The world probably doesn't need another review of this movie, but my whole family saw it last night, so I will add my humble opinion to the marketplace of ideas.
I fell asleep during the factory tour. Unfortunately, it was only a brief nap.
This film is visually stunning and creepy in exactly the way you would expect from Tim Burton and Roald Dahl. In the early sequences, I was quite taken by Charlie (played perfectly throughout by Freddie Highmore) and his indigent, but loving, family. The search for the golden ticket was great fun.
Enter Johnny Depp. What was he thinking? By the way, I wrote this part of my review before reading Roger Ebert's review, where he asks the same question. Ebert also writes:
Johnny Depp may deny that he had Michael Jackson in mind when he created the look and feel of Willy Wonka, but moviegoers trust their eyes, and when they see Willy opening the doors of the factory to welcome the five little winners, they will be relieved that the kids brought along adult guardians. Depp's Wonka -- his dandy's clothes, his unnaturally pale face, his makeup and lipstick, his hat, his manner -- reminds me inescapably of Jackson (and, oddly, in a certain use of the teeth, chin and bobbed hairstyle, of Carol Burnett).
This film was titled Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- the same title as Dahl's book -- in contrast to the 1971 version, which was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. You might think that this would signal a shift in focus from Wonka to Charlie. No such luck.
This was an impoverished version of Citizen Kane, in which a driven entrepreneur is explained by reference to a troubled childhood. The backstory about Wonka's estrangement from his dentist father (an addition from the book) shifted the focus of the story from Charlie to Wonka, and in the process made the central theme of the story something like, "aren't families wonderful?"
A subtle but striking difference between this film and the 1971 version was the failure to require anything from Charlie in exchange for the chocolate factory. (Indeed, Charlie almost loses the factory by taking a noble stand in favor of his family.) The first film added the Slugworth character to test the children. (Slugworth was mentioned, but not developed, in Dahl's book.) I appreciated the addition of Slugworth to the movie because Charlie is expected to show a bit of character before being awarded the prize. He doesn't deserve the factory simply because he was poor and the other children were rich or middle class. Burton's version is more faithful to the book in this regard, but as a result, Charlie wins the factory simply because he was the last child standing. The emptiness of Charlie's accomplishment further serves to shift the focus of the film to the Wonka character.
As I was teetering on the edge over this movie, the Oompa Loompas pushed me over. Burton chose to use a digitally multiplied Deep Roy to produce a colony of little people (who change size during the course of the film, by the way, sometimes being only knee-high and sometimes much larger). If being creepy were the only goal, Burton succeeded. The musical numbers were a strange collage of Bollywood and Esther Williams and rock concert, with music (by Danny Elfman) that seemed utterly detached from the story.
After spending a few minutes casting about cyberspace, it appears to me that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a divisive film. People either love it or hate it, and you see where I stand. If you are in the mood for a more positive review, try this one at Blogcritics.org.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8344f446c53ef
Links to weblogs that reference Charlie and the Chocolate Factory:
1. Posted by Larry on July 29, 2005 @ 14:29 | Permalink
But why was Charlie the "last child standing?" I thought the film made clear that Charlie deserved the factory because he didn't share the terrible vices the other children did.
2. Posted by Will Baude on July 29, 2005 @ 14:34 | Permalink
I believe Woody Allen once said (or was said to have said) that the worst experience he ever had at the theatre was when somebody woke him up before CATS was over.
3. Posted by Gordon Smith on July 29, 2005 @ 14:42 | Permalink
We know that, Larry, but how does Willie Wonka know that when Charlie has never been proved?
That was funny, Will. My feelings about this film exactly.
4. Posted by Dave! on July 29, 2005 @ 17:06 | Permalink
I probably won't bother seeing it... I haven't heard much good about it. And while I enjoyed the first movie--for what it was--I can't imagine that Burton does justice to Dahl.
5. Posted by Larry on July 29, 2005 @ 17:57 | Permalink
I suppose you're right, Gordon. I know that, for me, when I was watching the movie I couldn't help but compare it to the '71 version and the book so I suppose I was filling in holes a bit. However, I think a seed was planted regarding why those Oompa Loompas had songs already prepared for each of the kids. I got the addition creepy sense that Wonka had been watching the kids and brought them to each of those areas of the factory in order to exploit their "weaknesses" and eliminate them.
I may be reading way too much into it, though, and giving credit where it's not due. Seems like a plot hole. Plus, that ending was just terrible.
6. Posted by Christine on July 31, 2005 @ 19:52 | Permalink
I think I must've like the movie a bit more. Unlike the older version, these kids weren't just brats, they were jaded brats. They could see the man behind the curtain (liked the songs). They were expedient. Mike TeeVee didn't like candy. He just wanted to prove that he was the most clever. Violet wanted to be a "winner." I thought these were improvements to just ordinary brattiness. Charlie was the only one who realized that candy didn't have to have "a point." He was the only real child there.
But I loved Wonka's response every time the TeeVee guy challenged him on something. "You really must stop mumbling; I can't hear a word you say."
7. Posted by Savon duJour on September 3, 2005 @ 7:23 | Permalink
I thought I was the only person who fell asleep in it!
Making the fat kid come from Germany may have been a nod at the less-than-acceptable parts of Roald Dahl's political sympathies, old pig that he was.
8. Posted by Amy on January 10, 2010 @ 13:51 | Permalink
how can you not like this movie? .. It's fantastic. You people just get way too into it, and think beyond what needs to be thought about. Try just enjoying the movie. You don't have to pick out every little thing you think is wrong. If you're so picky make your own damn movie. I can assure you it won't be as sucessful as this.
9. Posted by dentist Bentleigh East teeth whitening on January 3, 2012 @ 1:58 | Permalink
Everyone has it's own opinion and when I watched the said movie I was delighted and enjoyed every yummy candy presented infront of me
10. Posted by emergency dental care on January 12, 2012 @ 0:10 | Permalink
Johnny Depp was phenomenal in this movie! He's always good at portraying an odd character.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
