Movie Review: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"

Anything else goes here! Parks, games, music, politics, world events, the state of your bathroom....

Moderators: radial, AMartin777

Post Reply
User avatar
Jonathan
Omnipresent Chicken
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:53 am
Location: Raleigh
Contact:

Movie Review: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"

Post by Jonathan »

<b>Warning: This review contains no explicit spoilers, but if you've somehow managed to avoid reading the novel, seeing the 1971 movie, or the endless parodies done over the years, do not read on, as important plot details are revealed.</b>

Regardless of the strong attempts to separate 2005's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" from the 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", the comparisons will undoubtedly be made. The classic film, with its memorable performance by Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, still holds up just as well as it did nearly thirty five years ago, and it is likely that a large portion of the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" audience will have seen the first version. Thankfully, the new adaptation of Roald Dahl's beloved novel, directed by Tim Burton ("Edward Scissorhands", "Big Fish"), distances itself quite well from the 1971 movie, and offers a new perspective to the story.

Many have billed the new film as an adaptation more true to Dahl's novel than the Gene Wilder version, as Roald Dahl reportedly hated the 1971 movie. Dahl's widow Felicity is onboard this time as executive producer, and she has expressed her belief that Dahl would have loved Burton's take on his novel. Screenwriter John August never even watched the 1971 film until after he had drafted the screenplay, and the result is a script that does not get tied up with trying to avoid and outdo its predecessor. I honestly hate to compare and contrast the two versions of the story, as I am sure we will all be reading plenty of that over the next few weeks, but it is practically unavoidable, so I suppose I will just run with it.

The major flaw with the Gene Wilder Wonka was that the film lacked much character depth, and never truly developed the relationship between Charlie and Wonka. The point at which Wonka selects Charlie as his successor arrives abruptly, and comes across more as process of elimination than a true connection between the characters. This is not an issue in Burton's version, as we see Wonka's appreciation of Charlie grow throughout the journey inside the factory, and his disgust with the naughty children is immediately evident. Furthermore, with Tim Burton's Wonka, played by Johnny Depp ("Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas", "Finding Neverland"), we see the humanity of the eccentric chocolate maker. Burton has always made movies involving turmoil between a father and son, so I suppose it should not be a surprise that he has brought this new element to the story of Willy Wonka. Through Wonka's constant nightmarish flashbacks, we learn the origins of his love for candy, involving his strict candy-hating dentist father, played by Christopher Lee ("Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith", "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"). Wonka's emotions are more apparent as well, as he expresses a genuine child-like joy at times when proudly displaying his factory, and becomes furious when Mike Teavee (Jordon Fry) insults candy. He displays an innocent inability to deal with people, and a complete lack of courtesy.

Johnny Depp has always displayed himself as a very versatile actor. As far as I'm concerned, his bizarre depiction of Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is one of the best performances of the 1990's, and his recent portrayal of author J.M. Barrie in "Finding Neverland" may have been the best performance of 2004. In "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", he once again disappears into character, and his depiction of Willy Wonka borders on downright disturbing, while also being completely hilarious. The Michael Jackson comparisons everyone seems to be making are, quite frankly, dead on. His fellow "Finding Neverland" star Freddie Highmore is outstanding as Charlie Bucket, and further proves that he may be the most promising child actor in Hollywood today. The other children do a great job as well, as do the actors playing Charlie's family members. The grandparents provide a substantial amount of humor. And then, there is Deep Roy. Roy plays every Oompa Loompa in the film, wonderfully showing off endless personalities and providing a lot of humor.

While Roy's performance is outstanding, the Oompa Loompas were a bit of an issue for me. Visually, the depiction was excellent, and quite true to the novel, but the musical numbers left something to be desired. For the most part they were hilarious and fun, but also sometimes hard to understand, and the pop music was an unnecessary addition in my opinion. The 1971 Oompa Loompas and their songs, while not as true to the book lyrically, had a much more timeless feel to them. That is the biggest issue for me with the 2005 film; I'm just not sure it will hold up over time in the same way that the Gene Wilder version did. It is a wonderful film, but a classic? I'm just not so sure of that, and only time will tell.

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is pure Tim Burton, with each frame bursting with color and imagination, and the pacing is nearly flawless. Overall it is a very warm film, and Burton's direction keeps the movie extremely bizarre without becoming completely surreal (not that I would have minded that at all). The orchestral score by Danny Elfman is perfect, and sets the mood of the film immediately while accompanying Burton's sweeping camera movements in the opening sequence. Tim Burton fans will recognize quite a few familiar faces, and may notice a number of subtle references to past films. I really cannot choose between the two adaptations, but they compliment each other very well, and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is an outstanding effort. I would definitely recommend it.

3.5 stars (out of 4)

<img src="http://www.jonathan-hawkins.net/photos/ ... rlie.jpg"/>
User avatar
AMartin777
OmniPotent Chicken
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:47 am

Post by AMartin777 »

I have chosen not to make a line by line comparison it to the original. That being said, I liked the original better than the new one.

I do like the new one very much though and Johnny Depp is as great in the role as ever. I think alot of people are not going to appreciate his adept take on the role as much as I do. The movie is a different take on the story, more like the book and thoroughly enjoyable and I believe it will find more appreciation with age. :roll:
Image
Post Reply