Wonka chocolate bars and win a guided tour of the legendary candy-making facility that no outsider has seen in 15 years. Dazzled by one amazing sight after another, Charlie is drawn into Wonka's fantastic world in this astonishing and enduring story.

Visit the official movie site here (http://www.chocolatefactorymovie.com)

Comments?

[Silly McGooses]

They're showing this movie at the Omnimax dome near my house so I'm going to see it there; it looks very good. Rotten Tomatoes has it around 85%.

My favorite line from the trailers:
Charlie: You mean the grass is edible?!
Willy Wonka: Of course! Everything here is edible. Even I'M edible. But that, my dear children, is called canabalism, which is, in fact, frowned upon in most communities.

[Spongebrain2.0]

Wedding Crashers has a rating of 88%, this will be a close race this weekend

[Silly McGooses]

I'm not too sure. After all, Wedding Crashers is rated R, which eliminates the entire teenage audience, and it's not in anywhere near as many theatres as Charlie. Charlie's in IMAX, too. I hope that Charlie makes a lot of money, but I'm pretty sure it will be number one reguardless. I don't think any other movies this weekend will make more than mid-twenty millions.

[rggkjg1]

this was a great movie. tim burton and johnny depp got me interested in the story. i was familiar (but didn't know it) with the story and the 70's movie when i found out tim burton and johnny depp were involved, i knew i had to see it just to see what it would be like. i would have been equally curious if marilyn manson was cast as willy wonka.

i read the book for the first time last week and i was amazed. i would like to compare this movie and the book, but i don't feel it's appropriate for some reason. at certain points in the movie, i thought willy wonka acted like a psycho (the first flash back). i was almost expecting him to kill every one once they got into the factory. this isnt a bad thing though, i knew this would be a "dark" version of the story. his feelings twards the kids were also great as well. i think showing us willy wonka's past were the more "dark" parts of the movie. one funny scene was when wonka ran away to visit other countries and we see him walking with flags in the background, the scene only to be stopped at a "flag musuem" and wonka being told they are closing. that was something you expect to see in an episode of the simpsons and family guy. i also found it humorous that mike was playing an atari console that had 3d graphics too. the only thing missing was the "oompa loompa" song we all know from the 70's movie.

great movie, and great for the kids, teen agers, young adults, EVERYONE! i hope this doesnt get labeled/sterotyped as a "kids" movie.

on a side note, wedding crashers looks like garbage and i think my time and money would be well wasted if i saw that. but in terms of box office, charlie and the chocolate factory will be #1!

[Silly McGooses]

I, for one, am thrilled that they went back to the original oompa loompas, with their original songs from the book, althrough I'm sure that a lot of families will miss the orange people with green hair. That thing with the flags was pretty hillarious. I went to see the movie at an Omnimax dome and it was just amazing, seeing the factory, especially the Chocolate room, in bigger-than-life size. As would be expected for an Omnimax dome, they were sold out, but I'm curious how crowded other theatres are? I really hope it does well, so we might see "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator" finally made. If they do make a sequel, I hope Tim Burton returns. The man is a genius.

[Natey]

still the 1st version was the best. no matter if i will see the movie are not. I used to watch the old version at my school it was fun and enjoyed the oompa loompas and the naughty children.

~Nate~

[Chad Bonin]

Pales incredibly to the original movie, but hey, this is Tim Burton we're talking about.

... it IS a decent flick, but just nowhere near as awesome as the original.

[Silly McGooses]

still the 1st version was the best.
Pales incredibly to the original movie, but hey, this is Tim Burton we're talking about.

... it IS a decent flick, but just nowhere near as awesome as the original.
Why does everyone still think this is a remake of that cheap, over-valued 70s movie? The whole point is to fix its mistakes

And Tim Burton is a genius, man!

[Zero-V]

Why does everyone still think this is a remake of that cheap, over-valued 70s movie?"Cheap" my ass.

I watched that way before I read the books, and found it to be most of the charming, and entertaining, movies I've ever watched, regardless of flaw

You know how funny it is when people say they actually prefer an original version to a recent "update", and people who seem entrenched in the philopsophy of "New Versions Are Better" go more than ballistic? Quite, quite amusing, the same tripe happened when I dared suggested Burtons' Batman was better than Batman Begins.

[AF$]

Pales incredibly to the original movie, but hey, this is Tim Burton we're talking about.

... it IS a decent flick, but just nowhere near as awesome as the original.I disagree, and I'm not even a Burton fan. I thought Burton's version was very tight, never leaving a dull moment. The old version drags quite a bit, especially at the factory. I also enjoyed the flashbacks, they really helped tie the movie together and vary the scenes. Probably could have done without the songs (in both movies).

Also, I think this movie is going to kill Wedding Crashers in terms of box office pull.

[Hades]

Why does everyone still think this is a remake of that cheap, over-valued 70s movie? The whole point is to fix its mistakes

And Tim Burton is a genius, man!I have to agree here. The old movie to the new movie is like comparing the Adam West Batman to Batman Begins, there is no contest there. Old = a comedy wannabe & new = serious and faithful to the original material.

[Zero-V]

I have to agree here. The old movie to the new movie is like comparing the Adam West Batman to Batman Begins, old = crap & new = awesome and faithful to the original material.Poetic and mature choice of words there:shrug:

I'd pick the Shark Repellant Batspray over bland Katie Holmes and her crappy Scarecrow owning tazer anyday.

I've got a few choice words to say to people who seem to urinate all over movies people might have a strong affection for with words like "crap", "pathetic", and "why do you prefer that over this?" because it makes them look "big" (it does'nt), but I'm above uttering them

I'd like to also point out, that the first movie influenced cinema history, and a billion other projects afterwards, entrenched in peoples' memories forever, and shaping future directors to follow in its' footsteps.

This?

This is going to be "Just another movie"

[AkirQueen]

My favorite line from the trailers:
Charlie: You mean the grass is edible?!
Willy Wonka: Of course! Everything here is edible. Even I'M edible. But that, my dear children, is called canabalism, which is, in fact, frowned upon in most communities.
YES! XD I could not stop laughing at that line.

Anyways...about the film...It was good. Not like "OMFG BURTON'S BEST FILM EVUR!!11!!". War of the Worlds still remains my favorite movie of the summer(year, rather) as of now.
I'm not sure if I like this one better than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or not. I grew up with that one, so seeing another movie with the same plot, for the most part, was kinda odd. I do love the fact that its only the Oompa Loompas singing in this movie, tho, since that was originally in the book.
Depp totally stole the show because of Wonka's eccentricity. Of course, that was to be expected after just seeing the trailers

I really thought the CGI stuff was amazing. Making hundreds of Oompa Loompas look EXACTLY the same and do dance numbers with them? Not easy. Same goes for making 60 squirrels attack Veruca.
Speaking of Veruca, I thought she looked identical to the orginal. It was creepy...I also completely forgot about Mike Teavea. "MUMBLER!" XD

The only aspect I really loved about the movie was the music. My mom can vouch that I was dancing in my seat

[xokxtrunks]

Just saw this today, and I can officially proclaim, OLD>NEW

[Lord Dalek]

The thing is, you guys who liked the original have obviously never read the book.

[Silly McGooses]

The thing is, you guys who liked the original have obviously never read the book.Exunctly, as the BFG might say.

Though Dahl is credited with writing the screenplay, it was taken out of his hands by the studio and given to another writer who made changes that Dahl was very upset about. Looking back on it, he was quoted as saying "Hollywood really ****** it up."

[xokxtrunks]

Story-wise, maybe the new one won that battle, but casting is what makes it. Gene Wilder is much more convincing, than someone like...ugh...Johnny Depp. Personally I enjoy the old classic better, but it's probably just me. (PS: I've read the book before ;) )

[Lord Dalek]

Though Dahl is credited with writing the screenplay, it was taken out of his hands by the studio and given to another writer who made changes that Dahl was very upset about. Looking back on it, he was quoted as saying "Hollywood really ****** it up."No wonder why Great Glass Elevator has never been filmed.

Somebody should make a feature length version of "Lamb to the Slaughter", I swear.

[Silly McGooses]

"Cheap" my ass.

I watched that way before I read the books, and found it to be most of the charming, and entertaining, movies I've ever watched, regardless of flaw

You know how funny it is when people say they actually prefer an original version to a recent "update", and people who seem entrenched in the philopsophy of "New Versions Are Better" go more than ballistic? Quite, quite amusing, the same tripe happened when I dared suggested Burtons' Batman was better than Batman Begins.
I don't believe that new>old. I was one of the other few who dared to say Batman '89 was superior to Begins. I think a lot of it depends on what you did first-read the book or watched the movie. I first read the book and was extremely dissapointed when I saw the film. It just didn't seem enchanting to me at all; it seemed corny and seventies, and in particularly the Chocolate Room was just a little park with a small waterfall that shot brown water, possibly sewage, instead of chocolate. The reason I like the new version more is because it is a true version of the old book breathtakingly portrayed on the big screen (or really big screen if you see it in IMAX, or really, really big screen if you see it in an Omnimax dome). Even the new bits, which were all extremely clever and original, were faithful to the spirit of the original.

I think that the people who prefer the "original" mostly do so for sentimental or nostalgic reasons and fond memories of watching it as a small child, not really because it is a superior film. I do not completely base my opinions on what is more faithful to the source; in fact I loved the parts they added to the new film. The background they gave on Wonka was fascinating and Christopher Lee was brilliant as his father, but they still kept him mysterious. Perhaps the fact that I saw this movie in an Omnimax dome influences my opinion because I've now seen it in all it's potential visual glory, but I think I will still love it as much on the small screen.

[Silly McGooses]

No wonder why Great Glass Elevator has never been filmed.

Somebody should make a feature length version of "Lamb to the Slaughter", I swear.
Ha ha. Hitchcock's small-screen version for his TV show was pretty awesome.

[Zero-V]

I think that the people who prefer the "original" mostly do so for sentimental or nostalgic reasons and fond memories of watching it as a small child, not really because it is a superior film.
Errr.....no, I like it because it actually displays powerful performances from every cast member involved, there was a genuine sense of commitment and love for the characters they were portraying, and reeled the audience into that, from the trailer, I saw typical Burton, but none of what made the original enlightning, from peformances or otherwise

This film won't make history, it's another endless symbol of Hollywood tardiness in my view, superior or not, it's just another movie. Popcorn filler for a bored date.

[Scythemantis]

Poetic and mature choice of words there:shrug:

I've got a few choice words to say to people who seem to urinate all over movies people might have a strong affection for with words like "crap", "pathetic", and "why do you prefer that over this?" because it makes them look "big" (it does'nt), but I'm above uttering them"

You're being immature here. Just for using the word "crap" you're completely trashing him and exaggerating what he said immensely. I didn't even think he was actually calling old things "crap", I thought he was just describing a common attitude.

And I'm amazed there's people who really fight over this sort of thing. I thought it was always the OTHER way around - that most people stick to older things without giving new things a chance.

[Hades]

Story-wise, maybe the new one won that battle, but casting is what makes it. Gene Wilder is much more convincing, than someone like...ugh...Johnny Depp. Personally I enjoy the old classic better, but it's probably just me. (PS: I've read the book before ;) )
I disagree. Maybe if I was around when Wilder was a top actor and that movie came out, I would think differently, but as far as I'm concerned, Depp is one of the best actors we have today, and have ever had. Very rarely does he go for the mainstream movies unless he has an interest in them, and that is good because he could use his looks to be in any movie he so chooses to be in, but he doesn't. <coughcoughTomCruisecoughcough> Edward Scissorhands, From Hell, Sleepy Hollow, Finding Neverland, etc. Those were never meant to be big movies. Yes, Once Upon a Time in Mexico was meant to be a top movie (I think), but Depp's performance was quite poor in that one. He just didn't feel like Depp. However, Pirates of the Caribbean is his best movie yet, and I doubt Disney had anticipated it being the money maker it was.

Anyway, I never really enjoyed the original movie to begin with, but the book was decent. However, if it weren't for Depp, I probably would not be seeing this movie.

[Zero-V]

I didn't even think he was actually calling old things "crap", I thought he was just describing a common attitude.
You have a point there, I guess my dealings with the "common attitude" has made it difficult to tell sincerity from generalisation

[SirLemming]

I haven't seen it yet, but I have a feeling I'll wind up seeing it after the talkback is dead, so just a few thoughts...


If Johnny Depp does a better Willie Wonka than Gene Wilder did, I'll be surprised. It's hard. Really hard. I expect it to just be different. Since the title of this movie is, accurately, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead of Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, it seems that Wonka really won't be the main character here. Charlie was technically the main character in the old version, but come on, did anyone really care about him? It was all about Willie Wonka.
So what I'm expecting from this movie is a remedy to that flaw. So if Depp's Wonka isn't as good, but he isn't effectively the main character anymore, I'll be satisfied.

Also, I'm glad there are still Oompa-Loompa songs, since there were in the book, and I'm also glad that Danny Elfman did them, since you need someone like him to be able to stand up to the test of being compared to the old songs.
I'm also glad that there are NO other songs, since the other musical numbers in the old version weren't really spectacular. Most of them were good, but particularly, "Cheer Up, Charlie" was always a bore. And, like someone else said, some of those early pre-factory scenes do kind of drag. But nobody remembers that, they just remember the factory scenes with the brilliant happy sinister portrayal of Willy Wonka.

[Tobias]

I liked 'Charlie'. Both this and the original had things that were great, and things that were boring. Both films are good in their own right.

And Mike Teavee irritated THE HELL out of me in this movie. The original version was only slightly annoying, and the new kid playing him made me wish the Oompa Loompas would have just stomped him out the minute he entered the factory.

[Silly McGooses]

Ah, but Mike Teavee was SUPPOSED to annoy the hell out of you!:evil:


The movie made $20.5 million on Friday, so it's doing better than many expected. I'm glad. Who's ready for "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator?":D

[Lord Dalek]

The movie made $20.5 million on Friday, so it's doing better than many expected. Twice as much as Wedding Crashers, so it appears my estimates held.

And boy did the Fantastic 4 fall like a stone.

[Silly McGooses]

Twice as much as Wedding Crashers, so it appears my estimates held.

And boy did the Fantastic 4 fall like a stone.Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Arad went back on that promise of a sequel.

P.S. Here's my big ol', long review of C&TCF
http://www.livejournal.com/users/citizen_orson/3576.html

[Spongebrain2.0]

Twice as much as Wedding Crashers, so it appears my estimates held.

And boy did the Fantastic 4 fall like a stone.

YES! Wedding Crashers is on its way to 28-30 million opener, it's great, it has reinvented the R rated comedy

[Silly McGooses]

lets see if The Forty-Year-Old Virgin" can keep it up. Personally, I think that it will probably end up with about as much as Wedding Crashers does opening weekend.

[Parallax]

My problem with this movie is that they said they were going to be closer to the book but they still added the whole flashback thing. (Which I think might've been better if implied and more subtle) They also said it would be more about Charlie than Wonka this time, but once we introduce Wonka he becomes the focus. Charlie pretty much get losts in the factory.

Another problem is I didn't like any of these characters. Charlie is too perfect and Depp was just weird. (Wilder's fantastic performance in the first probaly made this a more obvious flaw) The rest of the kid's we aren't supposed to like and Charlie's family I just feel sorry for.

I still liked it, though. The movie was colorful and I thought all the sets were ALOT better this time. The funniest things in the movie were the absurd things, suprisingly, not Depp. Overall, a good movie that I kinda liked.

(I should probaly read the book again. I've read it at least twice, but its probaly been four or five years.)

[Red]

The movie made $20.5 million on Friday, so it's doing better than many expected. I'm glad. Who's ready for "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator?":D
As much as I would like that...the movie killed the chances of that. The Great Glass Elevator would take place right after they left the factory for the first time. They would pick up the adults, and go into space. But the film showed this living happily ever after.

[Tobias]

As much as I would like that...the movie killed the chances of that. The Great Glass Elevator would take place right after they left the factory for the first time. They would pick up the adults, and go into space. But the film showed this living happily ever after.

This movie, and the original, didn't follow the book *exactly*, so why would the sequel?

[Damien]

I'm not quite sure where to begin.....

Somehow, I liked this movie for the obvious reasons, but so many things bugged me. For one, they took all the mystery out of Willy Wonka by tossing in that flashback hooley-dash. Also, the kids didn't seem adapted from the book at all (I'm mostly just referring to Mike and Violet). Cool that they used the song lyrics from the book, but I didn't feel that they translated well to the screen, and not being able to understand half of what they said was irking. Depp, as much as I love him, was a bit redundant in his performance, and only a few of his lines had any creepiness and/or humor (this isn't his fault, of course). Also, the movie just didn't have the magical feel of the other one (not that I'm trying to compare them). While I'm on the subject of the other film, however, I must point out that some of the lines in this film seemed like watered-down versions of the other film's dialogue. Finally, the ending really kinda bugged me. It ends in the elevator. That's it. It's done. That whole thing with Wonka's father, and I mean throughout the whole movie, just seemed unneccesary (and the boat dialogue to open the first flashback just seemed awfully forced).
Still, I liked this movie. I really did enjoy it. Three stars.

[Lord Dalek]

YES! Wedding Crashers is on its way to 28-30 million opener, it's great, it has reinvented the R rated comedyDo they actually pay you to say stuff like that?

[The Penguin]

People please, let's keep more or less focused on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This thread could go off in about eight different directions right now when it should be focused on the movie. If you want to talk about the box office as a whole, that comes tomorrow when the estimates come out and The Clown Prince tells us what they all are. Fantastic Four (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=144879) has a talkback and if Wedding Crashers (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=145530) is indeed going to "reinvent the R rated comedy" there is a thread for that one too.

This one is for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Thank you.

[Marn Hierogryph]

It was a fun movie, and I must say I did enjoy this more than the original version. I loved the songs (especially since they were in the book) and I thought the casting was pretty spot-on (except for maybe Mike and Violet, but they still weren't bad)

[Damien]

By the way, there were no Fizzy Lifting Drinks. At all. None. Nevermind how cool the drink is, but it's a very essential part of Charlie's journey. I'm quite surprised, especially since I'm sure that sequence was also in the book.

[Chrono1995]

The thing is, you guys who liked the original have obviously never read the book.
I have, and the old flick was better. Why? Because it had charm and is definitely more memorable than Tim Burton's. I'm not saying Burton's was poorly made, it just lacked a certain spark.

[BeastBoyWonder]

Just got back from watching this with my friends. I loathed the old movie, but I've gotta say I'm very pleased with this. There was a lot of new stuff from the book, but it was done in the imaginative and demented spirit of Dahl's writing and it definately wasn't obtrusive. Overall it was an entertaining, imaginative, and well put-together movie, although I wish there were more emphasis on Charlie and his grandpa after they'd gotten into the factory.

[Sailor Chibi Otaku]

Saw it today. Loved it. Johnny Depp is amazing. He's a brilliant actor!! He's stunning.

He was so.. ODD as Willy!! :D I saw the original. That movie in itself is an amazing film.

I am SO buying the soundtrack!!

OT: I plan on seeing "Corpse Bride".

[Trent Lane]

The thing is, you guys who liked the original have obviously never read the book.
true dat:p

As a fan of almost every book Roald Dahl ever wrote, I was impressed with how much more this movie stuck to the book. I'm a fan of both movies, and I'm not going to stoop down and cry becuase somebody likes one more than the other- why take the time to do this? It's two different visions, while the Gene Wilder version will forever be a classic, the Depp/ Burton version nails the story perfectly with a mix of humor, drama, and just a fantastic looking design overall. Five stars....

now when is somebody going to do George's Marvelous Medicine?!

[TnAdct1]

By the way, there were no Fizzy Lifting Drinks. At all. None. Nevermind how cool the drink is, but it's a very essential part of Charlie's journey. I'm quite surprised, especially since I'm sure that sequence was also in the book. Actually, the Fizzy Lifting Drinks, while it may have appeared in the book, wasn't really important to the story. The idea of Charlie and Grandpa Joe having some of it was added in the original film as a way to put Charlie's chance of receiving his lifetime supply of chocolate in jeopardy, thus ensuring some resolution to the "original movie-only" plotline involving the Everlasting Gobstopper.

[Harper]

I took the gf out last night to see this flick and we both really enjoyed it. It had great visuals and plenty of laugh-out-loud moments.

Did anyone else catch the toothpaste tubes labled "Smilex"?

[Silly McGooses]

now when is somebody going to do George's Marvelous Medicine?!lol! I had completely forgotten about that book! That'd be hillarious yet scary, with the two-hundred-foot evil Grandma with the Jack Skellington build....
what I really want is a better version of "The Witches."

[Simpler Simon]

Saw it yesterday. Overall enjoyed it, but I'd say the most "faithful" adaptation of the novel would be to mix both the old and new movies together. The new one is really faithful up until the point where it starts adding its own lines, the backstory about Wonka's father, and the new ending (which in its own way, is even more Hollywood than the old one).

Stuff I liked: the story of the Indian prince is finally realized, the squirrels (impossible to do in 1971), Charlie's dad is still alive, and you get to see the kids leave the factory at the end, all beat up/mutated. Among new additions, the line about cannibalism, the animatronic song used to introduce Wonka at the gates, and the general production design.

Stuff I disliked: Willy Wonka's father, which really felt like unnecessary backstory. And as much as I liked Depp's performance, sometimes it just felt odd for the sake of being odd, and the new, modernized lines felt really jarring compared to those being drawn from the original text. I think Gene Wilder better captured the spirit of Wonka from the original books. I missed the expressions of wonder everyone had in the first film upon seeing the chocolate room for the first time. It's even more fantastical here, and I wish the characters could've shown that a bit more.

Odd stuff: The oompa loompas. They brought back the original lyrics, but the new dance numbers are just insane. Wacky, wild insane. Probably won't be used to it till I watch it again on dvd.

In the end, this wasn't the absolute knockout that Batman Begins was for me, but it was a fun experience and fits well with the original and the novel.

[Silly McGooses]

Did anyone else catch the toothpaste tubes labled "Smilex"?I thought I saw that, but then I thought it was just my imagination. It's a nice wink to Batman fans.

[Lord Dalek]

now when is somebody going to do George's Marvelous Medicine?!Probably right aroung the same time someone does Magic Finger.

[Hordesman]

The EW article some weeks back mentioned that the WB execs wanted to really push a father/son relationship between Wonka and Charlie. I'm guessing the backstory was the compromise. I enjoyed how Violet and Mike TV got updated... but the rest of it felt retro. Nice how all 5 tickets ended up in Germany, England and the US. I'm guessing Veruca and/or Mike relied on imports. Definitely a Michael Jackson Wonka... But that's about right... Johnny's not doing his job if he doesn't make the suits nervous...

[Parallax]

That is one thing I don't get. Why does everyone think that Depp drew from MJ? In the movie, he has the feel that he doesn't like children at all, the exact "opposite" of MJ.

[Sailor Chibi Otaku]

That is one thing I don't get. Why does everyone think that Depp drew from MJ? In the movie, he has the feel that he doesn't like children at all, the exact "opposite" of MJ.
*blinks* Who says that?

Johnny Depp played a wacky character but a loveable one at that (and better looking one, too).

[Golgo13]

*blinks* Who says that?

Johnny Depp played a wacky character but a loveable one at that (and better looking one, too).Better looking? Lovable? He is creepy (no matter how you look at him, he looks like Micheal Jackson) and mean-spirited. You think those parents would allow their children to go into a factory with Willy looking and acting as Depp did?

Also, I'm getting a little ticked at people who keep swooning over films that are 100% true to the book. Look, just because a film stays true to the book doesn't make it a great film. There is a big difference between what works in a book and what works in a film. If something isn't working in the film that was in the book, then change it. Besides, fans will still go and see it.

I actually did like Charlie. The sets are pretty imaginative, the kids are great and the songs catchy. And I'm not even a big fan of Tim Burton. I honestly think he is getting old and overly whimsical with his films, but this one surprised me.

[Spongebrain2.0]

I can't look at this film without thinking of MJ, I know, but it's the same wardrobe, the creepy voice & pale face:eek:

[Golgo13]

That is one thing I don't get. Why does everyone think that Depp drew from MJ? In the movie, he has the feel that he doesn't like children at all, the exact "opposite" of MJ.
Because he looks EXACTLY like MJ. You didn't see the resemblance?

[Alex Toon]

i would have been equally curious if marilyn manson was cast as willy wonka.If Manson were cast, it wouldn't be candy, it would be pig's blood.

But this movie does look good though. A new take on a classic tale.

[Parallax]

Because he looks EXACTLY like MJ. You didn't see the resemblance?

He does look like MJ, but his personality is quite opposite.

Edit: On second thought, he doesn't really look much like MJ. The costume is simply a more exciting version of the Wilder version and the hair is different. The only resemblance is being pale which could be explained as Wonka never leaving the factory.

[Hades]

Very very good movie.

[JLApe]

Odd stuff: The oompa loompas. They brought back the original lyrics, but the new dance numbers are just insane. Wacky, wild insane. Probably won't be used to it till I watch it again on dvd.It's call Bollywood. Everytime I see those song-and-dance numbers, I thought I was watching a Bollywood movie. The cheesy, bland choregraphy that looks so bad that it's hilarious. Notice that all the Oompa-Loompas are played by the same Indian actor.

[Edd]

I really don't know what to say. Just...wow. I loved it. :D

Danny Elfman is an amazing composer, Johnny Depp is today's best actor, and I just love Tim Burton. He's a brilliant story-teller and artist.

For anyone who says the old one is better than the new one, I'm not going to try and change your opinions, but I don't really see how you can compare the two so easily. They are just too different. Same with comparing Johnny Depp and Gene Wilder; they approached Wonka's character differently.

[Kino]

Somehow, I liked this movie for the obvious reasons, but so many things bugged me. For one, they took all the mystery out of Willy Wonka by tossing in that flashback hooley-dash. Also, the kids didn't seem adapted from the book at all (I'm mostly just referring to Mike and Violet). Cool that they used the song lyrics from the book, but I didn't feel that they translated well to the screen, and not being able to understand half of what they said was irking.For the most part, I agree with you, Damien. Although it made for a sweet, cute ending, the "dentist father" subplot was unnecessary padding, though perhaps humanizing Wonka was a concious effort on the filmmakers' parts, to distance the character from "MJ." I also agree that Mike and Violet's characters were slightly subverted, but let's face it, by now, we all know that chewing gum is annoying and that too much violent TV and gaming desensitizes you. I think that the screenwriter wanted to show us a more modern take on Violet and Mike: A girl so competitive, she even wants to be the best at something as insignificant as chewing gum, and a boy who is far too headstrong to listen to anyone but himself. I loved the songs, but felt that the lyrics were drowned out by the heavy baseline. Maybe the theatre audio was tailored more to IMAX rather than the regular theatres. (My parents thought that it was "too loud.") Altogether though, I consider the movies flaws to be minor. 4 1/2 stars.

[Damien]

Eh, my biggest problem with Mike was the child supergenius thing they did with him.

Actually, the Fizzy Lifting Drinks, while it may have appeared in the book, wasn't really important to the story.It's the pure and good hero's moment of downfall. It's pretty important.

[TnAdct1]

It's the pure and good hero's moment of downfall. It's pretty important. I agree that the drink is important in the original film. However, when it came to the book, with Wonka's little test involving the fake Slugworth and the Everlasting Gobstopper being non-existant in the book, the drink's importance to the story (if it did appear) was minor.

[purplehairedwonder]

Absolutely loved it. Johnny Depp once again did his thing and came out with a memorable result as Willy Wonka. My biggest problem was not being able to understand a lot of the songs by the Oompa Loompas. But overall, I loved it. There really is no comparison to the original movie; they are too far removed from one another. Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp are very different, but very good, Willy Wonkas.

4.5/5

[raykremer]

New>old

I'll preface by saying I've never read the book.

Prior to seeing it I was sure Depp would be inferior to Wilder, but I think the performances were about equal, albeit different. Depp played it creepy, Wilder played it goofy (except for his awesome madman moment in the boat tunnel scene).

I vastly prefer this movie's ompa-loompa songs to the Wilder movie's versions, even if some of the lyrics were hard to understand. I loved the "all seemed rehersed" line, it's very honest to see the movie admit that before asking us to just accept it and move on.

Productionwise, the two versions are about the same. Some good CGI stuff they couldn't pull off in the days of the first version, but the sets and such were equally impressive then as now.

Flashbacks = good.

No lifting drink thing also = good. In the Wilder version Charlie's big redemption moment was being honest and returning the gobstopper, but I think it worked out better for him to have not sinned against the factory in the first place. Instead he gets several wry remarks throughout the tour that shows he "gets it" and is best suited to be Willy's heir. That he is the only child left at the end is just a formality.

[dark knight acolyte]

I've seen both versions twice within the past few weeks, and keeping an objective mind-- while the older version has points with me for sheer nostalgia, I do believe the newer version was more consistently entertaining, with fewer lapses. While neither is, to say, perfect, I felt the actors in the Burton flick did a fine job and met a nice medium between going cheesily over the top and being too stale/"adult." But- that said, I do want to mention this: I never found it fair to judge a movie predominantly on comparisons (e.g., new vs. old), so speaking of it on its own terms:

I gave the movie 4.5 of 5 stars. I can't put my finger on it, and I found the oompa loompa sequences to be a nice way of breaking up the action and mixing things up a bit- but their songs (hmm...how to put this) annoyed me a bit. However, if nothing else, the various styles entertained me more than the classic (and mind-numbing, at least for me) "oompa-loompa-doompa-day-dee" chorus in the first film. I felt the emotion and moral of the story ("good things come to those who are as such, whether rich or poor") was carried out as convincingly as in the original. Overall, a solid effort. Burton's touch could be felt on the movie, but I was relieved to see that they maintained the movie's purer roots as a fun, fantastical tale with a good message without trying to hard to force a strange and awkward "Burton-flair" (a.k.a.- freakines).

And since the old vs. new debate came up earlier, let me put something on the record. My preference of the new film is not because it it new. I prefer many original films to newer versions (example: How the Grinch Stole Christmas). However, in this case, I just felt Burton's was the better film, objectively and subjectively.

[Watermelon]

Wow, it seems like from the older posts in this topic, the majority of people seemed to hate it...eh.

Personally, I loved this movie. Maybe that's just because Tim Burton is probably my favorite director, I dunno. I always loved the original movie when I was but a wee one, and I loved the book as well, so, naturally, I went to see this. And I loved it. Every part of it. Some people didn't like the Oompa Loompa songs, but I loved them, personally, especially the Beatles type one. I was also afraid the flashbacks would be badly done, but fortunatly they were very Burton-esque (I loved the scene where child Willy Wonka is walking through the hall of flags XD). However, there were a few things about this film that bugged me:

-While the acting was all supurb, the whole movie I felt somewhat disconnected with Charlie and his family. I didn't find any of them particularly good, and they seemed rather dry and uninteresting. And you didn't get to know them very well because all they talked about was the chocolate factory. However, I did like the one grandpa and the one grandma...very funny.

-The boat ride. Did anyone find the boat ride unfunny and not very good? I did. It wasn't that great, if you ask me. Much better done in the old film.

-Ending a bit to schmaltzy...

Otherwise, I found everything else about this movie perfect, especially Depp's performance as Willy Wonka, he made the charatcer very interesting and fun. I would give this movie an 8 out of 10. Very good.

Oh yeah, plus Charlie's dad looks a whole lot like FREAKING JOHN LINNELL.

[John-Paul]

It's kind of refreshing to read reviews of the movie that don't include "AnnaSophia Robb and that girl playing Veruca are so FREAKING HOT!!!!" :p

[Drachentöter]

It's kind of refreshing to read reviews of the movie that don't include "AnnaSophia Robb and that girl playing Veruca are so FREAKING HOT!!!!" :p
....Ew....

I haven't seen the old one for a while, so I wouldn't be able to make a fair comparison, but then again I wouldn't want to. I mean, it's fine to prefer one over the other, but it's impossible to make an objective review when you're constantly holding it against a preconceived standard you decided when you saw the original.

On it's own, the movie wasn't that great for me. Johnny Depp really ruined a lot of it for me. There is such a thing as Willy Wonka being too aloof and out-there. The writers tried to add some humanity to the character through the flashback, but they would have succeeded a lot better if they had simply made his dialogue and expressions more relevant and humane. Even children don't act like Willy Wonka, who is supposed to be a perpetual child (like the man everyone says Depp was channeling). So yeah, in that instance Gene Wilder was a better Wonka (whoops...I made a comparison, unavoidable, I guess).

Oompah Loompahs were more fun this time around, I think. I really liked the old ones and I dislike how every single one was Deep Roy (there are a lot of little people actors who got shafted because of Burton's nepotism), but obviously the songs were a lot better (though I found the "Doompa Dee Doo" versions catchy and clever). Danny Elfman (although I disliked the rest of his soundtrack for this movie, excluding the intro) really pulled a clever move in giving each song its own style. My favorites were Augustus' and Violet's song (chewing, chewing, chewing...)

As far as the children go, Gloop was funny but one-dimensional as ever. Violet's character was annoying and poorly acted, the whole "I have to win" subplot and her rivalry with Veruca Salt went nowhere. Veruca herself was well-performed for the little screen time she had. My favorite bad kid was Mike Teavee since he was basically voicing my thoughts on the movie the entire time ("why is everything here pointless?"), plus I like the attitude/intelligence they gave the character.

Charlie and Grandpa Joe were dull...at least the last version of the two were reckless enough to drink the Fizzy Lifting Soda or whatever it was.

The ending is where it truly fell apart for me (it really couldn't have done much in the middle since that was pretty much exactly like the last movie). Wonka's aversion to adults and reduction to a petty maniac with a lost daddy complex cheapened the whole experience for me. It's been ages since I read the book, but I always remembered Willy Wonka as wise and sage, like an olden-day Albus Dumbledore. All this did was strengthen the Michael Jackson comparison and although it was a good way to highlight Charlie's good character traits...I would rather have seen a less sociopathic Wonka.

So I ended up doing the comparison regardless and I might have enjoyed this version more if I hadn't seen the last, but regardless I don't think it's good screenwriting or filmmaking. I have nothing against Burton (I loved Big Fish), but I don't think he did enough with this movie to make it worth all the attention.

[Yash]

It's the pure and good hero's moment of downfall. It's pretty important.Except y'know... it was never in the book.

Good movie, I liked it, came with a lot of laughs. I liked Depp as Wonka (omgwtfnoez).

[John Pannozzi]

Good movie. Can't say much that hasn't already been said, so I'll just make a few comments:

Did Grandpa Joe work for Wonka in the book?

This film reminded me of the James & The Giant Peach mvoie (not surprising seeing how that was also based on a Roald Dahl novel and Tim Burton was involved with the James movie as well as with this one). The boy playing Charlie reminded me quite a bit of the boy who played James, and the film ending is VERY similar to the James movie (complete with the narrator being revealed as a short guy who there in the story all along).

[Lord Dalek]

Did Grandpa Joe work for Wonka in the book?
No.

[Mr Cat Dog]

It finally came out in the UK today (ironic that I did the talkback but what the hey), and I loved it.

I personally found it a really funny movie. I would have been the oldest non-adult in there, and was laughing at most of the incredibly dry humoured jokes ("Don't touch that squirrel's nuts!" <-- I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at that) and it was obvious that Burton had put them in too appeal to the adults as well. The only thing everyone laughed at was when Willy Wonka banged his head against the elevator in the factory.

Casting wise: Mostly good. Johnny Depp was a very different Willy Wonka, but made the part his own. He said the original dialogue well, and brought out Willy Wonka's secret menacing streak very well indeed. Especially at the beginning with the puppet show, I thought from then until entering the Chocolate Room was his strongest performance. Most of the kids were good, but my favourite was easily Mike Teavee. The others should have at least tried to be more bratty, as Veruca Salt was terrible at being spoiled! The parents were good (especially Mrs Beauregard when Wonka mentioned the bit about endorphins) for the most part as well.

Charlie himself... I dunno... didn't see human. Everything he did seemed to be so unbelievably selfless and without thinking otherwise. "Yes Grandpa Joe. Yes Mother" etc. I mean, I know he's meek and everything, but he's not a frickin' robot for crying out loud. It was him and Veruca that pissed me off the most.

Apart from that, the flashbacks (which were unnecessary, as Willy Wonka was supposed to remain a man of mystery) and the sheer pointless ending (which shows no sign of a Great Glass Elevator movie) which defies the whole point of the film in my opinion, I loved everything else. Danny Elfman's songs (as always) were brilliant, and I especially loved the Oompa Loompa songs. Whilst "Oompa Loomp Doobedy Doo" will remain in history forever, these ones managed to bring some originality, even if you sometimes couldn't make out the words. The "It all seems rehearsed" was also a nice bit of dry humour that only I seemed to get, but oh well.

4 1/2 stars out of 5 from me.

[Yash]

I think the problem that most people have with this movie is that they see it as a remake of the original, not an adaptation of the book.

</random thought>

[Mr Cat Dog]

Nope. I thought it wsa a good adaptation of the book, as I thought the flashbacks to Willy Wonka's past were completely unnecesary, and such.

[Ben]

The more I think about it, the more I like this movie.

Whoever said Wonka doesn't like kids is right. This Depp is obviously freaked out by and despises most children. Which is what makes this a unique Dahl story-- the children have the disgusting, distorted qualities he usually reserves for his adult characters.

My review: (http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200509/15/200509152121183109900091009101.html)
Everyone in my generation saw the first "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" when we were kids. But even though it's one of the beloved films of my childhood, one screening of Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," the new adaptation of the original story by Roald Dahl, makes it clear how inadequate the old movie is.

The classic tale concerns one lucky and four not-so-lucky children who receive a tour of Willy Wonka's famous chocolate factory, which has been closed to the world for years. The lucky one is Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore), a child living in cartoonish poverty with his parents and grandparents, and the unlucky ones are Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz) the glutton, Violet Beauregarde (Annasophia Robb) the obnoxious gum-chewer, spoiled brat Veruca Salt (Julia Winter) and Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry) the television addict.

The latter four receive their just rewards at Wonka's twisted factory, described in the book with typical Dahlian glee. Augustus falls into a chocolate river and is made into fudge, Violet chews a forbidden piece of gum and swells into a blueberry, Veruca falls down the garbage chute after trying to catch one of Wonka's trained squirrels, and Mike is shrunk by a teleporter, only to be stretched into a paper-thin giant in the taffy-puller. Charlie, as the only kid left, wins the chocolate factory.

This film benefits from the incredible, bizarre imagination of one of the weirdest filmmakers of all time. The Oompa Loompas (all, eerily, played by Deep Roy) are tiny, deadpan showstoppers, and the world inside and outside the factory is delightfully off-kilter. But of course it's the carefree and crotchety candyman, Willy Wonka, who's the real star. And one just has to compare the two movie Wonkas to see what makes the new film work.
In the 1971 version, Gene Wilder's Wonka may be a genius, but he's not quite an insane genius. In fact, he introduces his factory with a flourish and a song and he decides on Charlie to inherit the factory with a loyalty test.
Depp's Wonka, though he takes the same characters on the same tour through the same factory, is an entirely different person. He's a disturbed and stunted savante whose years of isolation in the factory have made him unable to connect with other human beings, and the kids find him creepy, idiotic and cruel.

This Wonka is a typical Burton outcast. The film reveals Wonka's childhood as the son of a dentist, doomed to wear outlandish headgear and forbidden from eating candy. The flashbacks invest the tour with sinister, vengeful overtones. Where Wilder's Wonka was simply an unsympathetic onlooker, Depp's Wonka has almost certainly set deliberate traps for these children. But a Wonka with this many issues wants his own redemption.

I can't help but feel this new adaptation would be far more pleasing to Dahl, a man who tested secret chocolates for Cadbury as a child and wrote his books as an adult on a typewriter balanced on his knees in a tiny house in the forest. The blunt schadenfraude of Dahl's original story has returned, enhanced by the boundlessly imaginative Burton and stunningly brilliant Depp. But beware: this Wonka is not a nice man.

[Sailor V]

I like this movie alot, my family wanted it on DVD!

[adoptedBatpuppy]

The WB has done this movie before, with different actors and awhile back. I think this version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was closer to the book, then the previous version. :)

[HellCat]

I got to see this last night. Like most kids I grew up fan of Dahl's books though this was one I never got to read. I have seen the previous adaptation though.

To get it off my chest- some of the Americanisms annoyed me. The Bucket family are clearly portrayed as British and seemingly they live in England. Yet they're using phrases like band-aid, pants and I believe even dollars for currency. It just seems to be one of those stupid studio politics moments, believing the American audience will freak out if they don't refer to these things by the terminology they're most familiar with.
A plus for me was pacing. The scenes never felt like they went on too long, everything moved at a swift pace without feeling rush. I think this would be a plus for showing it to kids.
The flashbacks definetly felt uneeded. Even the resolution felt bad. So he hugs his father and then we never see him again and are told the Buckets are now Wonka's family...what?
I think the punishments lacked impact. So Augustus just leaves the factory covered in chocolate...how is that a twisted punishment? It's more a minor inconvenience. I also agree Mike TV's change made little sense. Turning him from a couch potato into an anti-social boy genius didn't flow. If they were trying to suggest he rushed into things, why make him the last to suffer?

[Lord Dalek]

Now first of all in hindsight I do agree that making the Buckets british for no apparent reason (they're Americans in the book) was a bit of a very strange choice. Now that that's out of the way...


I think the punishments lacked impact. So Augustus just leaves the factory covered in chocolate...how is that a twisted punishment? thats the way he ends up in the book, the punishment is his gluttony has brought shame to himself and his family and now he's going on a diet.

I also agree Mike TV's change made little sense. Turning him from a couch potato into an anti-social boy genius didn't flow. If they were trying to suggest he rushed into things, why make him the last to suffer?Again the fate of Mike TeeVee is the exact same in the book as is its position in the film's narrative. I could understand why people would have a problem with his revised character being less a wannabe TV cowboy and more of a generic video gamer type but the old Mike just doesn't really work anymore, even in a pseudo-"now" setting like the one in Burton's Charlie.

[Marn Hierogryph]

I could understand why people would have a problem with his revised character being less a wannabe TV cowboy and more of a generic video gamer type but the old Mike just doesn't really work anymore, even in a pseudo-"now" setting like the one in Burton's Charlie. I agree with this. No kid plays "cowboys and Indians" anymore, unless it's a new game for their Xbox. The big thing today with kids are video games, and the change was appropriate. They kept the sins he was suppose to represent (sloth and wrath) so that's the most important part, though they added a bit of "pride" to him as well by making him a know-it-all genius, but his main theme was being so angry/aggressive and slothful (mentally, as in he "can no longer understand a fairytale in fairyland" due to his brain being so focused on video games he couldn't use his imagination to think up things for himself)

[HellCat]

For the punishments, I think I prefer the old movie's way of leaving it to your imagination. Sure, that was mainly an effects issue but that way your mind is free to give them whatever punishment you find fitting.

The updating for Mike didn't really work since the computer game angle only really gets referred to once. Maybe Burton was trying to avoid the Jack Thompson-like nonsense but it seemed he just lacked a reason for his state. Even his father didn't really seem responsible which seems to go against the prevailing message that it's the job of parents to do their best to ensure their kids turn out ok.