Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Widescreen Edition) Reviews

• The story behind the story of how Willy Wonka came to be

  
  By A1EFS5PV3HOFDI on 2005-10-01
  Its hard to say this is a remake, for Tim Burton has twisted this story into a mind of its own. Johnny Depp is superb as the rather odd chocolate inventor, who's childhood was less then perfect and adult life surrounded by an atmosphere children can only dream of.
  
  Yes I say childhood, for Burton has given us a look behind the story of Wonka, his father being a dentist who on one halloween threw all of Willy's precious, gathered candy into a fire. Being afraid of the cavities and other trouble sweets bring. Sound dumb? Not at all. Wonka has in consiquence grown up with a twisted idea of how families are, and has a hard time being around parents, even saying the word is torturous for the candy man.
  
  Other than that, this remake has run even closer to the book, Veronica being thrown down the garabge shoot by the squarrels instead of trying to get the goose that laid chocolate eggs. Even the Oompa Loompas have undergone changes, and in turn are hipper, wilder and smaller then before.
  
  The landscape is very Tim Burtonesque, in the beginning of the movie, its not hard to guess who's the director (If you already didn't know) For the coloring is dark, and the Buckets house has a decided scrunched look, and tilts to the right in a way only Tim Burton could make it tilt without completely falling.
  
  I can't quite say though its a movie to take you're children to. With Willy Wonka licking Bug blood of his Machete, to an Oompa Loompa trying to stab Mike Tv, to dolls catching on fire and dying horrible plastic melting deaths. Other than that, apart from the adult moments and understanding of the film, children might enjoy it.
  
  
  

• yuck!

  
  By A2G4I16UFXMW1C on 2005-12-15
  Hey kids, Mister Wonka just put out a new flavor! I hope you like double-glazed crapcake, because that's what it tastes like. It seems Wonka, Inc. was bought out by a glitzy Hollywood outfit that booted out all of the loveable characters, simple charm and oh-so hummable songs and replaced them with high-gloss, coldly computerized eye-candy. The oompah loompahs are all played by one ugly old man who is digitally recreated, neat trick, but a piss-poor substitute for the original hard-working wee people. Miscast Johnny Depp pales (figuratively and literally) in comparison to Gene Wilder. He plays Wonka like an old Dave Foley character from "Kids in The Hall," but creepier and completely unlikable. Not to be an "older is always better" guy, but not one single thing in this high-tech remake is better than the original. The songs just plain stink and the kids, except for Charlie, are less than sweet simulacrums of the original stellar cast. I can't remember the book that well, but I'm pretty damn sure that Roald Dahl did not have the hackneyed story line about Wonka having "father issues" that need to be addressed and happily remedied in the last five minutes. The beauty of the original was the mystery around the factory and the enigmatic Wonka, like many simple joys, I don't need to have everything explained to me and have "back stories" shoved down my throat.
  
  

• The Real Chocolate Factory

  
  By A25BU94E6CW3S5 on 2005-09-30
  Does anyone remember "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?" Well, throw that one away. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is taking it's place as the movie Dahl invisioned.
  
  I don't need to give a summary of the story, as everyone knows what it is. What I need to do, first, is dispell some isues.
  
  Where is the music?
  Why, it's there. The Oompa Loompas sing, only they have much, much better songs.
  
  What about Charlie and his Grandfather drinking the bubble stuff?
  That actually did not happen in the book.
  
  What about the whole Everlasting Gobstopper thing, with Charlie giving his back?
  Again, not in the book. The book was about the importance of family, not the importance of sharing. And that is where the original movie went horribly wrong. This newer version brings out the moral as Dahl wanted it.
  
  
  Depp, as usual, gives an incredible performance, and Burton shows off his as usual incredible directing skills.
  
  This Wonka was much more believable around the kids as he hadn't been around people for years. His antics and his needing the cards made much more sense. And the fact that he was weird only made it funnier. His whole backstory was incredible, as well as sad. The whole issue with his father and the scene where he and his father meet back up is very touching. Depp did incredible with the character. His adaption worked given how Wonka was supposed to be, and it made more sense.
  
  I though it was very touching that Wonka's father had been following his son's career, even though he claimed to not be there when Wonka came back. It was very moving, to say the least.
  
  I liked this Charlie much better. He was way more realistic, as was the Grandfather. I loved the Grandfather. He was incredible and funny. And I liked the idea that Charlie's Grandfather used to work for Mr. Wonka. That was awesome.
  
  This is an incredible movie, and is the only real book-screen adaptation of Raold Dahl's original work. Gene Wilder's version is now inconsequential. If you want Raold Dahl's work the way it was meant to be, then get "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" with Johnny Depp. This is the real version.
  
  

• Wanted to love this film

  
  By A1MU5K7GPEQU90 on 2006-01-19
  Wanted to, so badly. I've always defended Depp's work, but the focus of the plot of the movie is so sappy and self-absorbed that I can't sit through the entire movie. The children's performances shine through, but Depp adds nothing to the movie.
  
  I rented the 1971 movie a few weeks after we purchased the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I fell in love with the Mel Stuart/Gene Wilder movie all over again. The new movie will never be the classic that the 1971 has become.
  
  

• Warning! Chocolate may contain traces of nuts! Unwrap a darker block and vomit it out if contents don't agree with you

  
  By A385C064Y38OFK on 2005-10-22
  No matter if you love or loathe chocolate, or admire or despise the 1971 adaptation of `Ronald Dahl's `Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', starring Gene Wilder, of which Ronald Dahl wrote the screenplay himself - both bars of confectionary should be eaten and savoured upon separately. However there are many edible gratifications to be found in each ambitious undertaking to bring `Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' to the screen for everyone to feast their eyes upon without gaining an ounce of weight. All this and more can be found nestled on a slim versatile video disc called DVD for a lifetime of enjoyment.
  
  With twelve notable films under his belt according to Empire magazine, the latest being `Corpse Bride', original Black Knight `Batman' director Tim Burton, with eccentric films and hair to match movie producer Brian Grazer's hairdo, failed to get through to the register with his chocolate bar (perhaps due to the long line of people ahead of him desperate to consume the new sensation sweeping the nation), and so has moulded a classic film for his eleventh directorial effort that is perhaps his finest hour yet. For Graeme Base it was, and for talented children's author Ronald Dahl's sixth novel it has proven to be a sweet worth sharing with the world. Thirty four years after the original film, that was vehemently despised by its author comes a wilder, wickeder, brooding interpretation. So expect a distinctly darker block of chocolate now on the market, that, if Ronald Dahl was alive today might delight in the change or cause him to turn is his grave. So versatile is this story it comes in drinkable liquid form being hot chocolate.
  
  From early indications when poster work went into production, it was anyone's guess how the finished product would turn out. It's only in the experimental taste-testing, movie preview screenings that we get to indulge in the delectable new creation from renowned chocolate constructer Willy Wonka. There's something under his hat that might warrant some close examination in a padded cell, by a doctor House, with a cane who could meet a man who shares a similar crooked disposition as Peter Laurie's creation.
  
  There has been some tinkering done here, with some sections split into bite sized pieces, but with the most memorable scenes intact. However it only enriches the original story, and only encourages more children to turn the pages of the book with appropriately chocolate covered fingers. You'll either find a treasure trove of treats in a colourful landscape that the poster artwork might suggest could be a rainbow after a rainstorm. Be careful though as you consume this for I feel a vomiting sensation will overcome the eater that will leave you feeling sick to your stomach and abandon you as you are burdened with a severe case of indigestion. If this film spoils your appetite like a `Milky Way' promises not to do, you'll be cursing the day you came across this chocolate bar that will forever leave a despicable taste in your mouth for years to come and cause you to spit at like pips in an orange. The pips are coming if you don't think this film has anything to do with oranges but to me it does. You'll implore to anyone who will listen that this chocolate bar doesn't belong to you.
  
  Coming from poor yet humble beginnings, we meet Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore) who live with his ailing grandparents, who are in desperate need of an adventure, having been cooped up in a big bed for years on end, and a life-long staple diet of boring old cabbage, that will surely see the grandparents kick the bucket well before Charlie if something isn't done fast. Yet it is a stroke of pure luck and a yearly birthday for Charlie that holds the promise of turning everyone's life around. Peeling back the wrapper of an enticing chocolate bar, hoping for a golden ticket that will secure Charlie's place in a tour of the infamous recluse Willy Wonka's once opulent factory. That was until the factory closed, and one of the afore mentioned grandparents, who used to work diligently for Mr. Wonka, was laid off and replaced by a more efficient, yet impersonal machine.
  
  They say time heals all wounds and after years of closure, Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) entertains the idea of five lucky children having a tour of his world-renowned factory.
  
  It's then we have the distinct pleasure of meeting four other winning children lacking in social graces and delightfully repugnant, Mike Teavee, (Jordon Fry) Veruca Salt, (Julia Winter) Violet Beauregarde, (Annasophia Robb) and Augustus Gloop, (Philip Wiegrat) who fill this film with so much enthusiasm, and an over abundance of self-worth in their daily pursuits, that their luck must surely change before there is time for the children's rotten exploits to decay the smooth flowing mechanics of this film. They would too if it wasn't for Willy Wonka's adept knowledge of his beloved factory to dispose of each contestant in distinctly different, yet ingeniously characteristic methods. A humongous block of chocolate and score fitting to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' is spectacular. The pips I mention before as in the bad children I think of `A Clockwork Orange'. Controversial in its day I can't really comment on it having not seen it, but `Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds' also comes to mind even though there is no music from them. Eminem doesn't get a mention either, Michael Jackson and comparisons about him are a little unfair. He made `History' so he must be doing something worthy enough to record.
  
  John August who wrote the script for this and Tim Burton's previous film `Big Fish', does a good job, although I'm more inclined to prefer the `Big Fish' script over `Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.
  
  When thinking of Ronald Dahl's books `Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' is indeed memorable. There will never be a movie sequel to `Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', but there is more great glass elevator in this film. To me, I enjoyed `The Witches' and `Matilda'. Miss Honey in Danny DeVito's film is a honey! I just don't own any of the books or films. I think this will have to change! A movie and book series that comes to mind of a similar dark design are `Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events'.
  
  For me it's all about the adorably deplorable children with kudos to all of them they are all destined to be big stars. For me I liked Veruca Salt who had a blatant disregard for anyone who didn't give her what she wanted, was wonderfully self absorbed in herself and particularly adorable to me. I also wonder if the band of the same name headed by Nina Gordon was an inspiration for them from this book. Violet Beauregard who was a constant gum chewing champion I couldn't help but get attached to. The inclusion of musical numbers is almost nonexistent in Hollywood these days, so to see them in the mix is a welcome addition to Willy Wonka's recipe for success. It would be understandable if people don't lap this movie up in droves. Still if it gets you tongues waging and your mouths chewing on gum, chocolate and the like then it must be doing something right. I loved writing this review and I enjoy the hot chocolate and chocolate bar from Nestle. I'd love to give this film five stars but it just didn't feel exactly right to me so four will have to saffice. This DVD is near perfection just didn't quite do it for me. I can just hear Veruca Salt saying "Daddy, I WANT 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' DVD right now!" In the end it all comes down to taste and it is indeed an aquired taste at that. Try to restrain yourselves everyone!
  
  
• Deplorably Uneven
  By A9PPJLD7CT2EU on 2005-11-03
  Stick with "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". I don't know what Depp and Burton were on when they made this one, but neither of them is up to their usual level. The feel of the movie was inconsistent and Depp couldn't seem to decide if his character was creepy, wise, childish...or maybe he *meant* to seem schizophrenic. The backstory bit was mostly a waste of time, the same goal could have been accomplished with about 1/3 of the time devoted to it. Parts of the movie were delightful, but overall I found it a waste of ticket money.
  
  
• Depp is surprisingly horrible. The factory is atrocious.
  By A1Z6ZSND0M8HXT on 2005-11-28
  I watched this with an open mind. I admit that I loved the original, but I gave this a chance. I am a fan of well-styled special effects so I thought it might be fun to see how professional computer graphics specialists rendered the chocolate factory. It was much more than a disappointment. First of all Johnny Depp was not likeable at all. Now, I know the book portrays Wonka as colder than Wilder's depiction in the earlier film, but in reading the book, you get a sense that Wonka cares about his factory, the oompa loompas and what's to become of his business. None of that here. Depp is just a lunatic who doesn't even seem to care about his business. Awful. The factory design is atrocious - it looks like the designers for DOOM were put on this project after creating a dismal depressing video game atmosphere. It is not inviting at all. Remember, Charlie is supposed to think this is the greatest place in the world, a place where his family could live and be happy. This chocolate factory is neither. Do yoursef a favor and do not see this film.
  
  
• EVERYBODY SING......
  By A24O9KEIL7MYCU on 2005-12-06
  Oompa Loompa doopity doo
  I've got another review for you
  Oompa Loompa doopadadee
  If you are wise, from this movie you'll flee
  
  What do you get with Tim Burton remakes?
  CGI crap and bad music...NO THANKS!
  Johnny Depp stinks and the kids are all lame
  All Tim Burton's movies look the same
  
  I CAN'T STAND TO WA-A-ATCH THEM!
  
  Oompa Loompa doopity dice
  Tim should stick to making Hot Topic merchandise
  This movie really reeks through and through
  Smelling worse than Oompa Loompa DOO DOO!
  
  
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
  By A4K25Z0I8FLDO on 2005-12-19
  TERRIBLE. This was the worst re-make I have ever seen. It was billed as "Charlie" and the Chocolate Factory, which made it sound as if it was a "continuation", not a "re-make". And, as far as I am concerned, nothing can compare to the original "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". However, I do enjoy a good re-make - but this was far from it. The characters were WAY overdone. The acting was terrible. Johnny Depp has done SO much better in other movies. He acted totally gay, and just stupid. I like Johnny Depp in general, he has done so many wonderful movies, but whoever wrote his part in this one just ruined it. Even in the original, Willy Wonka was NOT THAT excentric. He was at least "living on the planet earth", unlike how this Willy Wonka was portrayed. This new "version" of Willy Wonka went way too far, and it was just terrible. Neither I, nor any of the 5 others with me while we watched it, would ever see it again.
  
  
• Another timeless classic that didn't need a remake.
  By A2Q28LKH9BRTKZ on 2006-01-17
  Sometimes a great actor needs to know when he cannot save a film; especially if he is part of the problem. Whether this was Burton's skewed vision or Depp's worst decision since Private Resort, this movie bored me to sleep. Depp's deadpan reprisal of Gene Wilders brilliantly warm and touching performance left me feeling like the novocaine would never wear off. I can't even remeber the last time I turned off a movie half way through. This movie can only be appreciated by adolescent youth who have never seen the original and have no frame of reference for how badly Burton butchered this timeless classic. Tim, Tim, Tim...Corpse Bride, Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks? Get a clue and get back on track. Remember Edward Scissorhands; it was his last great movie. Let us hope that he does a better job with Robert Ripley's life story.
  
  
• A Wonderful Escapist Movie!
  By ACRLCI7C3CG8D on 2005-10-30
  This film was captivating from the get-go. The stark visualization of the Wonka town and Charlie's meager surroundings was outstanding. Charlie's lopsided little house bespoke his poverty, yet also accurately represented his close-knit, but delightfully off-kilter family.
  
  One of the best parts of the movie was the characterization of Charlie and his relationship with his grandfather. Charlie's poor, but caring family contrasts sharply with Willy's childhood with his father. As mentioned in a previous review, Johnny Depp DOES look like he is channeling Michael Jackson. It is almost eerie. However, he makes an effective Willy Wonka and the scenes of his early life with his father, the dentist, certainly explain his eccentric behavior. The other children (and their parents) give adequate performances... enough so that you are glad that they "get what's coming to them."
  
  The 2-Disc Deluxe Edition looks as if it has ample extras and I would certainly recommend this set to anyone who likes the book or the movie.
  
  
  
• eye candy full of empty calories
  By A2228B4OVTYKMZ on 2005-11-10
  It's extraordinary how Tim Burton can make movies that are totally void of humanity and energy and this is his most offensive attempt. It's equally stunning that a remake can eviscerate the brilliant script of the original, take away all humor, quirkiness and cleverness and repackage it with ridiculous changes. And then there's the awful performance of Johnny Depp who has no concept of this character. I believe the original choice for the remake was Nicholas Cage who would've gotten the nastiness of Willy Wonka. I loathed the children and acting all around. I loathed the lame songs. I loathed the money that was spent on this. Take a look at some of the making of extras of the original movie and you'll see it was a labor of love. Like all of Burton's latest movies, this was made for the money. It's eye candy, but it sure ain't sweet.
  
  
• This world is going to the dogs
  By on 2006-01-04
  Johnny depp sucks,he's about as unperfect for the roll of willy wonka as Micheal Jackson would be to a james bond movie,lol anyway... I think the only reason he got the roll for willy wonka is cuz the evil director known that all his stupid girls fan club would go see the movie and it would be a hit, thats the problem with the modern mainstream society, everything is done without passion and is done for the sake of making millions of dollars instead, or just compare this version of willy wonka to the orininal one and you'll see what i mean.
  
  
• Perfect Adaptation!
  By A3GSB0WXF4JXA3 on 2005-09-10
  First off, yes, I am a fan of Tim Burton. I even own every one of his movies on DVD (though one or two of them I could live without). But that's not the point. The fact is, I respect his vision as an artist; and his ability to create such surrealistic worlds that are both weird and wonderful are just enough why I idolize him.
  
  Okay, now, some of you may wonder, if this is a direct remake of the 1971 film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory that starred Gene Wilder. Actually, no, even though it's the same story concept. The only difference is that this film pays more homage to the book (MUCH more homage) and is (of course) AMAZING to look at. The storyline now, is simple enough (because I'm under the impression that a lot of people have seen the original film): Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) is a boy from an impoverished family living under the shadow of a giant chocolate factory, who eventually wins a candy bar contest and is given a tour, along with four other children, of the amazing factory run by the eccentric Willy Wonka and his staff of Oompa-Loompas.
  
  Performance wise, this movie belongs to Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore, who are able to recreate their chemistry from Finding Neverland. However, quote: "Depp's Wonka is far less cuddly than that of Gene Wilder, playing it more like a demented Mr. Rogers with more than a bit of a sadistic streak. The way that he watches the kids meet their fates with giddy glee is quite disturbing, but it's hard not to enjoy this quirky hermit's complete lack of social skills."-Edward Douglas, [...] (sorry, but the guy explianed it perfectly)Also, I'd like to clear this up out of my system before it does any more damage, but it seems A LOT of ....people are comparing Depp's Wonka w/ a certain pop star so much that it really just sickens me. This assessment can be contradicted however. First reason (and this came from no other than Depp himself): In an interview, Johnny said he had NO INTENTION whatsoever to base his character off of Micheal Jackson. Second reason: Willy Wonka is a recluse, so he's supposed to be strange, weird, crazy, whatever. I mean, the guy shunned himself from society for 15 years so he's going to be pale, out of style/trend, and a bit behind. Also, throughout the movie, we're shown flashbacks of Wonka's past that are used to explain his weirdness. There, end of story. Freddie Highmore's Charlie is more sad than the original one, so much that you'll want to hug him b/c he's so optimistic depsite living such an impoverished lifestyle. Another performance nod goes to Deep Roy, who plays all the Oompa-Loompas w/ such panache. Everyone else is respectable in their performances.
  
  Now, aesthetically, this film is amazing; in fact, this is Burton's most visually striking film to date. He yet again creates such surreal and imaginative landscapes that it's just real eye candy to look at; the factory rooms being the prime example. Some of the wacky machinery used to create candy is just as impressive and actually looks like it could work. Yet, as w/ the original film, this film creates an atmosphere that could unnerve sensitive folks. The boat ride down the chocolate tunnel is not the acid trip that was the original, but rather like an intense roller coaster ride. Also, for those who have seen the original, the four kids who fall to their weaknesses (loosely speaking: gluttony, pride, avarice(that's greed) and sloth) and punished for not heeding warnings are a bit more dangerous (thanks to the evolution of filmmaking) and look fatal, but are not.
  
  Also, another treat in this film is to hear composer Danny Elfman (who has composed pretty much all of Tim Burton's films to date save for Ed Wood, which was scored by Howard Shore) sing again. He sings all the Oompa-Loompa songs provided by the lyrics written in the book with such style that you can't help but tap your feet. For the record, he also sung in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas.
  
  Well, I believe I covered over everything. Overall, real faithful adaptation that surpasses the original in practically every way (sorry, but...my opinion). Also, the ending is different, both from the book and the original film; but still good. This is also Burton's best film next to Ed Wood and redeems him from his Planet of the Apes remake (what was he thinking w/ that?). Anyways, great film: just as wacky and twisted as you might expect but nonetheless wonderful to look at and as magical as the original.
  
  
  
  
• A Spectacular Miss
  By A1U6D6B2APS2AX on 2005-11-19
  The dual nature of Gene Wilder's performance in the original made his character exciting and mysterious. Depp's Willy is just weird and shallow. Michael Jackson meets Edward Scissor-Hands. It was a waste of a great actor.
  
  In the original, the Oompa's were also compelling. They could turn from fun-loving and non-threatening to dark and menacing with the flick of a cane. Everyone wanted to see more of them. Unfortunately Burton took this literally and made hundreds of clones. It seems like he was so distracted (as I was) with the split screens, scaling, modeling and other Hollywood trickery, that he forgot all about personality. I'm so bored of directors tripping over special effects that I can only say "Please God, don't let him near Disney. I don't want to see Snow White and the 700 Sleepy's".
  
  In the original it felt like the kids had a fair chance, but they fell victims to their own vices. In Burton's, it felt more like target practice. Hand the gum chewer a piece of gum and when she starts chewing it, act... unsure. The only moral there was don't take candy from strange people.
  
  Of course this version is going to be compared to the original version, and I think the time spent watching this would have been better spent watching the original. After viewing this once, I've seen all I'll ever want to of Weird Willy Rubber-Hands Wonka, his special effects factory, and his Oompa.
  
  
• BRRRRR!!!What A Cold Factory
  By A3HU0B9XUEVHIM on 2005-12-23
  As stated many times I agree that Johnny Depp is such a versitile actor but for the following reasons this movie was spoiled.And being a remake I am sorry I cannot avoid occational
  comparasins to the original:
  1:) The visualizations and camera work is joyless and souless.
  Instead of drawing on the quirky humor and wackiness of his first film 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' he drew on his later,darker
  works-notably 'Edward Scissorhands' and 'Batman'.While those were both great films in their own right this is not 'that' kind of movie.
  2:)I DID'NT WANT TO DELVE INTO WILLIE WONKA'S TROUBLED BOYHOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
  3:)The golden ticket winners were bland compared to the flamboyantly obnoxious originals and the lack of dialog made took even more soul out of it.
  4:)WARNING:CHEAP OOMPA LOOMPAS!Instead of hiring a new cast Burton relied to computer multiplied images of actor Deep Roy to
  generate an endless series of quintuplets.
  5:)This remake had no sense of humor at all.The jokes are ironic and never funny,even one mildly ammusing remark about breakfast cereal.
  6:)As hinted at earlier this film borrows far too much from Burton's other films.Instead of trying to create a newness to the overall production the entire film seems like............
  well a production.Very labored and it shows.
  While the FX in this is far more high tech and modern then the 1971 original the magic,warmth and humanity is taken right out of it.Just my opinion.
  
  
• The Greatest Book-to-Film adaptation I've ever seen.
  By on 2005-12-30
  For those comparing this to "Willy Wonka":
  Shut up.
  Just Shut Up.
  Please.
  This is not based on the old movie.
  This is based on the book.
  Sure, people are disapointed because they grew up on the old movie, but I believe that this new one is just as dark as the book. The Wonka Childhood bit was, in fact, suggested by Roald Dahl himself.
  I saw this for two reasons:
  1. I love the book.
  2. Tim Burton is God (Not really, but you know what I mean.)
  I was disapointed by the old movie, because Willy wasn't as...cunning or dark as the book.
  The Oompa Loompa songs rocked. Pure and simple.
  All of their songs were from the book (The Violet Beuregarde one just had a few name changes) and their hilarious lyrics married with the superb musicianship of Danny Elfman created some insanely catchy tunes.
  I feel sorry for Deep Roy. He had to do all those dance moves in a million different positions.
  
  All in all, I was amazed by this film. Simply...astounded at what is possibly my favorite movie of all time.
  
  Matthew Jessup
  
  
• This was one movie that should have never been remade!
  By A1QVXLKR1AFCH8 on 2006-01-02
  Movie really is not that good! First of all, they should have had multiple Oompa Loompas... and the one that they have is SCARY! Johnny Depp's character is creepy too... a cross between Marylin Manson and Micheal Jackson! The original was SOOO much better!!! Don't waste your money on this DVD.
  
  
• Bad, bad, bad waste of your time
  By A22Y6PMCVZW7A5 on 2006-01-06
  This movie was bad. There are few movies that I would actually walk out on. I would have on this but others were there and I had to stay. And it was painful. I loved the original with Gene Wilder which was a story about a boy and his dream. This version was really all about how wierd Willy Wonka is. His character is very cold, right up to the end and quite frankly, it is depressing. There is no character development for Charlie Bucket at all, in my opinion one of the best characters of the original.
  
  Some of the best parts of the original were the oompa loompa scenes. This one uses all the same person (as an oompa loompa) CG'd into many roles and does not look like one would imagine an oompa loompa would look like.
  
  I also really like Johny Depp as an actor and will watch anything that he is in (he was awesome in Pirates). This was not a good role for him though and I think he was mis-cast.
  
  That's 2 hours of my life that I will never get back, save your time, skip this one!
  
  
• OK at best
  By ASIA7V7CBSKD3 on 2006-01-08
  I was really dissappointed in this movie. I think the original was far better. Granted this version did a better job following the book, but the whole movie just seemed to be off. Maybe it is just Tim Burton and all of his weirdness, but this is not a movie I'll be watching again any time soon.
  
  
• Absolutely NOT better than the original
  By A2P1C75HUR3P3X on 2006-03-01
  I know nobody likes to compare the two versions of Roald Dahl's book, but I am going to go ahead and do so, simply because when one considers the merits of the original version it seems a waste and a bore to remake it.
  There is one exception to this, and that is the costume, special effects and style - very Burton-esque, but that aside, it is doubtless superior to the amateurish 70s version. However, with this idea, we are speaking under the rule that dictates most of Hollywood these days, and that is that such matters are the make or break of a film. Being a fan of classic film, I nostalgically appreciate a time when this was not the case.
  The original version of this film gave us everything that mattered on the inside. The only thing that Burton did better was he made the "look" of the film more modern, something I do not consider important on the grand scale of what constitutes a memorable movie.
  I am aware that Burton stayed closer to the Dahl book, but what makes a good movie is very different from what works in a book, and I do not think we should be judging the two versions on which is a better replicate. Depp's performance was too Michael Jackson-esque for my liking. He was simply too "weird". Why does this make a difference? It does absolutely - Depp's Wonka was so preoccupied by details and effects of his own childhood and life that he gave the impression that he didn't care at all about Charlie or any of the other children. In the end, when Charlie takes Wonka into his home, our impressions are confirmed, that Wonka is indeed the main focus of the story. Ironic, since this version bears Charlie's name in the title versus the old one which used the name of Willy Wonka.
  
  The bottom line is, the charm and simplicity of the old version was derived from its focus on Charlie and his modesty, humility and hope. In this version the whole Slugworth story was omitted (the crux of the morality of the old version) and replaced by a story about dentistry that attempted to gather sympathy for Willy Wonka.
  
  Also, the Oompa Loompa songs were a disgraceful demonstration of the stupid humor of our times, and moments where there had been a song in the old version were treated with a nervous attempt to evoke laughter (eg Grandpa doing a quick dance when he got out of bed)- an impression of a "how can we fill in the cracks?" type of approach.
  
  Overall, the only merits of the new version are its special effects and modernity, which are not enough to tempt me to say that it ranks anywhere near its predecessor in terms of value. When will we get away from such a superficial approach to moviemaking? Apart from these details, this movie did not persuade me of the reason why it was remade in the first place.
  
  
• More of a parody than an adaptation
  By A14BTPLY8WCOSV on 2006-03-29
  Am I the only one who believes that this new "Charlie" film is nothing like the book? I doubt I'll convert anyone to how I see the story, but if this review counts for anything let it count for this: that there is someone who completely disagrees with the notion that Roald Dahl would have liked this garbage, and that it stays true to the book.
  This new movie doesn't improve the book (it's so good it doesn't need that) nor does it "visually" capture it, but does it a terrible disservice.
  First, let's talk about the visual aspects. There are reviewers who'll say that this film perfectly captures visually the book. I like the choke with bitter laughter when I heard that. What a lie! EVERYTHING is changed! Mr. Wonka is not the short delightful little man, with a bright purple velvet jacket, green pants, curly hair, and gottee (like in the book), but in the film, he's a grossly pale face man, with jet-black girly hair, black pants, black shirt, and a violet jacket.
  The Oompa Loompas aren't little children with rosey white faces and golden brown hair (like in the book), but in the film some dark-skinned looking Arabians with tight-skin red suits. In the book, Willy Wonka and his Oompa Loompas have their act together. In the book, the Oompa Loompas are obedient and hard workers,each working on fantastic machines for many different candies and purposes. Everything was neat and in order, not the senseless chaos and mayhem displayed in the film. In the film, the Oompas Loompas are potrayed as a bunch a silly ugly guys that look like they play video games all day; so many things are going on at once; complete disorder. Where is that in the book?
  The movie's Chocolate factory and candy machines are way too fancy. Everything is overwrought. There's too much machines, too many gizmoes. None of the visuality of the film came close to my imagination from Roald Dahl's description.
  Secondly, the dialogue. Sheesh...don't even get me started there! 90% of the dialogue is not from the book! So many lines from Willy Wonka and the children are no where to be found at all in the book. There's so much darkness added. I respect the fact that Mr. Burton wanted to make his own version, and wanted it to be different than the original, but I think it's a blatant lie that he was trying to be truer to the book. If he was why not include the ORIGINAL dialogue that is in the book?
  Thirdly, the book gives its morals in a way that is delightful and profound. The Oompa Loompas with their CHILD-LIKE voices and little drums sing there songs all to teach the reader not to make the same mistakes the children make. In the film, the Oompaas are singing with guitars, discos, saxphones, and all other kind of dreadfully modern day stuff.
  Tim Burton takes the punishments of the children (which they did deserve) and runs thirty yards with it. In the book, it's done in a funny and profound way. But in the film, the punishments are done as if it was a horror movie. The squirrels don't just dragged Veruca to the hole, they do it while she's screaming her lungs out, and her fingers are clutching desperately onto the floor, her nails leaving long horrible sratch marks. Mike Teavee doesn't just get zapped into a T.V. of his own fault, but has to run from side to side as fast as he can while an Oompa Loompa is trying to stab him through with a knife. Where is that in the book? The atmosphere of the film as a whole is oppressive, aggressive, and dark. You feel like your watching a horror film instead of the beloved story by one of the best loved children's authors in the world.
  While watching the film, I really and truly got the impression that Mr. Burton doesn't give a flip about the book or the author's intentions. When watching the film, I don't see a director who loves and respects the original children's story, but actually who thinks it's corny, and in order to make it better for himself, remakes the story as dark and twisted as possible.
  This IS NOT charlie and the chocolate factory: this is Tim Burton and the Chocolate Factory, folks!
  
  
• WHAT WERE THEY THINKING????
  By A3VAXXMIYHZ3LY on 2006-05-18
  From the opening titles, Tim Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY is sad and its soul is dark. The idea of making a more faithful version of the Roald Dahl children's book is not inherently a bad one, but why make Willy almost repulsive? The set design and computer graphics are interesting, but there is no joy here, none at all. Even the Oomploompas are dour, and the music of frequent Burton collaborator Danny Elfman dwells in shades of grey, eschewing any rainbow hues. It's almost as though every fibre of being in CHARLIE is trying to be repellent. I have to give this one a big, BIG thumbs-down, especially where children are concerned. The film WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY is a much better viewing choice, and Gene Wilder the perfect Wonka. Maybe the special effects aren't as whiz-bang as you can do these days, but the heart and soul of the earlier film are affecting and full of wonder.
  
  
• totally creepy
  By A2OTCWVI11RBNW on 2006-08-26
  Depp's take on Willie Wonka was totally creepy. They obviously purposefully took Michael Jackson as a main model for the role. But he's even much creepier. The special effects just didn't make it for me. A shame. Aweful movie.
  
  
• Best movie of the year! One to remember for a lifetime!
  By on 2005-10-25
  There is nothing better to say than this movie is incredible! In my opinion, it completely destroys the 71' adaption. Many people say that Gene Wilder did great, and I can make a small agreement, but Johnny Depp provided a much more enjoyable performance! Some people think that this movie is a re-make, but it is not. It is almost perfectly aligned with the entire topic and feel of the book, yet the older version went nowhere near the story's plot. Tim Burton really focused on the book's storyline, only adding enough extra details to really bring out the character of Willy Wonka's life, and he did magnificent! The older version had the same idea, but it just didn't proove worthy in Roald Dahl's view for it had added too many things that did not happen in the book. I really don't know why the older version is considered a classic because the author himself did not approve of it. What I'm trying to say is that everyone is different and likes different things, but in my point of view, and in the view of many others, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory far exceeds the greatness of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
  
  
• The Deluxe edition, Soul Brother... ****1/2
  By A3DL686B8JEM8A on 2005-11-08
  I once made the comment that most of the entertainment today is in very bad shape. The industries are trying to relive past glories, especially music and movies. Most of the money being made in the music industry is reissues, HDCD releases of well-known titles, delux reissues, legacy reissues, offical releases of bootlegs, greatest hits, and any and all repackaging of classic albums. And they all use well known, classic, big name artists, because they know people will buy it. Because the majority of new CDs, and new artists aren't of any real quality, they have to rely on the old stuff to make money. The same can be said of the movies. It's all sequels, prequels, remakes, and remodels.
  
  Accordingly, I was not thrilled when I heard a new version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was coming out. When I learned it was a Tim Burton/Danny Elfman/Johnny Depp production, I was less skeptical. When I saw a trailer, I was interested. When I heard Danny Elfman was writing/composing the music AND doing the vocals, I was excited. The collaboration is great, almost to the point of excusing all their pretensiousness and self-absorbtion... enough quibbling. On to the movie!
  
  It holds many of Tim Burton's staples; it is dark, stark, eerie, and filled with the regular unnamable props, but he has allowed joy into the equation. The movie is much better for it. There is rich color, specifically in the factory, to match the rich imagery and funny comparisons of Willy Wonka. Depp is cast perfectly in this role, which is not really apparent unless you see the movie. He is funny, quirky, confused, and innocent; much different than the brilliant, strong character played by Gene Wilder in the original. The children who find the golden tickets and their parents do a great job too. Perhaps my favorite part is the wild card, Danny Elfman. If you don't know WHO Elfman is, you're sure to have heard his music whether in any number of cult classic 80's films (Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman 1 & 2), his TV themes (The Simpsons), his musical-esque movies featuring his vocals (Nightmare Before Christmas-- an absolute classic soundtrack), or his 15-plus years of work as the vocalist/writer/guitarist for 80's heavyweight Oingo Boingo. "Charlie" is the 11th time Tim Burton has used Elfman as his composer, and this is arguably their greatest work together (though I prefer "Nightmare Before Christmas").
  
  The movie itself is quite interesting, moving into parts of the Willy Wonka story the orignal movie didn't, relying more on the Ron Dahl book. Note: even the lyrics to the four Oompa-Loompa songs are the lyrics from the novel. We learn that Willy became a chocolateer to spite his father and is forever haunted by this falling out. An eventual redemtion of their relationship serves as a very positive pro-family element. Best of all, it's clean. Nothing negative, offensive, or disturbing is presented, meaning a green light for families and kids; a HUGE plus. The problem of lacking special features is corrected here, but you can save a few dollars if you don't mind a slimmer package. A great, big, fun movie.
  
  Overall: 9 out of 10.
  
  
  
  
• Burton gives the movie-goer (and DVD buyer) very little to feel good about
  By A2S1JQWKZMGFD2 on 2005-11-11
  Comparisons of Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" with the previous film version of Roald Dahl's classic starring Gene Wilder, "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" may be unfair (or not), but the comparisons certainly are inevitable. The two most obvious contrasts between the two films are that between Johnny Depp's portrayal of Willie Wonka and Wilder's version 35 years earlier, and the general warmth and charm of Willie Wonka and the characters in general.
  
  An unquestionably talented actor who has evocatively played some truly breakthrough rolls, like Edward Scissorhands, for example, Johnny Depp either nails a character or does not. In "Charlie...," unfortunately, Depp misses big. Depp creates in a new Willie Wonka a spooky, air-headed, heartless and ignorant Willie Wonka. The audience wonders, "How could this intellectual and emotional lightweight have ever created the worlds most prolific chocolate empire?" There were no such concerns with Wilder's Willie Wonka, who, although occasionally abrupt and Darwinistic, the audience knew always had a heart of gold.
  
  Like Depp, Tim Burton's films are either a dead-on winner, like the first new "Batman" movie starring Michael Keaton, "Ed Wood," and "Corpse Bride," the latter ironically two both also starred Depp, or a miserable loser like the 2001 version of "The Planet of the Apes" and "Mars Attacks." There is not much in between. "Charlie..." is a loser. By creating a world using smart special effects that is dark and oppressive and characters who are the product of that world, Burton gives the movie-goer (and DVD buyer) very little to feel good about. Even the Oompa Loompas, who were fun, sage, and entertaining in the 1971 film were in fact sort of mean, chiding, and uninteresting. (I use the word "were," referring to the new Oompa Loompas in the plural. In fact, Burton "cheated" by digitally reproducing the same actor, Deep Roy, hundreds of times to represent the diminutive factory workers.)
  
  The only bright spot in "Charlie..." was the casting of Helena Bonham Carter as Charlie's mother. Her role is small and mostly insignificant, but Carter has the ability through her extraordinary talent as an actor to make just about every one of her roles amusing. However, that bright spot does not shine long, as the other actors, from Freddie Highmore's Charlie, to David Kelly's Grampa Joe, to Noah Taylor's Mr. Bucket, to all of the actors who played the children, to Deep Roy who portrayed the Oompa Loompa(s), turn in performances as disappointing as the film itself. For the most part, it's not the actors who were at fault.
  
  While "Charlie..." does in many ways parallel Roald Dahl's book more closely than "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" did three and a half decades ago, the new film fails to capture the poignant moral lessons in the same context as the book did. It also fails to leave the audience with the same warm happy feeling that the original film did. In short, unless you are a HUGE fan of Tim Burton or Johnny Depp, don't bother with this poorly constructed facsimile.
  
  
  
• A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE AND DISAPPOINTMENT
  By A38YHDX3A889HC on 2005-11-11
  Words can not express how disappointed I was after I watched this movie. I expected something much better coming from Tim Burton. Johnny Depp's portayal of Willy Wonka was scandalous. The ending was HORRIFIC. The Oompa Loopma songs were terrible and the music just didn't fit in with the movie. The only thing I liked about the movie was that there were parts that were more true to the book than the original Willy Wonka movie. But, there was also a lot of added junk in this new film version that was not in the book. So it defeated the purpose of trying to stay true to the book in the first place. And another thing... this is 2005, not 1955. Where's the diversity? geez!
  
  The only nice thing I can say about this movie is that the colors and special effects were lovely. That is all. I just bought the DVD and I want my money back!
  
  
• Not for young children
  By A1BSM33I8C3552 on 2005-11-12
  Johnny Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka is a disgrace. This once-beloved character has been turned into a psychotic, parent-hating, extremely juvenile, WEIRDO.
  
  My young daughter has had nightmares about "little squirrels" EVERY NIGHT since seeing this film over the summer. In this version of the film, squirrels attack Veruca Salt and throw her into a hole.
  
  Finally, a brief, yet totally unnecessary, scene of two homosexuals walking their dog is a part of this so-called "family film".
  
  I am extremely disappointed in this remake. It really could have been done in a much better way.
  
  
• stupid, dull, boring
  By on 2005-12-21
  I thought "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was very, very, very boring. Everything about this movie sucks. The oompa loompa's songs are so stupid, and the little side story's of Willy Wonka's dad are... stupid. I have no clue if they're in the book or not. Johnny Depp is without a doubt the worst Willy Wonka ever. He reminded me of Micheal Jackson. How can this movie even compare to the 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?" Gene Wilder was perfect as Willy Wonka. I would suggest that version of this piece of garbage anyday.
  
  

• Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (Widescreen Special Edition)
• Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (Full Screen Edition)
• Edward Scissorhands (Widescreen Anniversary Edition)
• Batman Begins (Widescreen Edition)
• The Polar Express (Two-Disc Widescreen Edition)