Much has been made about whether or not "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", directed by Tim Burton, was even necessary. The original film about Willy Wonka, Mel Stuart's "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (1971) is a bona fide classic, so it was inevitable that there would be some trepidation in the wake of a remake. Fortunately, Tim Burton not only is the best man to helm the project, but the film, while having many similarities to be sure, does differ substantially from Stuart's.
There are going to be inevitable comparisons to the original film, and whether or not this is entirely fair, one cannot help but look at some main similarities and differences. Both films certainly have fantastically odd set designs, though (perhaps being a product of its time) the original is pretty psychedelic. It is hard to describe Tim Burton's sets in most of his fantasy films, though he has made enough of a name for himself in that he's probably been used as an adjective (A set being "Burton-esque I know I've personally used this phrase). The Bucket's house is impossibly slanted and the "garden" in the beginning of the factory tour is not just colorful, but looks like Dali designed it. Burton has traditionally made some really slick looking films, and his style is just as present in this one. One of my favorite scenes in particular was in the sterile room where Mike Teevee meets the end of his tour. The stark white is the same from the original film, but there was something about the presentation, from the lighting to the funky goggles they were wearing, that made me really take notice. The many different Oompa Loompas were replaced with the hilarious Deep Roy (superimposed on many bodies), with songs that were not only updated and more contemporary, but ones that were mostly written by Dahl himself. Unfortunately I am at a disadvantage in that I have not read the book and therefore am not certain which script changes (from the original) can be attributed to Burton's production or to the book itself, but I really enjoyed the background information on Wonka; it not only gave him a more human appeal (despite his bizarre appearance) but really gave the production more depth than I felt the original had.
When I first heard about this project last year, and learned that Depp had signed on as Wonka, I was really excited because I firmly believe that not only is he one of the greatest contemporary actors working, but he and Burton are the greatest actor/director team in decades. Both people, while they have shown their versatility (mainly Depp) are better known for their creativity, and as a result, every project they have done together has been nothing short of spectacular. There is no way to compare the performances of Gene Wilder, the original Wonka and that of Depp because they are very different and both great, but I can aver that any trepidations that some may have about whether he can do the part justice are quashed in about 30 seconds. Made up with ghoulishly white face makeup on a chiseled face that looks like it could cut stone, with a toothy grin and a shiny straight pageboy hair cut, if Depp were about two degrees more frightening-looking, he would be nightmare fuel. His portrayal of Wonka and his ironic dislike of children is less sarcastic and more phobic. He clearly doesn't feel anything but disdain for most of the children, but deals with them on an almost childish level himself, spouting out "Ew's" and bickering. His equal dislike of the parents is just as funny, but it all comes together, psychologically, with the inclusion of his own back-story. Freddie Highmore is, frankly, adorable. Emitting SO much more charm than Peter Ostrum, the original Charlie Bucket, he not only shows that he can act, (though I discovered this while watching "Finding Neverland") but he can charm the pants off an avowed kid hater. (That would be me) When I saw this film, I was with my boyfriend and a friend of ours, and I believe that we were the only "adults" in the theater who weren't accompanied by kids. Yet, I found that while everyone in the theater seemed to be enjoying the film, it was the three of us who laughed the loudest. The original film was wicked at times, but I think that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" had moments where it was downright evil, and I thought the whole film was (no pun intended, really) simply delicious. There are few films where I sit through them with a big dumb grin on my face throughout, ("Moulin Rouge", any Coen Brothers film comes to mind) and this one definitely goes on the short list. There are so many appealing elements to this film that make it, in my opinion, an instant classic, and a film that is as kid-friendly as the original. That is to say, the kids will like it, but the adults watching it with them are going to pick up on how twisted it really is. 8/10 --Shelly
There are going to be inevitable comparisons to the original film, and whether or not this is entirely fair, one cannot help but look at some main similarities and differences. Both films certainly have fantastically odd set designs, though (perhaps being a product of its time) the original is pretty psychedelic. It is hard to describe Tim Burton's sets in most of his fantasy films, though he has made enough of a name for himself in that he's probably been used as an adjective (A set being "Burton-esque I know I've personally used this phrase). The Bucket's house is impossibly slanted and the "garden" in the beginning of the factory tour is not just colorful, but looks like Dali designed it. Burton has traditionally made some really slick looking films, and his style is just as present in this one. One of my favorite scenes in particular was in the sterile room where Mike Teevee meets the end of his tour. The stark white is the same from the original film, but there was something about the presentation, from the lighting to the funky goggles they were wearing, that made me really take notice. The many different Oompa Loompas were replaced with the hilarious Deep Roy (superimposed on many bodies), with songs that were not only updated and more contemporary, but ones that were mostly written by Dahl himself. Unfortunately I am at a disadvantage in that I have not read the book and therefore am not certain which script changes (from the original) can be attributed to Burton's production or to the book itself, but I really enjoyed the background information on Wonka; it not only gave him a more human appeal (despite his bizarre appearance) but really gave the production more depth than I felt the original had.
When I first heard about this project last year, and learned that Depp had signed on as Wonka, I was really excited because I firmly believe that not only is he one of the greatest contemporary actors working, but he and Burton are the greatest actor/director team in decades. Both people, while they have shown their versatility (mainly Depp) are better known for their creativity, and as a result, every project they have done together has been nothing short of spectacular. There is no way to compare the performances of Gene Wilder, the original Wonka and that of Depp because they are very different and both great, but I can aver that any trepidations that some may have about whether he can do the part justice are quashed in about 30 seconds. Made up with ghoulishly white face makeup on a chiseled face that looks like it could cut stone, with a toothy grin and a shiny straight pageboy hair cut, if Depp were about two degrees more frightening-looking, he would be nightmare fuel. His portrayal of Wonka and his ironic dislike of children is less sarcastic and more phobic. He clearly doesn't feel anything but disdain for most of the children, but deals with them on an almost childish level himself, spouting out "Ew's" and bickering. His equal dislike of the parents is just as funny, but it all comes together, psychologically, with the inclusion of his own back-story. Freddie Highmore is, frankly, adorable. Emitting SO much more charm than Peter Ostrum, the original Charlie Bucket, he not only shows that he can act, (though I discovered this while watching "Finding Neverland") but he can charm the pants off an avowed kid hater. (That would be me) When I saw this film, I was with my boyfriend and a friend of ours, and I believe that we were the only "adults" in the theater who weren't accompanied by kids. Yet, I found that while everyone in the theater seemed to be enjoying the film, it was the three of us who laughed the loudest. The original film was wicked at times, but I think that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" had moments where it was downright evil, and I thought the whole film was (no pun intended, really) simply delicious. There are few films where I sit through them with a big dumb grin on my face throughout, ("Moulin Rouge", any Coen Brothers film comes to mind) and this one definitely goes on the short list. There are so many appealing elements to this film that make it, in my opinion, an instant classic, and a film that is as kid-friendly as the original. That is to say, the kids will like it, but the adults watching it with them are going to pick up on how twisted it really is. 8/10 --Shelly