www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - a disappointment!

Well I took my 8-year old daughter to see the much awaited Charlie and the Chocolate Factory yesterday. She was delighted by the movie and the characters, and there were more than a few amusing parts in the film. The special effects were - of course, given that it is a Tim Burton film - marvellous. The overall story had a very positive message as well - family should come first over career, reconcile with your p-p-p-parents (those who have seen it will understand), vices such as gluttony, pride and avarice can get you into trouble, etc. And Freddie Highmore, who plays Charlie Bucket, is exceptionally better than the original "Charlie" played by Peter Ostrum, who, to no one's surprise, never acted again and is now a vet to large farm animals in rural New York state.

I, however, who have been an unrelenting fan of the 1971 version of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" with Gene Wilder in the role of Mr. Wonka, was disappointed on a number of points.

1. At times it reminded me of a long running broadway play that now has a new cast...but the audience has seen the old cast for nearly 30 years, so the director decides to mix things up a bit so that the audience can't predict what will happen next. (For instance - Instead of a whistle for the Oompa Loompas, THIS Willie Wonka just makes a nonsensical high pitched childish "Blathalatha" sound to call the little creatures to himself. Alrighty then.) Some of the actors (and I could be projecting here) seem have a look on their face like "This isn't how it was done in the REAL movie, but I'm going to pretend that this feels natural!" Personally, that's just too doggone self-conscious to enjoy.

2. Johnny Depp's performance as the eccentric owner and inventor of Wonka Chocolate left MUCH to be desired. Normally he is quite versatile and has an engaging presence on screen. In this film, however, he was so stiff, squeaky, quirky and strange it was uncomfortable to watch and became tiresome after two hours. (He also had a strange resemblance to Michael Jackson at times, which completely ruined it for me!)

3. The Oompa Loompa (there is only one - Deep Roy - with his face projected on to hundreds) sings songs that...well...don't sound at all like Oompa Loompa songs at all. (Ok - I'm nearly 40 and I'm making FAR more of this than I really should!) But there wasn't even a tribute to the original tune that everybody instinctively wants to sing when they just HEAR the words "Oompa Loompa". Some of you are probably singing it in your head right now... :p

4. Grandpa Joe was played by David Kelly, who was marvellous in the 1998 movie "Waking Ned Devine". In this film he didn't appear natural at all on the screen. Not sure why this was, but I felt like I was watching a man, who is ordinarily quite funny, reading lines to a script and feeling a little too conscious of the camera.

5. Finally, my only other criticism of the movie has NOTHING to do with the movie, but rather with the preview of the next animated Tim Burton film, "Corpse Bride". The plot is summarized as follows:

_______________________________________________

Set in 19th-century European village, Victor (Johnny Depp) is travelling home with his friend to get married to his fiancee Victoria (Emily Watson). The two stop to rest in the woods, and as a joke, Victor puts his wedding ring on a finger-shaped stick in the ground and says his wedding vows. The stick turns out to be a rotted finger belonging to a murdered girl (Helena Bonham-Carter), who returns as a zombie and insists that she is now Victor's lawfully wedded wife.
________________________________________________

It appears that Victor does in fact fall in love with the corpse (who is decaying throughout the film) and becomes familiar and quite comfortable with her world of the dead.

OK - and the MORAL of this story is...?!?

Tim Burton's fascination with macabre is more than a little disturbing, but none of this appears in "Charlie".

REVIEW: One larger thumb down, and one little thumb up.

Gordo, who is really craving a Gobstopper right now...

In college I we all had to do so many credits of theatre.
So my assignment was to tape the productions and rehearsals of Willy wonka and the chocolate factory a la Andy Warhol.
It was fun.
But there were squirrels and the golden nuts instead of geese that laid the golden eggs. There was a brown cow and chocolate milk. The characters were a slight bit different. Mike TV was from new jersey (played by a kid from jersey, made it all the better, no fake accent needed).
There were other variations, but it was FUN. I never really did anything in theatre before and after, but I did have fun.
Massasauga, who loves this story, but might wait to catch the latest version on dvd.

Gordo

I loved the original movie and it's strong moral message, and while I've only seen previews of the remake, I couldn't help but notice how creepy and effeminate Johnny Depp (an otherwise outstanding thespian) acts in the lead roll.

Strong Moral Message?

What about when they all pile in that boat and it goes into the dark tunnel? Wonka goes into this psychotic break of a song - and all the while, mind bending images are thrown on the walls around the boat. And to top it off, they behead a chicken right before your very eyes!

I had to have therapy for years after that movie! (grin)

If I have to go out and rent the movie to prove my point, then I'm sending some Oompa Loompas after you.

If it means anything, the Oompa Loompa songs in C&TCF are much closer to the lyrics in the original book that WW&TCF

I highly suggest to anyone who has problems with this "remake" (which it isn't) to actually pick up Dahl's original book and read it.

The Burton film is a far more accurate recreation of Dahl's story in both style and tone than the musical from a few decades ago (which I do love). Wonka is not the kind-hearted albeit slightly eccenntric confectionary wizard that Wilder protrayed him to be. He is the rather strange, rather effeminate off-putting borderline lunatic that Depp portrayed quite well.

As a fan of Dahl's works, I found this film to be right on the money...and so does Dahl's widow. The author hated the Wilder movie with a passion, but was very much taken with Burton's "James and the Giant Peach" of a few years ago. He unfortunately died earlier this year and didn't get a chance to see this new film, but I'm sure he would have loved it. Burton actually "gets" the point of Dahl's storytelling and has no problem putting it on the screen.

I agree with you, Mikey, by all accounts the new movie is certainly more in line with the book as written by the late Roald Dahl. And I've read the book several times, so I know just what you're talking about.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's "better" - movies are a different language than books, and sometimes slavishly following the text of a book can result in a pretty boring movie; while making drastic changes - even changes that the author hates - can result in a masterpiece.

Perfect example: which would you rather see - Stanley Kubrick's version of "The Shining", starring Jack Nicholson - which author Stephen King despised? OR the TV-movie version, given the Stephen King seal of approval, and starring ... uh ... lessee ... what was that guy's name again? Timothy something?

I'm sure I'll see the new Charlie movie eventually, and based on Tim Burton's track record, it will undoubtedly be worth seeing. But the earlier version is a masterpiece in and of itself, and Gene Wilder will always be the "real" Willie Wonka to this baby boomer.

No. not Michael Jackson! [Linked Image] Geena Davis!
[Linked Image]

My kids saw Willie Wonka and the...and now my grand kids want to see Charlie and the...

From clues I have gotten here and on another Christian website I wonder if it would be good for them to see. They are 7 and 9. What do you think?

Of course, they are used to seeing the kind of thing that is put out by Disney for kids these days. e.g. Herbie, the Love Bug, Full Throttle.

I am not a very big fan of Johnny Depp...nor have I enjoyed his films like Edward Sissorhands, Ichabod Crane, (The Legend of Sleep Hollow).....The Secret Window...The 9th Gate...or Pirates of the Carribean. Maybe a little..What is Eating Gilbert Grape? I did like Finding Neverland because of the story and Kate Winslet's performance.

So doubt whether I will see Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

It is, of course, all a matter of taste.

I believe you're referring to the Shining starring Steven Weber (of "Wings" fame). Actually, I much prefer that version myself, because the background story present in the book is more present and it also displays the main theme throughout Stephen King's work: that although the supernatural can be scary, the real monster is man himself. But, man also has the power to overcome his own monostrosity.

In Kubrick's film, Jack Torrance is really a victim of the ghosts that inhabit the hotel. He becomes more crazed the longer the family stays and ends up chasing his son through the hedge maze in the now classic scene at the climax of the film.

However, in the televsion mini-series, you see a family already torn apart by Jack's alcoholism. They take the job as winter caretakers to sort out some problems as a family and come closer together. However, things take a turn for the worse as the supernatural element preys on Jack's already flawed sense of reality. The first thing they do is, of course, lead him to drink again! He's more of a victim of himself and his own problems than he is a victim of a ghost...an extremely powerful and moving concept that is totally lost in Kubrick's vision. In the end, Jack actually redeems himself by sacrificing his life for his wife and son. There is no such redemption in Kubrick's film.

While the performances in the earlier version are indeed stellar, particularly Shelly Duvall who's work is overshadowed by Nicholson's, the more moving and thought provoking parts of the story are lost. Yes, the production of the mini-series is lacking, but one goes away from it thinking about one's own demons as opposed to an "is it or isn't" proposition in the Kubrick film. Nicholson's Torrance is just someone who's randomly gone mad; Weber's Torrance, while not as dynamically acted as Nicholson, is a man who's already on the way down a slippery slope who makes a bad choice and falls into oblivion, only to be saved at the last moment by love for his son.

Stephen King's works are often portrayed poorly on the screen because much of his writing is done from a very internal point-of-view. But, as I said, it's largely a matter of taste. I enjoyed Burton's vision of Dahl's work far more than the sappy and scholcky earlier vision by some director whose name no one can remember....

That's true, Mikey, and you're speaking to a fellow rabid Stephen King fan so I know what you're talking about! And I did see the miniseries, and understand why King felt he had to do it and exercise control and all that. And I agree that technically it's a better version of his book ...

... still, when all is said and done, if I had to choose which version I'd prefer to watch again, right now ... well, all I can say is, "Herrrreeee's Johnny!!"

ROFL!

Actually, you should find a shot of him with the large glasses on. It's kind of creepy!

Gordo