Review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[vaneramos]

For ubermunkey

Peculiar movie, darker than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). As Wonka, Johnny Depp is more dangerous and perverse than Gene Wilder. At first appearance he resembles Michael Jackson with androgynous face and hair, weird skin, and dark glasses. Director Tim Burton is trying to resurrect the tortured solitude of Edward Scissorhands (1990), but with limited success. And Depp is more convincing, compelling and sympathetic as Scissorhands than as Jackson Wonka.

To the best of my memory, it follows the same storyline closely to a point, but as the tour penetrates deeper into the factory its rooms reflect newer technology. The squirrel scene, which replaces the geese laying golden eggs, turns terrifying. You don't expect a Hollywood movie to let children come to harm, yet some of these brats and their parents deserve barbarism.

Where this movie diverges the most is in relating Wonka's back story in a series of flashbacks. This complicates his character and gives the tale a deeper moral spin. I'm curious to read the book and see whether the movie attempts to strike closer to the original story.

I was at first pleasantly surprised but ultimately disappointed to find Helena Bonham Carter in the role of Charlie's mother. She acted with restraint to avoid upstaging more important roles. Delightful, though, was Grandpa Joe played by David Kelly, whom I recognized from the role of Michael O'Sullivan in Waking Ned Devine (1998), a favourite comedy from recent years.

Overall it was an entertaining movie, particularly the magical opening scenes and the more sinister middle sections. The ending is predictable.

~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. Surprisingly, I was intrigued by all the previews. In fact, counting two or three already running, there are about six features coming out this year that I care to see. More than one or two is rare.

Most of all: Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Comments

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

This movie is much much closer to the book than the 1971 travesty. The squirrel scene is verbatim, as are several of the sillier jokes. (The candy wool is not in the book, or at least I don't recall it.) The songs are all from the book, and I thought Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka was a lot closer to the Wonka of the book than Wilder's. This movie also has an internal consistency completely lacking in the 71 version.

All in all, I thought it was much better.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

That's what we guessed, even though none of us who saw it together had read the book. I do think Gene Wilder's zany portrayal has it's own merits, but this movie is more interesting. I want to read the book now.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

The backstory is all original to this movie, I should point out--we know nothing about Willy Wonka in the book, but I think that the backstory gave this movie the internal consistency that made me like it so much. :) Also, the allegorical nature of the story is present in the book but has been refined and emphasized in the movie, and I liked that very much.

One of the things I like best about this movie is that Charlie wins for the right reason. The thing the 71 movie got wrong was in having Charlie and Grandpa Joe break the rules but not get caught, and Charlie still wins. The whole point is that Charlie is the only one who's a genuinely nice kid, and wins because he follows the rules, not in spite of breaking them.

[eloquentwthrage.livejournal.com]

He kinda did get caught, for something else, though. I know it's not the same, but in the scope of that first film only, I think it holds up pretty well.

[queenmomcat.livejournal.com]

Definitely read the book; this movie's closer to the book in fact and in spirit than the '71 version (although I quite liked both!).

I, too, am heading straight for the theaters when the Wallace and Gromit movie comes out!

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I'll probably have to take the girls to see it in a couple of weeks.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

I just may see it knowing I have the original movie on DVD. I somewhere may still have the original book I got back in the early 70's and enjoyed muchly as I do the movie.

It'll be interesting to see how closely both movies compare to the original book.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Apparently the new movie follows it more closely.

[ubermunkey.livejournal.com]

Disregard my comment to your comment... lol.

I am glad that you enjoyed aspects of it. I didn't get the Michael thing but I see what you are saying. Oh so creepy in that staring at children way!

I too liked the grampy, yes the end was predictable but overall I was enormously pleased with the darkness of the movie. Not your average pandering.

Be well

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I have a tendency to be a pollyanna with respect to movies (I don't get out much), so I was being deliberately critical here, but yes I enjoyed it overall. Looks like lots of interesting viewing coming out the next few months.

Cheers.