Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
There are some times when it makes sense to remake a picture for more than simply financial gain. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a remake of the 1971 classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, was not one of those times.
This film, directed by Tim Burton, sought to be a darker Chocolate Factory than the 1971 flavor, which some critics have recalled as too saccharine. Think of the song “The Candy Man� as an example. And the casting of Johnny Depp in the role of Willy Wonka held promise of a different take on the beloved novel by Roald Dahl. Dark chocolate rather than milk chocolate, they said.
At its heart, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a morality play in which five children win golden tickets that gain them admittance into Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, a magical place where everything is edible. While Burton ’s imagery is stunning, the result is less stunning than one would expect given a generation of technological innovations in filmmaking. Vices for each of the children, except Charlie, take them out of the running for the coveted prize, yet the lesson isn’t as clear as a generation ago. It may have to do with the mostly unintelligible song lyrics sung by the Oompah-Loompahs – less memorable, but musically more in tune with the current day.
Most of the children -- with the exception of Charlie and Violet Beauregarde (who matches her mother) – seem to be cast to match as close as possible their 1971 counterparts. Unlike the 1971 version, however, at least we see the characters get their comeuppance and walk away.
There are some funny moments in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. One involves a squadron of nut de-shelling squirrels. Another satirizes Disney-like Small World display. The latter is one of multiple pop-culture references – touching everything from films like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Psycho to popular songs. In this writer’s opinion, the insipidity of a screenplay increases with the number of such references, and this movie gives weight to that theory.
Yet Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ultimately suffers because Depp’s Wonka comes off as a cross between Michael Jackson, Mr. Rogers and Dana Carvey’s “church lady.� While there’s a satisfying addition of a back story, which has Wonka being raised by an obsessive dentist father (Christopher Lee), the painfully dysfunctional characterization of Wonka advances neither the story nor Charlie (Freddie Highmore), who was to have been a greater focus of this version. There were, in truth, dark elements to the ’71 Wonka (magnificently played by Gene Wilder). And Charlie’s screenplay does not compare to the witty dialogue of the 1971 version. When Depp’s Wonka invites Charlie to come live with him, there’s a hint of invitation to Jackson ’s Neverland ranch, particularly when Charlie’s family isn’t allowed. This isn’t dark, just creepy.
By contrast, Charlie Bucket is just too good. There’s no desire here for Charlie to go beyond Wonka’s boundaries as in the original with the Fizzy Lifting Drinks. There’s no temptation to use his Chocolate Factory access to sell out Wonka for revenge. But there still are moments of inspiration. In one scene, Charlie offers to sell his prized Golden Ticket to feed his starving family. One of his relatives urges him not to give away something priceless for “only money.�
The film’s thematic strength is its emphasis on the importance of family, which Wonka learns from Charlie’s example. But this focus is not enough to salvage a film that, in retrospect, seems like it was made for “only money.�
MOVIE
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
BOOK
—Review: WonkaMania
—Blog: Kevin Miller
—Blog: Jacob Sahms
—Photos
—About this Film
There are some times when it makes sense to remake a picture for more than simply financial gain. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a remake of the 1971 classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, was not one of those times.
This film, directed by Tim Burton, sought to be a darker Chocolate Factory than the 1971 flavor, which some critics have recalled as too saccharine. Think of the song “The Candy Man� as an example. And the casting of Johnny Depp in the role of Willy Wonka held promise of a different take on the beloved novel by Roald Dahl. Dark chocolate rather than milk chocolate, they said.
At its heart, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a morality play in which five children win golden tickets that gain them admittance into Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, a magical place where everything is edible. While Burton ’s imagery is stunning, the result is less stunning than one would expect given a generation of technological innovations in filmmaking. Vices for each of the children, except Charlie, take them out of the running for the coveted prize, yet the lesson isn’t as clear as a generation ago. It may have to do with the mostly unintelligible song lyrics sung by the Oompah-Loompahs – less memorable, but musically more in tune with the current day.Most of the children -- with the exception of Charlie and Violet Beauregarde (who matches her mother) – seem to be cast to match as close as possible their 1971 counterparts. Unlike the 1971 version, however, at least we see the characters get their comeuppance and walk away.
There are some funny moments in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. One involves a squadron of nut de-shelling squirrels. Another satirizes Disney-like Small World display. The latter is one of multiple pop-culture references – touching everything from films like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Psycho to popular songs. In this writer’s opinion, the insipidity of a screenplay increases with the number of such references, and this movie gives weight to that theory.Yet Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ultimately suffers because Depp’s Wonka comes off as a cross between Michael Jackson, Mr. Rogers and Dana Carvey’s “church lady.� While there’s a satisfying addition of a back story, which has Wonka being raised by an obsessive dentist father (Christopher Lee), the painfully dysfunctional characterization of Wonka advances neither the story nor Charlie (Freddie Highmore), who was to have been a greater focus of this version. There were, in truth, dark elements to the ’71 Wonka (magnificently played by Gene Wilder). And Charlie’s screenplay does not compare to the witty dialogue of the 1971 version. When Depp’s Wonka invites Charlie to come live with him, there’s a hint of invitation to Jackson ’s Neverland ranch, particularly when Charlie’s family isn’t allowed. This isn’t dark, just creepy.By contrast, Charlie Bucket is just too good. There’s no desire here for Charlie to go beyond Wonka’s boundaries as in the original with the Fizzy Lifting Drinks. There’s no temptation to use his Chocolate Factory access to sell out Wonka for revenge. But there still are moments of inspiration. In one scene, Charlie offers to sell his prized Golden Ticket to feed his starving family. One of his relatives urges him not to give away something priceless for “only money.�
The film’s thematic strength is its emphasis on the importance of family, which Wonka learns from Charlie’s example. But this focus is not enough to salvage a film that, in retrospect, seems like it was made for “only money.�
MOVIE
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
BOOK
—Review: WonkaMania
—Blog: Kevin Miller
—Blog: Jacob Sahms
13 Comments:
A little more research here would have you know that this is NOT a remake of the 1971 film, but a different take on the classic book by the same name. And as far as the comparison to Michael Jackson and the Neverland ranch? Give me a break! It just goes to show that people hear what they want to hear. Don't be fooled by so-called "Spiritual" reviews, this film was incredibly entertaining. I must agree with one point of Mr. Price', The Oompa Loompa songs were very difficult to understand lyricwise, but the timing and production values alone were worth the inclusion of the musical numbers.
I agree with the previous comment, and there are a few things I would like to add. First of all, this version did not seek to be darker than the 1971 version. The screenwriter had not even seen it until after finishing the script for Burton's film. Upon this viewing, he noted how much darker the 1971 film was to his own. Secondly, the film would be a highly ineffective morality play if Charlie wasn't "too good" - if he had given in to temptation and stolen the fizzy lifting drink, he should have met the same fates as the other children in order to illustrate the intended morals clearly. Finally, I would like to point out that much of the "witty dialogue" in the 1971 film was nothing but references to (by which I mean 'entire lines taken from') others' work - which you so despise in this film. The only difference was that most of them were literary - except, of course, the reference to an Ivory Soap ad campaign. At least the references in this version were largely visual, and did not act as a substitute for the screenwriter's creativity.
I find it interesting that you deride this movie as being motivated by money, yet praise the original - which was financed by a candy company in order to advertise their planned Wonka brand chocolate bars
How could you even be as ignorant as to consider Tim Burton's film as being made "only for money"? I'm sure Burton has plenty of money. Why would he take the risk of making a movie based on a book that is read and loved by millions, twist the story on a classic movie that many children grew up watching, just for money? He wouldn't. Unlike a lot of you brain dead, fascist MORONS, Burton and Depp together had a vision for this movie that will, in the end, outshine both the book and the original, despite how certain you think you are about the film being tasteless and "creepy". As you so ignorantly put it--
"When Depp’s Wonka invites Charlie to come live with him, there’s a hint of invitation to Jackson’s Neverland ranch, particularly when Charlie’s family isn’t allowed. This isn’t dark, just creepy."
How can anyone even say something as perverse and distasteful as that! How could you even come to such an ignorant conclusion, comparing a fictional film to real life events! If you had have actually researched the film, instead of obviously just placing cynical reviews all over the internet in a moronic attempt to seem clever, you might know that Depp intended to base his character on that of children's television show and game show hosts; your morbid connection of Willy Wonka to Michael Jackson, of Neverland Ranch to such a magical place as a chocolate factory, is not only childish, but quite frankly, sickening. How you so narrow-mindedly and ignorantly twisted such a great movie into something disgraceful and perverted, I don't think I'll ever know. Will I ever be able to enjoy this film again, knowing that there are people out there like YOU watching it, and cheapening it to such an immature and inappropriate level?
And you're wrong about Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka. Depp's Wonka is meant to be viewed as someone who is desperately looking for a way to get in touch with the childhood he lost, the family he never really had. In the end, what Depp's Willy Wonka truly wanted throughout the film was for someone to prove to him that there were still good people in the world, and Charlie shows him just that. What Burton and Depp were trying to show us was that Willy Wonka wasn't specifically looking for just an heir (as he was in the original) but for something deeper, for a reason to trust, love and accept people again. In this sense, the film is in fact darker, because it reveals itself to have a deeper and more realistic meaning to it than the original.
Personally, I think that your review is just rubbish, and I feel sorry for anyone who makes the mistake of actually reading it, as I so blindly did. Instead of reviewing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory tastefully, weighing out the pros and cons of the film, you chose to completely bash it, and because of this, a lot of people are going to read your unintelligible review, and avoid the chance to see for themselves, a hilariously entertaining and heartwarming film.
Dear Ignoramus,
this is not a remake.
Duh.
"I agree entirely with this review" is what I owuld say if I had just returned from having a lobotomy.... How can you review Charlie and the Chocolate factory without any form of reference to the book? I think it may be because you haven't read it, can you not read? I'm sure you could get the book on tape.
And comparing Johnny Depp's adaptation of Wonka to ol' Wacko-Jacko, you've really raised the bar of "ddddduuuuuuuhhhhhhhh" to new heights. Was it because he had pale skin and a high pitched voice? Cos it certainly wasn't his love of touching chiildren, which if you watched the film, he really couldn't bear doing. Alos, if you watched the disastrous '71 adaptation, you might notice that Wilder couldn't keep his hands off the kids (not calling Wilder a pederast, just proving a point.)
Also, did you know for the '71 adaptation in which director Mel Stuart had David Seltzer (you know, that idiot behind such flops as Punchline and the heinously bad My Giant) completely rewrite Dahl original screenplay 'cos he didn't think it was good enough, then ruined it by changing the title. Probably not, seeing as you didn't appear to know there was a book and obviously researched this review in no way whatsoever. Maybe you should take up gardening or something, that way no-one could accidentally read your review, as many unfortunates have....
Honestly...I don't get what all the argument's about. This IS a remake of the '71 classic. While I am a huge fan of both Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, I have to say that I was disappointed in the film as a whole. Depp's Wonka DOES come off as creepy in a Michael Jackson sort of way whether that was his intention or not. Burton's visual talents are very much on disply, but he did miss some of the more subtle plot nuances. I just didn't find myself caring about this Charlie, there was no indefatigable spirit of childhood in him, nor was there that sense of perverse fun in Depp's Wonka.
As far as your slam on the original '71 film...well, all I have to say to you is that millions of people, myself included, adored and still adore the film. I knew that Gene Wilder's brilliant portrayal of Wonka would be a tough act to follow, but I really did expect better from Depp. I enjoyed the "REMAKE" but give me the original any day!
I agree with this review. The new movie is perverted Depp is terrible as Wonka and no thought was put into the one man Oompa Loompa... Rediculous to make a remake this poor.
"The new movie is perverted Depp is terrible as Wonka and no thought was put into the one man Oompa Loompa..."
Kind of like the way no real thought was put into your review?
"The new movie is perverted Depp is terrible as Wonka and no thought was put into the one man Oompa Loompa..."
Kind of like the way no thought was put into your review?
HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT THIS MOVIE WAS DARKER THAN THE FIRST? DIDN'T YOU SEE THE FRIGHTENING ROWING SCENE IN THE FIRST ONE? oR THAT NONE OF THE CHILDREN ARE EVER SEEN AGAIN?!
pretty sure this movie is the greatest of all time. pretty sure it was better than the original. you tards dont know what your talking about. This is what kids/teens want to see these days, more upbeat in with the technology/graphical imagery films, not some old style boring movie with endless points.
Reading this review made it painfully obvious that you have never read the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. First of all, this movie is not a remake of the 1971 film. Secondly, Charlie using the Fizzy Lifting Drinks and the temptation to give a gobstopper to Slugworth were only created for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and were never a part of the book.
The big conflict in the end of the book is that the grandparents were hesitant to go to the factory. This was remedied by shoving the bed they shared into the Great Glass Elevator and taking off. It's no wonder they decided on a more climatic ending.
This movie is not creepy. I originally feared it would be frightening to young children, but it isn't. I watched the movie with a six year old only last night, and she giggled and exclaimed happily as puppets caught fire, children turned into blueberries, and people got attacked by squirrels.
If you took the time to look past Depp's pale face and odd wig, you would find a story with a lot of heart.
I'm not saying that the 1971 film wasn't good. On the contrary, I am a die-hard fan of the movie, and I still consider Wilder to be the superior Wonka, with his wild curls (No pun intended), twinkling eyes, and deliciously sarcastic wit. the movie is a classic that I will cherish forever. but that doesn't mean that new isn't good.
I have to agree 100 percent with what Johnny Depp said in response to gene Wilder's comment that Charlie was only made for the money. "Hearing about that was disappointing, but I can understand where he's coming from, I guess. The one thing I didn't understand was that apparently he was quoted as saying 'Well, they just did this for money.' Well, hey, man, where have you been? When didn't they ever do anything for money? Nobody's ever made a film in the history of cinema where they weren't expecting some return on their dough." It's the truth. If you want to say something is bad because they are 'Only in it for the money', then rag on Star Wars. Complain about Lord of the Rings. Everyone is in it for the money. And even so, if you can make a film with as much heart as this, then I say go ahead. We need more movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Post a Comment
<< Home