CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY review

So why do so many treat it as such?

I grew up watching Wonka at least once a year. I personally enjoy the film a whole lot. I feel it's a classic, but if you watch Wonka when you are older and have never seen it before, it's a different experience. I was against this remake because Burton said he hated the original. If he hated the original why even remake the film with many of the same scenes intact? I also think the candy shop in the trailer looks too modernized, and Depp is odd looking as Wonka. Call me nitpicky all you want. I do like alot of Burton movies like Pee Wee, Edward Scissorhands, and Beetlejuice. But I will pass on this film. I'll watch it when it comes to Netflix.

Whilst I like the original to a degree, I never quite feel 'right' looking at the oompa loompas... theyre disturbing... plus I love the original book and I must say that the original version strayed wide of the mark, but still stayed a decent film. Again as said by elab49, its no sacred cow, not like The Godfather or Jaws, so I welcome this with open arms!

What would Depp do without imbecilic 13 year old US females with braces?

iWhat? Soulseek. And #losslesssoundtracks. Probably abms by now, too.

Look, friends. I'd love to love this movie, but right now, all the magic is gone out of my life. I need to get a job, and all I've applied to are: a gas staion where the kid I asked the app from was stoned, and Giant Eagle grocery. There was no application to fill out, just a number to call human resources. Can I get a job at Wonka's factory please. Oh, that's right, it's just a movie. Somebody kill me.

I've even sat through dreg like Astronaut's Wife... but in all honesty I'm not too sure about this... if you want to know about the truly bizarre... http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=86845 Pass it on

Reuters: 'Walt Disney is alive and has opened a new attraction: "The German-American Bund Island", with all Reich benefits for the true American Aryan. No untermensch allowed!'. That would simply be an extension of the man's biography. "Walt Disney: an American Original", for one. (That's a potential Amazon clink to the book!)

huh huh hh huh he he, He said Depp's huh willy huh he he

did the score to Sledge Hammer! ... and now you're just a little bit smarter.

Come on, it's Depp and Burton doing material they were born to do. Like they'd screw THIS up?

It's bloody annoying.

but speaking of sacred cows, they'll say Depp 'took an intersting turn' with his character.

Nearly two thousand drippy words about bits of steak, babies, Howard Hughes, and then a bit at the end on the actual movie? C'mon Harry. I know it's tough, but can we get a little F-O-C-U-S on the actual film you're reviewing? Why are Moriarty's, and Quint's review better reads than the guy who actually runs the site? I love ya, man...but it's just getting worse.

And Harry, you kind of forgot to tell us how Freddie Highmore was. He is after all the title character this time. And nice description of the miracle of conception and childbirth. Had I been hungry I might have lost my apetite.

We'll stop calling chocolate and sweets 'candy' when you stop calling toilets 'loos.' It's bloody annoying.

And I finally figured out why Depp is doing the character as an imitation of Dustin Hoffman doing "Tootsie". It's so obvious it was staring me in the face the whole time. The association probably went something like this: Tootsie... Tootsie roll... Tootsie rolls are candy... Willy Wonka makes candy... Do Willy Wonka as Tootsie!

So this would be appropriate to take a five-year-old to? I was considering taking my daughter, but thought it might be a bit, er, disturbing for her.

My sperm is made of Frosted Mini Wheats, Coca-Cola, last nights' lamb Malai Kofta and a bottle of Grolsch. Fuck. Vasectomy time...

I donna know what's a more a disturbing... this a whole "reimagining" thing or the fact that they gotta the Wonka SING-ALONGS inna the Alamo Drafthouse. Holy crappa what inna hell part a Texas is that?!?! Anna alla this reimagining crap? Doesn't anyone a remember what happen a the last time that a the Burton, he reimagined a something? MONKEY PLANET! A Marky Mark, the poor bastard, he hasn't gotta the steady work since! Now he's gotta be inna the movie with a Andre3000. It a killed his a career just a like a the Batman and a the Robin killed alla those guys' careers. Donna trust a Harry's word onna this a one... it's a candy movie! Harry, a course he gonna love a the candy movie!

Ah, Austin. The only saving grace, the only decent part of a state that loves killin' it's criminals by the dozen, totin' gunracks in the pickup truck, open containers on the floorboards, and openly identifying itself as BUSH COUNTRY. We could give it BACK TO MEXICO tomorrow as far as I'm concerned. FUCK TEXAS. That's right, Texans...I went there. It's hotter than hell, full of hate mongering, white trash, and may as well be given the official title of capital of Jesusland, USA.

Because I kinda liked it, but I noticed it gets a lot of shit since it's not Burton's normal cup o' tea.

This is one of those times I MASSIVELY disagree with Harry. I've watched several clips of this film on Yahoo, and Depp's Wonka is so poorly conceived, that it's a travesty. I have two big problems with this film. First, while Wilder's Wonka film had it's shortcomings, one thing is certain about it...it LOOKED like it was directed by Tim Burton. Want proof? Look at the sets for this new flick. Gee, where have seen these exact sets before? Oh yeah, in the FIRST FREAKIN movie! Secondly, they claim they wanted to do a more faithful interpretation of the book. Ummm...let's see here...one of the things you forgot to do in this "faithful adaptation" is make Wonka ANYTHING LIKE HE WAS IN THE BOOK!!! My GOD how do you do WIlly WOnka characterized like this??? The guy is pure P.T. Barnum. He's ED WOOD. He's a carnival barker...car salesman...game show host. A little man, with a pointed goatee, and a big purple hat. Not a guy with a Prince Valiant haircut and a voice and speech pattern like a 12 year old girl. It pains me so much to say this, but I almost wish the Nicholas Cage version had gone to greenlight. Oh, and Deep Roy? Great guy...I'm sure he does a good job, but once again, what about going back to the source material? The Oompa Loompas are PYGMIES. Wonka lures them to his factory by their addiction to the cacao bean. Guess that's too much for the kiddies to handle. And one last thing...to agree wit PVIII, people have forgotten Burton directed Big Fish. They have to, because it is by far the only decent film he's made since Ed Wood. And this is coming from someone who LIKED Mars Attacks! It's too bad, I love Depp and Burton, but sometimes you put two guys like this in a room without a bit of a leash, and the place gets trashed.

I'm a little more excited now that I read your review Harry. I just hope the Oompa Loompa songs can hold their ground against the Gene Wilder Wonka movie. That original Varuca was fucking awesome too. If those 2 things make me smile in this one then I will love this movie. The other kids worry me a little, you say you love them but you also loved Jar Jar so we will just have to see.

Tim Burton's masterpiece, hopefully this will be half as good

"God" is capitalized. People do not come from steaky bits. This review is terribly written. What is wrong with you?

I thought they came from kissing in the pool while wearing a bathing suit? Maybe thats where puppies come from. Hmmm... As for Burton-I like most of his films, simply for his visual accomplishments and originality. Big Fish was definitely his best film, followed closely by Ed Wood. But Batman Returns was great, as was Ed Scissorhands, and let's not forget that Nightmare Before Christmas is all Burton except for the direction. That film is truly a masterpiece.

Sorry to interrupt but I caught "March of the Penguins" last night at the AFI Silver here in D.C. and, mark your calendars, Best Documentary come Oscar time. No doubt.

Big a Fish, where Ewan ends up inna that a happy hometown a village, and they alla dancin' with him, anna Steve Buscemi is dancin' around too, barely stayin' inna the frame as a the camera, she spin around. That's a great stuff!

Is this guy nuts? Enough with these mediocre films... stop making it seem like you're getting what you want, because you forget how much you're letting slide for the sake of being able to say you saw aliens, batman, and romeros dead... These are alll flawed films, and quite massively at that. Get over yourself, anf lets push these fuckers to make something better.

How about working in some meatball jokes, or mafia humor while you're at it. Rock on, paison.

It was ok nothing i will ever watch again for the rest of my immortal existence. I am getting more jazzed to see Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

For Tim Burton to have killed his career, he would have had to have been a talented actor in the first place. The only decent work he's done is playing himself: an idiotic douchebag. See Boogie Nights, Three Kings.

it can't begin to hold a candle to Burton's finest film, imho, 'Ed Wood'. Depp was amazing, Landau was at the top of his game, the black and white cinematography, Sarah Jessica Parker's perky sweater pups...it was (and still is) Burton perfecetion.

You lost me completely on "Krell" - you didn't finish what you were saying. You're either thinking too hard about what you're writing, or just making it up as you go along... It's just very hard to read. Sorry! It's better than trash-talking you... Just I think you might need poking a bit to know that - in all honesty - it comes off rather unintelligible. Perhaps you were possessed by the spirit of Wonker? Too many sweets? Who knows!

Just because two movies have the same source material doesn't neccesarily make the last one a remake of the first one. President Evil, do you actually mean that PJ's LOTR is a REMAKE of Bakshi's? Branagh remade Olivier's Hamlet right? (You'll probably answer yes now, rather than admit you've made a mistake. That, or you'll just be to cowardly to answer back at all. (if you do, it will probably be rude and irrelevant regarding the actual discussion, making insults regarding my sexual orientation, appearance and/or snobbish taste in movies)

...disappeared. Nobody knows where he went - they just know that he has a big ranch - are those animals going in? Is that a llama? Those look like carnival machines! What wonders could the king of pop create, secluded in this wonderland! This, never-never land, if you will. Although he gets older, his age is indeterminate. What wonders he could conceive! And what if, what if... he invited five lucky children into that ranch, to experience the magic that he creates there. Those would be the luckiest kids on earth!

...Glen Wonka, as played by Al Gore? Is he in it, working in the accounting department?

It is difficult to come up with an answer to your question, given the restrictions already heaped upon it. However, I'll take a crack at it! I think that "Charlie" can be considered a remake - or to put it more lightly, a re-imagining - because it occupies the same medium as "the original." In this instance, it is the movie being remade, not the book being simply readapted, because a movie has already come before. That is not to say that movies are like cars and the newer models owe anything to the cars they're replacing. Well, maybe they do to some extent, but some people love old cars, and that's just great! So I hoped that answered your question.

...childbirth isn't much of a miracle. Take the rose colored glasses off and put the bong down Harry.

Depp just doesn

This shall become the new Talkback phrase...I deem it so. My favorite line from this review: "What a joy?!?!?!" wtf

The movie will be huge at the box office.

I grew up with the Wilder version of the story (I unfortunately have yet to read the book after all these years) and was never impressed with it. I thought the songs were awful, the sets looked really cheap and cardboard-y (I agree with HomerGator that it looks like a Tim Burton movie- one that was made before Burton had any taste or talent, or identifiable design fetishes) the direction was flat and everything moved at a snail's pace. I dug Wilder's performance- he had a great combination of snippiness and mystery to him, and the weird design of the Oompah-Loompahs remains iconically strange, but otherwise, it's not really worth one's time. As to Mr. Profit's question "why remake someting you hate?" The answer is, of course, to make it better. This is one of Burton's better outings, as he's dealing with a framework (a very simply constructed children's story) that would be difficult to screw up. In general, I find a lot of his work disappointing because, while often visually spectacular, his films usually drop the ball narratively. I've often thought his vision would best be served either by abandoning narrative altogether (doing something really free-form and Fantasia-like) or having something so airtight in it's construction (like this) that his flights of fancy would actually serve and enhance the story, thus strengthening the overall sense of another world being created. MINOR SPOILER As with Harry, my biggest reservation, storywise, going into the film was the Wonka's father subplot. I was dreading it. If you've seen the neo-Freudian excesses of Sleepy Hollow, you know what I mean. Thankfully, Burton and the writer, while still pushing the limits of schmaltz in the father/son reunion scene, largely check themselves by having the flashbacks to the father's anti-candy crusading be very funny and the transitions to the scenes be very knowingly 'transitional' with a swirling wipe and a pained expression on Depp's face. Depp's performance very much over the top. But then most of the movie is over the top and delightfully, self-assuredly goofy. It's got energy and personality and wit to burn and, all in all, it's a great entertainment. The Oompah-Loompahs actually have distinct personalities in this film and their musical numbers are spectacular and catchy, and their reasons for being at the factory are, as HomerGator said, rooted in their relationship to the cacao bean, but shown to have evolved into something deeper and probably more symbiotic with Wonka over the years. SPOILER The are a few intense moments (as when the bad children are dispatched) probably the most frightening being Veruca thrown down a garbage chute by a mob of squirrels. Is it suitable for little kids? I'm not a little kid, so I couldn't tell you. All the bad kids are seen at the end to be relatively unscathed so at least you know nobody dies. (Something I wish had remained a mystery.) Charlie and his family are well-cast, and you certainly sense the deep affection they all have for one another, although I did find Helena Bonham Carter's teeth distracting.

I'm sure those were David Letterman's thoughts exactly after Glover almost kicked him in the face.

Sounds like Harry agrees.

Riiiight... Except that in this case, it is. Because 1) the movie really is quite good and 2) I'm always right. Always. So, if Harry agrees with me, he must be right as well. Yup. Seriously though, check the movie out. It's pretty bitchin'.

God almighty Harry, why do you have to write so much blather? Why can't you just stick to the review. I come to this site a lot but I read what you have to say less & less because you say a whole lot of nothing before you actually talk about the film. I don't care who you know or who your big movie star friends are, JUST TALK ABOUT THE MOVIE!

Saw this last week. Started out okay, but died the minute it arrived at the Chocolate Factory. And Johnny Depp? The working definition of miscast. The kids, except Charlie (who became nothing more than a background prop during the factory scenes), were pretty bland, and the tour through the Chocolate Factory was about as much fun as taking a tour through a box factory (thank you, Simpsons). My advice" watch the 1971 version instead.

... the movie, like a the Grinch anna the Cat With a The Hat, she just donna need to be made. It's a that simple, eh? Kong onna the other hand, I hadda make a the Kong.

pundits are now claiming its BO could be hindered by the release of the new Potter book. Figures...

Quicksilver. You like that, huh, Daniel? Break his nose. He'll be blinded by his tears and choke on his own blood.A man can't see, he can't fight. If you don't wanna train me, don't train me, but you don't gotta make fun a me!

What's a with a the back-a-story inna all of those a movies, eh? There no back-a-story! It's a the Grinch... anna he don' like a the Christmas. There no back-a-story! It's a cat... anna he gotta the hat. Wonka... he like a the candy... he like a to make a the little bambinos a happy... What a back-a-story? What? They need to 'spain EVERYthing?? Holy crappa audiences are gettin' a dumber by a the day...

...and the awesome power of Jessica Alba's ass? http://theletterd.blogspot.com/2005/07/how-jessica-albas-ass-saved-hollywood.html

Seriously, grow the eff up sometimes. All that shit about wanting to know the science of the machines and how he got the money, etc. etc. It's a goddamn fantasy, and you write like you're trying to figure out the backstory of Ahab in Moby Dick or some other important character. Shit, a good backstory is Vito Corleone in Godfather II. I don't know, I just get uncomfortable with the way he gushes over these movies that you can tell are insanely flawed just from the trailer. Everyone I know had the same gut reaction to the trailer for this movie - Johnny Depp is hamming it up in the worst possible way and the odd behavior comes off as patently false. Some of the visuals looked cool and interesting, but I just felt that Gene Wilder came off as sincere in his portrayal where Depp just seems forced. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the way that Harry sees something and goes so fucking far off the deep end, proclaiming nearly anything except for the unmistable pieces of shit, classics. Ahhh,nobody's listening anyway...

Charlie and the Victoria's Secret Factory

Charlie and the Victoria's Secret Factory

that's fucked up you nazis.

now it' a triple post... oh the humanity.

Tell me that you're alright please. Is there anyone that escaped when big bad Mori came and frizzled us. I told you he would didn't I? He was like a spider popping his head into an ants nest, when he said hello there, only to survey the meal that we were before he came to devour us. Speaking of meals, I was hoping for a comment of concern about me having cheese on toast as my first meal in 2 days of dioreah, see how I as doing. Moriarty, wonder if he'd ban me if I called him a Cu...

who thinks the w's on the talkback text are standing out? It's not really a complaint, I only wanna know if someone shares this strange feeling of looking at the screen and watching a bunch of w's jumping out?

What is up with the goddamn diversions, Harry? What is an effing Krell (excuse my ignorance) and what does it have to do with Charlie and the Chocolate factory? What is all the pondering on the miracle of life and the science of candy? Who gives a crap? Just keep to the movie Spazzo! It seems someone must like the sound of his written voice a wee bit too much...

Perhaps it's a Republican plot...

wow. my (admittedly stereotypical) view of texas and texan life was something akin to the bar in near dark; y'know, varmints... and, eh, stetsons... y'know. But wonka sing-alongs in a cinema? Regularly? Really? holy crap. I've been lied to!

His asides, his non-sequitors,delivered with equal amounts of ambiguity and mischeivousness gave the whole movie a kind of Marx Brothers feel . One of the posters above nailed it perfectly--Wonka is a magical character, you're not supposed to worry about the science of the factory or what his childhood was like. He grants wishes to the naughty and the nice, and then he throws in something extra that you didn't expect. In a way he's a cross between P.T. Barnum, Santa Claus, and Mephistophlese all rolled into one. He was an eccentric personality, but he was also very cormfortable with those eccentricities. To try to explain him away as a product of a bad childhood does a disservice to both the audience and the character.

Way too long! Geez Harry, I know things are bigger in Texas but learn to edit before you hit publish. That having been said, I can't wait to see this!

Fuck Texas? No, fuck you.

...now runs the video camera at casting sessions in L.A. - No shit. I met him once when we were doing callbacks on a commercial and he was a very cool guy. That's Hollywood. One day you're being taken to the stretching room, and the next you're doing slates for a Pizza Hut spot.

why should this be any different?

Jeez Harry...mangled sentences never mattered to you before, why worry about them now?

"He

... If you remove all the bullshit, you could bury them in a shoebox...

And until you do, shut the hell up. I don't care about your reaction to "several clips on Yahoo", ok? See the film, then comment. Capice?

They're disturbing as shit! I'm mostly interested to see this version of the story because the Wilder version was just too damn cute! PS: is it me or does Cpt Kirks 2pee sound kind of lonely without John Locke cussing him out?

I always knew condoms were bullshit

and I told my girlfriend that "man spunk" was low calorie!!! Damn you Wonka!!!

There is no reason for you all to complain about his reviews. You know its going to be nothing but school girl gushing, vivid descriptions of bodily functions, comparisons to porn, comparisons to the current administration, and complaints about what happened on the way to the theater. Just do what I do and just skip it and scroll straight down to the talkbacks.

That's the only explanation for Harry's continued love of this summer's films. I haven't seen a good movie in months... Cinderella Man was rocky for idiots, Batman Begins was the sparknotes version of Burton's movie, and War of the Worlds only continued Spielberg's downward slide. Forgiving that ending should prove that Harry's arteries are clogged, and this review sounds just as suspicious. If this is considered a good summer, I can only imagine a bad one would induce me to suicide!!!! Get real, Harry, and save your time for movies that really matter.

...'Everytime I see a baby

"...who will come see my reenactment of Wonka as the most infamous pedophile of our day." I love Depp's talent, but dislike the man very much. This film would have been more inspired had he been playing Charlie in his later years looking for a third inheritor to the factory. Instead, we get Urko covered in chocolate.

Congrats. You've been elevated to the next level. Be sure to claim your frozen yogurt cone before proceeding to the next level. Have a nice day! (/sarcasm) Love most of the guy's flicks, but this projection bullshit of his has to stop. We _get_ it. He's a genius that should be showered with accolades if he has room for more. Problem is his last good movie was Sleepy Hallow with Big Fish merely having its moments. Perhaps Burton has gone the way of Speilberg.

Depp is a wonderful character actor. I watched an Leno interview with him the other night. The contrast between the person (sorta quiet and withdrawn) and the Wonka character shown in his clip was almost startling. Totally awesome. I believe he said he based Wonka off a combination of children's show hosts and game show hosts. Should make for an interesting movie. (Oh, and, for the record, Conan is much better than Leno. *cough*)

...until I read this review. I hope it turns out to be as good as you say. -Az

not interested, in the very least. Maybe some day I will rent it or catch it on cable and be presently surpised.

I hope this thing bombs. Gene Wilder's the man.

it looks like it has some potential

I just got back from a midnight showing, and i have to say, this was the most satisfying film i've seen in a while. Highmore is great, Depp is perfect, i want to have lots of sex with Missi Pyle, and Deep Roy and his musical interludes were total showstoppers. Roger Ebert (and a few friendly talkbackers) are saying Depp is too much like Michael Jackson, but I don't see it. Wonka is just lonely and socially retarded because he's lived alone all his life, and doesn't seem to like any of the kids, much less want to have sex with them. Anyway, the movie kicks ass, and is the best thing Burton's done in a while.

Fucking Steak Babies Harold?!?! You must be smoking some of the same shit as Depp. That guy really needs to lay off. He babbles like Drew Barrymore in interviews now. That aside, I hope the movie is enjoyable, but I'm having trouble getting past depps apparent take on Wonka. Wilders slightly sadistic streak was brilliant.

...i just went back and read more carefully some of the above posts, and there seem to be quite a few 'reviews' from people who haven't actually seen the movie. And I'm totally baffled at critics claiming that Depp's performance is the weak link in the movie. I thought Depp was really solid, and gave another unique performance. And Missi Pyle is hot.

Especially her look on "Homicide: Life on the Street". You know I'm right. http://tinyurl.com/cyurm

Concerning whether or not this movie is appropriate for your 5-year old. Before you consider using Harry as a guideline, please consider the fact that he had his nephew watch (at 3 or 4 years old) watch Robocop.

Unfinished sentences, ideas that start and then....... Is this crap transcribed by a court stenographer? Does Harry just sit there in his room, surrounded by plush toys from Nightmare Before Christmas and Toy Story dictating his reviews and pausing every now and then to take a bite of a sandwich? It seems this crap is posted verbatim without any kind of editing or proof-reading. It never makes sense! "The Krell" - what the fuck IS this gibberish?? At least Moriarty ( or even better, Vern) can string a sentence together.

Seriously, Fanboys are too smitten with him and he's really not that great. He's not right in the head and full of himself and has been since BTTF. How anyone would ask for more money than Michael J. Fox for the sequel is beyond me. STOP SUGGESTING THIS IDIOT FOR THE JOKER. He will just be a variation of the lame "Creepy Thin Man" from the Crackwhore's Harlots movies.

Steak Babies

Yah, he wrote a the screenplay but he wasn't a true to a his own a vision... he really wanted to a put inna the backstory about a Wonka's papa, the dentist, anna make a the jokes about a the squirrel testicles. He was a so not true to a his vision that he dinna even a put 'em inna the book. I'm a glad Burton is a gonna set a the record straight anna we get a the definitive version.

Was that in the book too?

You can't beat up Burton for not going word for word with the book. I thought the movie was enjoyable, but still liked Wilder's Wonka better. Wilder seemed bored with everyone, which was cool, and seemingly how he was written in Dahl's book. Depp just seemed kinda nuts. Both were good I thought, I just preferred Wilder Wonka.

I only gonna beat up a Burton when a he says he's gonna be a more true to Dahl's vision, anna then he make a uppa with a the back a story anna the sexy double entendres, eh? Nobody knows a better than a the Dino about a not bein' a faithful to the original... but I a never said I was a gonna be faithful. Burton? He a did!

Whoops, forgot text. First of all, if you've noticed in a lot of Dahl's books, he portrays most of his women as being horrible...even though some of them coughVioletcough really have a reason for acting like that. Which brings us to my whole Violet tirade. In the original, her dad is a politician and he butts in on her TV interview. Of course, the way she reacts might tell us this isn't the first time that it happened and she resents him for paying more attention to his campaign than her. And in this one, it looks like her mom is a trophy wife who goes Lilly Pulitzer (Matching mom and daughter clothes) on her daughter...or is probably a bored housewife who looks more like she belongs with the other undersexed wives in "Edward Scissorhands". But if your parents weren't paying attention to you most of the time, would you be trying to do whatever you can to grab their attention? YES. And they obviously start caring too late when she does something stupid because they never bothered to teach her right from wrong. Besides, I know what it's like dealing with an insensetive dad...and Wonka should know that as well since he had a crummy dad. The other girl? Just smack her. However, the prospect that she might be thrown into an incinerator is TOO scary to anyone, even though they all do come out alive. And is it just me, or did Wonka like to scare children into behaving? I mean, cripes.... Then again, even though I'm not fond of it, I'm just glad they employed Missy Pyle (Who is freakin' funny), AnnaSophia Robb (She's so adorable...I'm hoping she'll be worthy competition to Dakota Fanning) and Deep Roy (Which I have to say looks normal compared to the other ones...and he's Indian btw so the dark-skinned description fits)...and I'll admit I'm a junkie for Gabriella Pescucci's costumes. You've probably seen me in my Dracula and Verona costumes and now I have both of Violet's trackie suits, more "Van Helsing" characters and Queen Mirror from "Brothers Grimm" in my cosplay file. In short, I'm not seeing this film, but I do appreciate the creative effort.

I'm still waiting for the sequel about Willy's brother, Lenny Wonka, unclaimed freight wholesaler. Can you imagine the fantastical, paradiscal, truly scrumptious world of an unclaimed freight warehouse? What wonders of overstock and factory irregulars await us all, what sweet retreats to the mists of childhood past are but a brief walk away, beyond the job lots of brand-equivalent canned goods? I feel a song coming on . . .

Thanks Harry! SPREAD THE WORD OF STEAK BABIES!!!

Dahl wrote the intial screenplay for the movie. Then the studio brought in someone to rewrite quite a bit of it. Dahl absolutely hated and despised the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.

and yeah HomerGator should not go around commenting on a film after viewing clips on Yahoo. Really dug the musical numbers with Deep Roy, Depp's Wonka was great, it's not better than Wilder but it's not worse, it's ust different is all, the end bit dealing with Wonka and his dad felt a little tacked on though, but it's great, certainly seeing it again.

Ian Fleming and Dahl decided to trade off on scripts to their books. Dahl wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" while Fleming wrote Wonka. And they changed the title character because General Mills started off the well-known Wonka brand of candies, which is now distributed by Nestle.

Dahl loved scaring kids. Don't suppose anyone saw Alan Yentob's documentary about Roald Dahl that was on the BBC last month? There was a great scene where someone was reminiscing about a time at a book event for children where a little boy asked him " What do you do if children don't like your books" And Roald replied straight-faced "We KILL them". The kid went away satisfied. Too bad most of his books probably wouldn't get published today for their reckless endangerment of kids and general comic bloodthirstiness. And also for the joke about China "Everytime you Wing you get a Wong number" from the Charlie sequel - oh dearie me

He did live in a "Grossland". However, I liked "Matilda" and I wouldn't mind seeing Wes Anderson's stop-motion film "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"... And, no, I didn't see that documentary because I live in the US. But as Brendan Fraser once said, he liked those books because they terrified him. I'm pretty much the opposite, actually.

"Imagine if when Howard Hughes disappeared into that Vegas hotel

"The BFG" people...didn't those other giants eat kids, or steal their dreams or something? The scaring kids is a great point in that he knew what could freak us young'uns out!

I liked 'George's Marvellous Medicine'. Kid gets left to look after his smelly old gran and has to give her medicine. He can't stand her so he mixes up his own medicine made up of all the shit he finds under the sink - bleach, fertilizer, detergent and other stuff. The bit where it diverges from a Todd Solondz movie is where she grows to 50 feet in height. Can you imagine trying to get that book published today?

Didn't know anything about it but I just looked it up on IMDB - he's the perfect director for that story

Wow, this movie was so good. How could the trailers have been so sucky and the movie so good? This is the best effort from Burton ever. Danny Elfman's score is great too. I can't say anymore, you're just going to have to go see it.

Burton said that?! Wow, my bad then ... point well taken then. I still dug it though =)

Somebody brought up the question of faithfulness to the book and the fact that Dahl is credited with the screenplay for the first movie version. This is true, but Dahl's screenplay was rewritten and he was furious about it. From what I've read, their additions were mostly in the Wonkamania portion of the movie, so I don't take Dahl's comlaints too seriously. But his biggest problem was that line at the end about "What happened to the boy who had everything? He lived happily ever after" which, as much as I love the movie, is completely horrible. The Burton version (which by the way looks incredible in Imax - those weird shiny-faced kids are scary as hell when they're giant) really is, in some ways, more faithful to the book. It includes Charlie's father (and his job at the toothpaste factory), the story about the Indian prince who wanted a palace made of chocolate, the scenes in Loompaland where Wonka convinces the Oompa Loompas to come work for him, the nut sorting room and the scene of the kids leaving at the end. These are all great scenes from the book that were not in the Wilder version. On the other hand, Depp's fragile, socially retarded Wonka is obviously even more of a deviation from the book than Wilder's version, and there's the added backstory and family theme. Ironically, I think the background on Wonka, while being the biggest change from the book, is part of what makes the movie work. During the factory tour it starts to feel more like a series of looking at things than a story, but it comes together at the end. I'm in a weird place with this movie because I was obsessed with Roald Dahl as a child and I'm a big fan of the first movie, of Tim Burton and of Johnny Depp. But I thought it was very good, possibly great and at the very least a big step in the right direction after Planet of the Apes and the good but sort of milquetoast Big Fish.

Depp is terrible, you never care about him and he doesn't seem to care about anyone. He's just sort of there to serve the purpose of acting weird. Wilder had these kind eyes and soft spoken voice, that made you believe he cared, yet he could also be weird.

The actress who played the original Veruca was a scary girl, like she might actually kick your ass or worse, pure evil. The new girl isn't scary at all. she sounds like a robot when she talks. "daddy... i want a squirrel. daddy...daddy..." huh? yeah you're a scary brat, go to your room!

I was looking at a side by side comparison of AnnaSophia and Denise...and it's freaky how much AnnaSophia looks like Denise in the Samantha movie that aired on TV last Christmas- http://tinyurl.com/73qox I know they gave AnnaSophia a wig and contacts, but man, that's just freaky.

That's like 5 mediocre or just plain bad films in a row for him. Can someone explain to me why he made this? This once visionary director does a remake and what he adds to the story is........CG? Bad cg at that. It seems like the only new thing they added to this film they insisted wasn't a remake (it very much is) is a horrible backstory that steals mystery and adds no humanity to a character that is supposed to be something beyond human anyway. John August is a cancer upon screenwriting. His filmmaking style has also taking a nose dive into oblivion. Here we are supposed to be in the most fantastical environment on Earth and 80% of this film is shot in close ups that make you feel so claustrophobic you squirm in your seat. Yeah I get it Tim the characters have porcelain doll faces, you're very clever, now let me see the background. If you want a good example of how Burtons style has changed for the worse watch the boring cg opening credits of this film then watch the similar factory like beautiful opening of Edward Scissorhands. And what is with people saying that this version of the film is darker? Are you fucking kidding me? It's FAR less disturbing than the original. Wilders Wonka actually seemed dangerous in his willful negligence, Depp's Wonka seems arbitrarily weird and gay. There is absolutely no defending Burton's oompa loompas against the original. The songs are so overly produced any message that was tehre is totally lost. When Wilder describes where he found them he describes heir world with such conviction and nonchalant intensity (is that an oxymoron? you know what I mean) that it boggles the mind with imagery. When Burton goes into a flashback of Wonka discovering them, they are in.......the jungle. original. The whole point of not knowing Wonka's background is that you don;t know what his deal is, it keeps him shady and threatening. And I love how once they get to the factory they pretty much throw the kids and their parents into character oblivion in favor of the uninspired cg factory. Whats even more amazing is that Burton somehow does this while maintaining those god damn close ups. it seems like a contradiction but watch the film and behold. The actual sets of the original film trump the cg garbage in this one by about a trillion times. Literally a trillion times, I can prove that on an abbicus. It fails in conveying wonder where the original film succeeded. Shame on Burton. Shame on Depp.

Harry, you are so fuckin' full of yourself you probably piss and shit pieces of Knowles. And who gives a fuck about your nephew? No one gives a flying fuck about your nephew and much you adore him. Jesus, his parents are jackasses for letting you around that kid. You sound like you're on the verge of having gay-sex with him!! Get over your friggin' nephew and how "adorable" he is. The only reason Harry prides over his nephew so much is because he knows he will never have a kid of his own. Next time you do a review, write about the fuckin' movie only.

Just saw CATCF tonight. Was pretty good'til about 1/3 of the way thru when things got just a bit too surreal and absurd. The Oompa Loompa songs were bad and virtually unintelligible. Depp's Wonka is just plain cold, nerdy and strange. Totally lacking the warmth,wit and eccentric whimsy of Gene Wilder's version. The ending seemed to go on and on and lacked the emotional punch and wonder of the original. After seeing it, I wanted to run home and put in the WWATCF dvd to wash away the dirt and shame. Burton, love him as I do,...MUST be banned from ever "re-imagining" another classic film. Now......The Corpse Bride,...that's another story...looks like the Burton I love! Can't wait!!

Sounds like you liked the original. I gotta disagree with you on the "caring" Gene Wilder part ... he seemed bored with everyone to me. Not to mention that he really didn't seem to give a rat's ass about the kids ... he was quite deadpan with his warnings to them when they were screwing around. One last thing ... you liked the original Oompa Loompas? Those dudes just looked like midgets in costumes. Those characters had to draw an "Oh crap, what's that?" from people who saw them. However, the way those guys looked, it was more like, "Check out the funny looking midget." Oh well, to each his own.

Just write "Charlie," or whatever. But you geeksters can't stop, can you?

It's like saying every version of Dracula or Pride and Prejudice is a remake of the first version. I mean I know it's a minor point, but you lose credibility when you say that. It adapts all kinds of things that were in the book but not in the first movie, and it doesn't adapt the things that were added for the movie that were not from the book (Slugworth as the villain, stealing the gobstopper, the fizzy lifting drinks, the golden geese, the insipid line at the end). It is not a musical like the first movie, except for the Oompa Loompa songs, which were taken from the book (unlike the ones in the first movie). There are definitely legitimate criticisms to be made of the movie (I like Depp's Wonka, but not as much as Gene Wilder's or the book's), so why not stick to those instead of pretending it's an insult to say "yes, it IS a remake." Also, try not to question its originality for ADAPTING THE FRIGGIN BOOK (the great scenes in Loompaland). Of course Loompaland should be in a jungle with treehouses, that's what Loompaland is.

loved it. i loved how creepy and weird wonka is. i really don't know the wilder version that well - haven't seen it in years. and i've never read the book so i wasn't comparing it to anything else. just watchin' the movie ya know. can you dig that kids? yeah and so that's the deal. it rocks btw check out this site tomcruisenews.blogspot.com !!!!

I'd also like to see Mark Hamill replacing Jack Nicolson as the new Joker. Hamill needs a good, strong role to get him out of Skywalker-typecast hell....and anybody who's heard his brilliant portrayal of the Joker in the animated Batman series KNOWS he can deliver the goods....

You couldn't possibly like this movie... there were no werewolves or vampires! Oh, that's right... you're a junket-whore. Nevermind. See Harry get the bitchslap... here: http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1159

Just saw the movie. Uhh... I tried my hardest to give it a fresh go and leave the superior movie version out of my mind. But if this movie had a direction or a plot I couldn't find it. Depp's dialogue seemed ad-libbed but not by someone who knows how to ad-lib. The movie seemed way over-edited (as all special-effects-laden movies seem these days). Speaking of which, does anyone else think that this was just another boring, boring half-cartoon with never a chance in hell of having interesting acting or engaging warmth, since everything happens in front of a blue screen, and you can tell. When will filmmakers begin to realize that the cravings we have for films aren't satisfied by computer effects, but by the age-old beauties of good acting, good plot, and good camerawork. This movie was all over the place. I just didn't feel it at all.

Wilder's Wonka was simply Gene Wilder. There's very little difference between his Wonka, his Frederick Frankenstein, and his Waco Kid (except maybe the nappiness of his hair). Nothing really wrong with that, but Gene Wilder put his "Gene Wilderness" into ever role he's ever played. Depp, on the other hand, isn't able to be nailed down, because just about every role he's ever taken on has a different slant to it. Which is the better Wonka? That's personal opinion (for me it's Depp by far). But who's the better actor? No question it's Johnny Depp.

but i was a bit drunk at the time. the sight-gags were funny, acting mostly lackluster, and the oompa loompa numbers just made me cringe. i can't shake the feeling, however, that i would have enjoyed this film far more had the 70s version never been made.

In the words of Kurt Cobain "I wish I was like you, easily amused."

"They tried to explain too much, they should have left a little more up to our imagination." My reply: "You my son, are smarter than 98% of the people working in Hollywood."

The Oompa-Loompa songs are the worst aspect of the film. HORRIBLE. The main title theme is better than some of his more recent work, and the Willy Wonka song is nice. But the Oompa-Loompa songs should've been foolproof classics (as should Spiderman's music, of course but we all see how that turned out as well). Instead, they grate on the nerves and are completely uninspired. I think he went a little overboard in trying to make the songs different than the original version, and well...those songs may musically be the exact same as the others, but they're infinitely more memorable and pleasing on every level. Danny Elfman...please retire. Your newer music is harming your incredible legacy. I was actually embarassed for you while listening to the Oompa-Loompa songs. Quit now while you're still somewhat ahead. Go back to Oingo Boingo or do something. Anything. You've had a good run, but film scores and music just isn't your forte anymore (and hasn't been for a number of years now.) I wish you luck in the future.

sweet flick. did anyone else get high and bug out at that opening?

Mmmmm, baby steaks.

Our shotguns are 20% off this week. Having said that, can burton get anyone else other than Elfman? Even Spielberg strayed from Williams some time. Burton is talented and Elfman is talented but when you have a director whose movies all look similar use no one but a composer whose stuff all sounds the same, you wind up pretty much knowing what to expect in each movie.

if disney did come back from the dead and let five people enjoy his secret island of fun-joy you'd get some ass fanboy pissing all over it on a talkback. "That totally sucked. How come Disney didn't show up until an hour into the tour?"

boooooo tim burton BOOOOOOOO

I finally figured out what all of the bitching in these talk backs is about. The complaining isn't about wanting better movies. It's about the fact that you don't like movies. I have been visiting this site for about 5-6 years now and the people who blast movies blast 99% of the movies that come out. That leaves 1% of the movies that they maybe like. Last time I checked, when you only like 1% of something... you don't like it. So, why do you come to a site about movies and talk about them when you don't like almost all of them? I come here because I like movies and I like to talk about things I like... I would never waste my time talking about something that I don't like. (when it comes to fun stuff, that is) Maybe you guys who don't like most movies should find another hobby. And if you say that you like movies because some are great and that more movies have the potential to be great... come back to the real world... this is what movies are... and 99% of the people like them just fine. You 1% could just let people enjoy the short life they have or you could keep trying to push for the majority to do things the way you want them to be done... and justify it because you think that you have better taste than they do... wow... ok Hitler... let's see... self centered delusions of superiority AND you like to escape into stories... ah... yep... sounds like you're a crazy fucker to me. :) Anyway, I really liked enjoyed this movie. Between this and Wedding Crashers... fun weekend at the movies. :)

I liked this movie, it's the best Burton movie in years. He's back to rare form and the musical numbers are classics! I haven't seen a movie like this in a quite hile. Where it felt like a real movie, with a purpose and not just just CGI effects for the sake of showing effects. "War of the Worlds" A lot of love went into making this movie and it shows. If you didn't like it then you're just out to get Burton no matter what, get over it. It may have suxed for your spoiled greedy lil minds, down the garbage shoot you go. you're a bad nut, but to those who loved it. We get the whole chocolate factory! "WOW!"

that review actually got right to the point! Good one Harry!

"Charlie" demonstrates once again that Burton fails as a director & storyteller and should stick to what he's best at - visual design. It's a problem I have with most of his films where he seems to think that wild sets and flying cameras angles can take the place of content. This is not the morality story it should be and certainly not the story of Charlie Buckett. Burton made a Wonka bio. I have fond memories of the book from childhood and I remember the Dickensian descriptions of Charlie's life, how destitute their family really was. I never got the feeling that their life was hard. No one looked in poor health, there wasn't any feeling of desperation and Wonka's comment to Charlie on the boat ("you look starved") seemed forced. Charlie hardly looks like the down-on-your-luck hero of the novel. Burton fails to flesh out the characters of the children. None of them holds a candle to the original film and as they drop from the picture one by one, you hardly care. It's as if Burton didn't want to bother with the morality aspect and bulk of the novel and decided to focus on the backstory of Willy Wonka's childhood. If his intention was to do a "Wicked" translation of the book then he should have done so and not call it "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory." This film has the feeling of a B project - something to pay the bills while he focuses on films he cares about. "Planet of the Apes" is another crappy example of this. Lastly, what the hell happened to Danny Elfman? In his Oingo Boingo says he wrote some outstanding pop songs but the overproduced drivel of the Oompa Loompa songs made me wish for a mute button or a switch to subtitles. The lyrics are incomprehensible. The beauty of the 1st films songs were the commentary aspects of the children's behavior and simplicity of the production - they could've been a-capella. Elfman's songs are mindless Vegas show pieces and while he may have used the author's lyrics, I could barely make any out. Children in the theater must've missed the point entirely. As far as Depp's portrayal goes, he needed more dialogue and screen time. I kept expecting more and what he did was repeat lines from scene to scene. Oh and Harry - Wonka didn't spend 30 years with the Oompa Loompas. Grandpa Joe worked at the factory 20 years before the events of the film. Please pay attention. James

On a scale of one to ten how old would you say Michael Jacksons' boyfriend is?

with a few improvements over the original. However, Depp's Wonka appears in the first 10 minutes of the film (HUGE MISTAKE) so the mystery is blown instantly. Also, a couple of the CGI f/x were horrible (Violet leaving the factory). I loved the squirrels and the sets were great, but overall, WIlder's Wonka was just more interesting to watch. He had a depth that Depp didn't bring to the new version. WIlder spoke different languages and was all over the place mentally. I believed Wilder's Wonka was a mad genius. Wilder seemed to enjoy the children & parents being tortured in his factory. Depp was just "out of touch" and a bit strange, nothing more. Also, the all new Burton scenes with his father ruined the mystery of the character. It was forced and very lame. With all the shit Burton has been talking about the original version, there were more similarities than differences between these two films. He needs to shut the fuck on this one.

So Mike Teevee stays tall and paper thin? wtf how will he date? have a normal social life? violet stays blue and flexible like gum? eeew, how will she grow up, get married, have kids? She seemed to be ok with her new flexible powers. disturbing stuff.

The whole slugworth thing is gone to, replace by the mention of spies. so this gets rid of the scene where each kid gets an everlasting gobstopper, although the candy is shown in the movie. violet's blowing up like a blueberry and squirrel attack on veruca seemed a little to disturbing for children, but I guess no more disturbing than Gene Wilder's freak out in the tunnel, another thing that's gone in this movie. although the inside of the tunnel did look cool. I like the flashback's in this movie and i like the oompa loompas, I thought it was cool to finally see their homeland. This movie could become a holiday classic, but what holiday could it be shown during? I was thinking either Thanksgiving or Halloween. I lean more towards Halloween, since the movie is about candy and it has trick a treat scene. i like willy wonka's child version with the braces and retainer, like something out of marilyn manson. it's so tim burton. i like when wonka as a kid walks by the flags, nice imagery. this movie has a lot of that. it's magical. hey i'm just as cynical as anyone here, but i found myself loving this movie.

Like Beatles! and some were heavy metal and disco like, but all memorable and I love when movies include the song from the trailer. don't use other movies music to umph up your trailer, be original. use the music from your own movie

Industrykiller is right. Time Burton hasn't done anything good since Ed Wood, and not all the films before that were all that great. (i.e, Edward Sacharinehands). This movie was pretty much exactly like the original down to the sets, with maybe a few plot twists. The ending was lame and slow, and whoever said this was "based on the book" was pretty wrong. I normally like Depp, but here, his portrayal is really out of place and one-dimentional. The best part of the movie was Charlie, and he didn't even exist in the second half of the movie. Also, Jack Albert was a much better grandpa.

yeah, it's true, i just saw it. Too bummed out to really respond. So bad in so may ways I can't even begin to list them. You'll see, just don't say I didn't warn you. The original was a pachillion times better. Dahl wrote the screenplay. The guy who wrote Burton's last peice of crap movie, Big Fart, wrote this one. Depp sucks, sorry, and is one note - boring. This film is airbrushed to the point where everything looks fake. The ending is atrocious. Simply Awful. If you like is one more than the original, you are a doosh and should be banned from the site. Ta-ta

Hey, I'll admit this may be a more ACCURATE version of Dahl's book, but it's not more entertaining, unless you get off on computer generated sets and child actors who don't react much to what's going on around them. The cinematography is good- it's a cool look- but it's sterile, not really appropo for what's ulitmately supposed to be a feel-good movie. Depp is just plain weird, never charming like Wilder was. What's with all the remakes, Tim Burton? You used to have original ideas.

well...what did you expect? we have the fab trio together...johnny, tim burton, and danny elfman! you can tell that tim gives johnny quite a bit of lee-way with his part; you can tell what parts were unscripted (dancing to the oopma-loompas in example). i loved it, i hope the everyone does too. on a different note, did anyone else notice in the preview for "corpse bride" that it was almost (not entirely, but almost) all the music from "nightmare before christmas"? talk about lazy!

The last straw. I can't beleive all the positive reviews, ad all the hating on the original. Original was so much better. For starters, I thought Augustus Gloop was a freakin digital actor or whatever you call it, when I first saw him on screen. I thought, "So they finally created a digital actor". He had this ridiculous shading all over his face and these hyper blue yes. All the kids looked like that, including Johnny Depp. (Not Charlie). Johnny Depp was in the wrong movie; I don't know what eccentric he was plaything but it didn't seem like Willy Wonka to me. The songs wer PAINFUL. Nobody liked the,. N one will ever like them. The score was okay. Wonka's backstory was totaly unecessary dumb hollywood bulls--t. I think one reviewer said something about the fact that Roald Dahl wasn't a sentimentalist. I totally agree. Which makes the ending of this movie even more obnoxious and pathetic. Horrible movie, just like Fing Fang Foom said.

In the FIRST Wonka movie, Veruka Salt, played by Julie Dawn Cole, was googoltillion times better than her "updated" version. That goes for all the youngsters- sorry kids. Well, maybe the Gloop kid wasn't too much different...

I loved the design of the movie. I liked the childish immature exuberance of Depp's Wonka. But it seemed to me that the only thing of warmth was Charlie's family. You can't connect to this Wonka. He left our reality long ago to create his own. He looks like an alien because he is one. He can't really connect with humans, and we can't really connect with him. I smile when I look at him, but I shake my head at the same time because he just can't operate in the real world. The constant squeak of latex and leather that accompanies him says it all; this man is teflon. Nothing sticks, it all just slides off. The whole costume concept reminded me of Edward Scissorhands because he's so confined in this uniform he's developed for himself. There's just so much going on in this movie. At least for me there was. I recommend seeing it, but I can't say how you'll feel coming out on the other side of it. In regards to Walt Disney, I know you all think it's cute and fun to say he loved Nazis and the German ideal( kind of like saying "Jeebus", instead of Jesus), but the fact is he went to war against Germany in the first world war and was deeply saddened that he couldn't do the same in the second world war. He wasn't a Nazi, he wasn't a tyrant, and he isn't frozen somewhere. The last one is a dream I like to keep myself, but it just isn't so.

I'm still so pissed at how awful that movie was that I refuse to ever see another Burton movie. What a clown!

The other thing that you people are forgetting is that the majority of the kids who go into Wonka's factory are vicous little brats who try to exploit him.

But the last, the Planet of the Apes was my zero point. I always took a chance before but on this...No friggin way, or anything else he ever makes. Ive had enough of Tim. Even Big Fish was mediocre by any other directors standards. Ugh. its like eating candy. After a while, it just starts to make you feel sick and you you swear youll never eat it again, but you do until that particular candy justs puts you over the edge. Pklanet of the Apes did it for me. Never again-I just cannot possibly take another Burton film. Ever.

Compairing the 2 movies is almost imposible. Not because of the dialouge or slory matter, but mostly because the way these storys are protraied is completly inverted within one another. Lemmee Explain: Wonka - The Wilder version is mostly heart with slight weirdness (you cannot have a conversation with him but you can feel the love) The Depp is mostly weird with a slimmer of heart (Like Mike Jackson meets Mike Tyson) The Factory - In the origional, yes, it did look like cardboard, incredibly cheesy, fake, yet incrediablly warm. In this version, the GCI is INCREDIABLE but is MUCH darker the "candy feild" in the first one is bright and livley. In this one, it is yes bright, but its a freaking concrete room with grass Credability with the book- The new version includes the scenes that were missing with the book, the kids at the end, the nuts, everything was there phisically. But on the outside, its seemed like it was missing the warmth of the book. The origional had more than enough warmth, bt skewed the work of Dahl so much, it was the only respect it got the book right The Ommpa Loompas- The majorly choreagraphed numbers, the technologial advances, and Deep's preformance is incredable and Elfmans music is amazing as usuial. But, overall, the scenens seem like small ncync videos. On the other hand, the ommpa loompas in the origional had poorly choreagraphed scenes, medicore music, and yet, they were just soo freaking cute. Its full of heart, where the origional is full of show In Closing, Is the origional a classic that will last for all time. Yes. Is this version a classic that will last for all time. Yes. It bacically comes down to either your a left side or right side brainers. If you love accuracy, amazing effects, and many awe inspiering backdrops and closure in the end, The newer will suite you best. If you can ingnore mistakes in the script, bad sets, and plotholes in order for a sence of love and happyness that isnt compairable to any film ive seen to date, the origional is for you. Its almost like Math teachers will love the new one, and English teachers will like the origional. In my opinion, I like this version emensly, the ommpa loompa diserves a oscar and ALL the kids have an incredable future ahead of them, but you cannot replace wilder and the origonal, its imposible. Best Movie ive seen this year....yes.....Better than The Origional.....far from.....

Look at all these fucking insects. Threee years ago this movie would have been panned to the point where any argument to the contrary would have been moot and it would have been completely justified. i think I explained why this movie is a bastardization and I did it in a way that can't be refuted. God it's absolutely insane how many people just try their damndest to liek every film that comes out. Why the fuck do you people do that? DOn't you understand the message yous end to Hollywood studios. You fucking bastards are a cancer on the film Industry. better to like 1% of films than 99% you fucking assholes. you morons need people like us. We are your last line of defense. Without people like me actually upholding the integrity of the film community you would get nothing but Batman and Robin level garbage. But then agai that would probably be okay with you you fucking peons. Every defender of cinema quality should treat you liek the easily amused sheep you are.

And I have admired your tenacity against fighting the popular opinion of the diseased masses for quite some tiem now. So we are on the same side asshole.

Wastes villains that should be fleshed out (this automatically makes for a shitty comic book film as a hero is only as good as his rogues gallery), spends an hour of time on a backstory that tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Bruce Wayne we didn't already know (anyone who calls it a psychological examination should be shot. I'm looking at you Garth of Dark Horizons), Christian Bale played Wayne almost exactly the same as Val Kilmer did (which is really hte least of my problems with the film), had fight sequnces so bad that it makes the bourne Supremecy look coherent, took a realistic standpoint when it suited the film and then threw out realism whenever it fucking suited the paper thin plot. The only thing amusing about Batman Begins is watching the same fucking morons who defend Return of the Sith defend the gaping plot holes in this. It's the equivalent of putting a retard in a round room and telling him to find the corner. And moviemack if you read any previous posts I have about BB you would see that this is the stance I always took.

In fact you say "and everone int he theatre seemed to agree with me". As if a theater full of people can't be wrong. Which is odd since hte concensus of the average filmgoer toward Batman Begins seems to be that they liked it even know it's a film you have been hating on (rightfully so) since the beginning (no pun intended). But yet somehow int hat situationt hey are wrong. So using a crowd full of easily amused monkeys is hypocritical to an absolute fault.

and yet still somehow more pertinent than most of the shit loving average filmgoers on this site.

Look, I've never read the book but I have seen the first movie over and over again. It's a classic in children's film, a standard, if you will. Remaking this such a film was a pointless and egotistical endever. Johnny Depp made horrible choices for this character. To me, Willy Wonka is an eccentric genius who HATES people and HATES children. People almost toppled his empier. Johnny only showed mild annoyance with these people and didn't revel in their demise enough for me. He should have been more biting with the kids. I miss Gene's witty little asides and casual mocking of these people. Let's face it, these kids suck. They are shitty little kids, the worst kind, and they are in contention for the big bannana. Like D. Trump he should be tougher on these people not only with his actions but in his speech patters should reflect it. Johnny was feminine, flighty, and altogether dull for me. He ruined the movie. The kids, the oompa loompas, I even enjoyed the new ending, but I want Gene back. "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."

Dude, that's like one pound per bite. Slow down a little. It's not a race.

This movie is weird like the kids who hang out at hot topic are weird. It's so plainly obvious that they are trying hard to be weird that they might as well hang out at Abercrombie, it would hold about the same amount of weird credibility. What moments exactly are weirder about this version? Name some. There isn't a single disturbing moment int his film. Depp's Wonka? Ummm no. Number one his character choices are far too explained by the horrible backstory to be truly weird. Plus Depp is obvious in his "bold" choices. I'm starting to think he can't convincingly play a character without some make up or strange physicality to hide behind. Wilder's Wonka was unarguably more dangerous yet at the same time he let the kids make their own mistakes wheras in this one its implied that Wonka has predetermined the outcome. Not suprprising since the kids aren't nearly as bratty and easy to hate as they are int he original. in fact some of them seem justified. Mike Teavee is condescending but he is in fact smarter than most around him. Violet is a bit arrogant but she has in fact won 250 medals so she must be doing something right. It is of no matter though, the kids become non entities after the factory tour begins and the shit cg takes over. And when did people start thinking that dark lighting is a substitute for dark content? Because the factory is literally darker than the original does not mean more disturbing. SOmeone earlier said that the oompa loompas in the 70's version just look like orange midgets, yeah well orange midgets are far far weirder than what is obviously a computer shrinking of a lame looking actor in a Devo costume in this one. Don't even try to defend this film. No one ahs done it effectively yet, no one will. it's futile.

"I have no desire to debate you" "defense? I don't think it need any" I quote you as saying. And you don't debae me. In fact you spend three quarters of your post defending my position on BB. Saying it has "an engaging emotional center" is not a defense.

that 5 years from now the original is still a classic and htis i merely the remake of that classic. For real. 500 dollars. It's just asinine to think otherwise. It's so funny to think that Depp's Wonka would be remembered in the same league as Wilders. hahahaha. And the difference between your last post and mine is that I actually quoted you. i know perfectly well what I'm saying and that is obvious considering my argument is iron clad and yours is non-existant.

A lot of things were built for this movie, the river boat was lifesize.

You'll see, it'll be shown on TV yearly. So all you haters are wrong, thats the final word, now fuck off!

I imagine back in the stop motion days, chats on CB radios. Bah! stop motion suxs, they over use it, but looking back. it's classic now

much better pacing than Big Fish. Elfman brings in a lot of sounds and instruments that are not typical for him.

much better pacing than Big Fish. Elfman brings in a lot of sounds and instruments that are not typical for him.

I've been banging around this site for years now, and while I'm not fond of the influx of "casual" moviegoers(also known as the "Tom Cruise" defense league) I enjoyed this movie. We're all people of different opinions; thats why we come onto these talkbacks. I don't read or respond to these things for edification of my own views. I want to what other people think, and also confirm that my own tastes are completely superior to everyone elses. Seriously though, i'll reiterate that Wilder's Wonka and Depp's Wonka are two totally different animals as they should be. One is endearing, the other cut off and remote. A comparison is totally unfair.

I've been banging around this site for years now, and while I'm not fond of the influx of "casual" moviegoers(also known as the "Tom Cruise" defense league) I enjoyed this movie. We're all people of different opinions; thats why we come onto these talkbacks. I don't read or respond to these things for edification of my own views. I want to what other people think, and also confirm that my own tastes are completely superior to everyone elses. Seriously though, i'll reiterate that Wilder's Wonka and Depp's Wonka are two totally different animals as they should be. One is endearing, the other cut off and remote. A comparison is totally unfair.

Too many people come here and comment nicely on movies? Are you insane this site is all hate for any movie, any TB. "Batman Begins sucks", "Kong will suck", "HPGOF will suck". I'm amazed anyone actually liked something on this site for once. I thought the movie was fun and it made me laugh the only movie this summer to do so. Will it hold up on the classic scale? Maybe I doubt it because the ending was so rushed, but does it matter? It was a good time and for me that's what movies are about.

Orions, back in the day people didn't complain about the overuse of stopmotion because outside of a few TV commercials and Holiday specials,it was hardly ever used. It was an expensive technique to do properly and only a few craftsmen had the patience and skill to make it look right. CGI on the other hand, is everywhere, and while in many instances it can be a very useful and less expensive tool when it comes to creating photorealistic effects and wedding them seamlessly (theoretrically)into a live action scene, it's still just a special effect and shouldn't be the be all to end all of the filmgoing experience. The problem with overusing CGI is that some filmmakers use it like a crutch, thinking that spinning camera angles or jamming every inch of of the frame with unnecessary minutia is enough to keep audiences distracted from the poor storytelling. Another big problem with artifical (as opposed to pracical) effects is that it gives the actors very little to work with, making it difficult for them to properly "sell" the scene to the audience. But I can't say all CGI is bad, just like any special effect, be it makeup appliances or model building, it all comes down to individual craftsmanship and talents vary throughout the industry.(There's alot of anonymous CGI animators out there right now, hopefully some of them will emerge as next Harryhausen or O'Brien.)Personally, I try not to nitpick the effects in any movie (unless they're really bad) No special effects are 100% perfect. Bad effects can make a bad film worse, whereas a few bad effects are excusable in a good film.

is not really accurate. Depp's Wonka cannot stand to be touched by the children.

He'd be playing "find the roll of lifesavers in my pockets" with the kids.

An everlasting knobgobbler(hey I'd heel too).

This explains everything. I mean, look at the clothes, look at his manner. Willy Wonka is actually the last incarnation of the Doctor. And the Factory is his TARDIS. Or, at the very least, the Great Glass Wonkavator. Now, if they could only get Bill Nighy to play the Doctor. . .

That's the story I've been waiting years to see! They could not have done it before CGI with all the scenes described in the book. Does Tim Burton have any interest in finishing the whole story? I haven't heard anything to that effect as of yet.

Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking tool. Go sing some songs (Yeah, I know who you are... You're also a terrible singer) or talk about how great a writer you are (when you're anything but) on fake movie sites. Please.

I liked the GGE book much better when I was a kid. And isn't that what all of this comes down to, the fact that we saw the original when we were kids and it really resonated with us then and we can't help but compare our new experience with this movie to that? And really, how likely are we to relive the experience of seeing a movie from a kid's point of view, considering that we're all bitter, world-weary adults. Bet you $5 if you took a kid to see Burton's flick first, then showed them the original when they're an adult, they'd feel the same way that we feel about this one. Oh and BTW, Big Fish made me bawl like a baby.

I thought he was Tim Burton's personal assistant or something. Or the guy who steals orange peels out of Burton's garbage when it's curbside and arranges them into garbage mosaics in a shrine he has to Michael Keaton in his apartment.

Moviemack is actually a pretty ordinary guy who is trying to launch a writing career. He goes to one of those ridiculous "faux movie" sites where geeky kids write fake scripts. Although most of the time those sites fail because of Agency problems. He also writes condescending reviews of these films, I used to be a member until I, quite frankly, grew up. But he constantly claims to be better than Quentin Tarantino. Also he, at one point, tried to get into American Idol and I've heard his recordings. They sound like cat snuff audio tapes, or something. It's pretty brutal. Not only that, but he's a theater projectionist so he has that elevated sense of self despite having a lame film-related job. That's your basic breakdown. He's an angst-filled dickhead who is leading a failing writing career, and he's mad about it. I'm sure that he wrote his own version of Batman Begins that was "more true" to the source material. Whatever it is, it's completely false and spam-filled. He probably loves David Goyer and just can't admit it, so he overcompensates with hatred. It's sad and pathetic to watch a twat scramble for some kind of credibility. I suppose the critics and fans were all wrong, the film is terrible and Moviemack saw that from Day 1. Also, it's all Goyer's fault. He's just a lonely stuck up dick who can't put together a decent screenplay for the life of him... That's all. Nothing to fear. Poor little guy. Well, not technically "little", but most failed writers who work in projection booths can't really retain a "muscular" physique anyway. I mean, BigMack would be a more fitting name... Man, that was low. Real low.

I've known people who wanted to write screenplays despite the fact that they had no talent for it, and you felt bad for them, the way you feel bad for the guy at the convenience store pouring all of his hope into scratch tickets. I take back the thing I said about making mosaics out of Tim Burton's garbage, that was kind of harsh. I still think it's a funny image, though. [It's true, I laugh at my own posts.] Don't give up hope, moviemack, I'm sure you'll make it someday.

I dont know who he is, but apparantly some of you do and so you can trash him at length because he does and tries all the things that most only fantasize about. He's a 'Failed' writer? No, he just has not gotten to his goal yet, but if he is tenancious, dedicated and focused, he very well may. One thing is certain, he certainly will not get anywhere if he does not try. And while your at trashing him, how about one of you actually let us know where or how we can get into your personal hopes and aspirations. Its OK to trash a guy like that, but can you handle the heat of that little searchlight turned around on you for US to see???? MovieMack-Keep writing, keep fighting and keep hope. You'll get there. And if your even 1/100th as good of a screenwriter as the shit that gets made these days, you'll do just fine.

Tim Burton really really really sucks. This is a fact of life. MovieMack, I'd see any movie you write before I see another Burton film and no, I am not a whatever it is you called me earlier in this talkback.

uberman turned into Dr. Phil.

I didn't care about the CGI in Charlie TCF, because I was too busy caring about charlie and the musical numbers and the funny stuff depp was saying. I saw with my nieces, they loved it. They're 3 and 6 and you think they cared about the CGI? They loved it. Good characters and good stories drive good movies, regardless of how much CGI is in it. It just so happens that they're making a lot of movies these days with crappy characters and stories. These movies happen to be filled with CGI. So you blame the CGI, but the CGI isn't the problem.

But John August and Tim Burton have knocked two films out of the park so far. Corpse Bride looks to be the third film they make that will do well (at least I hope). It's kind of odd to watch such a strange duo come out gold every time. Hopefully Burton sticks with him and they produce some interesting stuff... Or Burton could go back to being "goofy" and "completely incoherent" and "bad". Although the critics seem to agree, they're combo works. It's like Spielberg and Koepp... Although, not really.

19 and a theatre major thank you. I know i good preformance when i see one, wilder deffentinally beat depp

When 'definitely' morphs into "deffentinally"... You lose most of your credibility.

my wife and I both agree that Depp dropped the ball this time. He just didn't bring any dimension to the character. The movie was ok, but was still too much like the original to be necessary. It had a few moments I enjoyed (the squirrels, the glass elevator), but overall it just wasn't an improvement over the 1971 version. If I owned both versions, I would most likely watch the original more often and this mainly due to Depp's version of Wonka. It really sucked. I love Johnny Depp more than a heterosexual man should and my wife is obsessed with the guy, but he blew it this time. If someone asked me what the worst part of the new film is, I would have to say Depp. The second worst part was the "Daddy Dentist" backstory that was thrown in to remove every last ounce of mystery that Wonka may have had. Too bad. I wanted to love Depp in this one, but the choice of playing Wonka as a pasty plastic asexual wierdo was a HUGE mistake...

You people need to watch the original again cuz your memory seems to be failing IMO. That movie is pretty fucking dark for a kids film. Wilder and his orange midgets almost seem ENJOY watching the children and their parents suffer. Wonka straight flips the fuck out on Grampa Joe, and shows no sign of "warmth" till the last two minutes of the movie. You guys are fucking high.

Is that the climax of the movie? I dunno if kids should be watching this.

oh wait...i kinda remember...and why oh why did i buy empire records on dvd?

i've just now put two and two together. i'll bet anyone here a thousand dollars that moviemack is none other than HARRY KNOWLES HIMSELF... holy shit.. this is the discovery of the century..

because Charlie (and Grandpa Joe) pretty much fade to the background after Wonka makes his debut. As already pointed out, this really is like a Willy Wonka bio pic. You sympathize with Charlie at the start, but his problems and his family's situation and even his delight at winning the contest are all but forgotten once Depp arrives to monopolize every scene. Now with that said, this is a good and entertaining movie...but very DARK. The transformation of Violet is particularly disturbing for me! Missi Pyle is a riot without even having very many lines. She definitely plays Violet's mother as a different kind of "monster." The way Pyle carries herself, her expressions were fabulous. This is an actress who should take centerstage of a movie soon! All the kids are good in their roles, but I still prefer the utterly horrible Veruca of the Wilder version. Here she's just a stuffy "little lady" and not some tantrum-throwing monster. August has a very weird visual vibe going on, with the shaved eyebrows and the depraved cherubic sheen. The Oompas are quite good, even if the lyrics in some of the songs got swallowed by the music and the funky voice modulations. Forget Depp. Praise Deep! As to which version I prefer? Would have to go with the original, warts and all. It was a much more innocent movie despite the dark humor threaded throughout. Wilder's Wonka was a grown man, frustrated, who had given up on humanity only to have his faith restored by one good child. Depp's Wonka is the boy trapped in a man's body who never fit in to begin with so there was never a need to make human connections, preferring to lure Oompas to his factory than have to deal with regular people he really couldn't control. However you do get the feeling by the movie's end that Depp's Wonka is finally learning to grow up and realize that "adults" aren't always monsters. Three stars for the Depp version, but three and a half stars for the Wilder version.

I watched the original movie a while back and, apart from Gene Wilder's performance, it's actually not that good. I realized that I actually liked the original for one reason and that was nostalgia. It's an inherant part of my childhood and I have fond memories of watching it as a child, but I'm not a child anymore and I can see the original's flaws. Poor pacing, bad acting from everybody except Wilder, radical departures from the book, terrible sets, awful cinematography and direction. It was painful to watch something so precious to my childhood dissolve before my eyes. I feel the same way about Star Wars too, now. Star Wars was amazing to me as a child and now I watch those three films merely for the nostalgia and nothing more. I don't know if I will enjoy Burton's Chocolate Factory, I expect I will go to see it, but I can't watch the original with awe and wonder as I once did.

Seriously.

...is that this version seems to have half the dialogue of the 1971 version, resulting in not really getting to know any of the characters at all. It's actually kind of odd, thinking back.

This was NOT anymore Roald Dahl than the original was. This was just a crappy, hollow piece of waxy chocolate in the shape of a real film. It is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's a paint by the numbers film, hitting the beats of the book, and the beats of the original film, and never asking anything more of the audience than the original film did. Certainly asks nothing more of the audience than the book did, with the single exception that Wonka lived his childhood in a head brace, and his father recognizes him by his teeth. What a bunch of SHITE!!!!!!!!! I could not have been more disappointed. Just an aweful, aweful film. So much of this film was repulsive, and anti-climactic.

I think I DID imply that the story is important. When I wrote "CGI", I meant live action films that put more time and energy into the effects than trying to tell a coherent story. Toy Story is 100% animated film, therefore the CGI does not constitute a "special effect", rather it is the medium through which the story is brought to the screen. Now, if they had told their story badly, it wouldn't have mattered what medium they used, it still would have been a bad film. I'm not knocking CGI, it's here to stay. It just shouldn't try to take the place of telling a good story. There are some things that a computer simply can't do.

But it's quite possible that the "Moviemack vs. IndustryKiller! Douche-Bag-Off" above was even more entertaining. You two waste valuable oxygen that would better be used to burn rainforest.

I'll rip the internet in half. I'm joking of course, but Jesus, has anybody out there in Moderator Land taken a look at what this two-bit punkass bitch has been stirring up lately? Personal attacks, off-topic B.S., constantly ripping on everything just to incite a reaction, now he's gone all homophobic (blatant hate-speech, anyone?) to boot. He's broken nearly every single one of the Talkback rules. And he

I usually like Johnny Depp but thought his Wonka was a one-note, irritating presence on the screen. The fey nit-wit dingaling thing could have been appropriate for a scene or two - but there should be more to Wonka. There should be flashes of his genius. Wonka should be a kind of superhuman, an orator, a salesman, a scientist, an artist, an acrobat, etc. There should be more mood swings, to the point of making him schizophrenic. Wilder conveyed some of this, at least to the extent that he "drops his mask" at the end of the original film. Depp's Wonka is 1 dimensional..

That's what makes Nolan's Batman and Wilder's Wonka so much more compelling. They're adults with conviction, rather than social-retard boy-men weirdo's with no depth whatsoever...other than the fact that they had a fucked up childhood and they're just weird for weirdness sake. Burton needs to grow the fuck up, cuz at this point strong charters are beyond his reach.

The scene in Wilder's Wonka where he shines Charlie and rubs the signed contract in his face.. Wonka is clearly unstable, fearesome, authoritative, and.... faking... hence, DIMENSIONAL. Wilder's Wonka was arch. Depp's is merely, to use his parlance, "Weird".

and I loved the original as well. Way back in the thread there was someone who asked if the movies was appropriate for a five year old to which I am responded--> yes. My four year old loved it, though he was a bit bored in the beginning. No nightmares to date, but he won't stop singing the Willy Wonka theme.

As far as this movie being more "faithful" to the source material...KNOW that if Dahl could take one look at that Michael Jackson freakshow that's supposed to be Wonka along with his retarded backstory...he would want every single fucking negative burned and scattered to the wind. Make no mistake about it.

I tried, but Depp really ruined it for me. I will not repeat my posts from the weekend, but I do blame Depp even more than Burton for this movie not working out. Also, I agree that Wilder was very unstable at times and you could never pin down what "his deal" was. The new Wonka is socially retarded and had a dentist father who hated candy. That's about all I learned. Did he speak different languages? Was he a genius? Was he a scientist? Did he like children? I couldn't tell because Depp's Wonka didn't DO anything! He just spoke funny and acted like a goof. Wilder was all over the place with that character. Speaking French one minute and German the next. Then eating candy while a child may be drowning in his river "The suspense is killing me...I hope it will last". He takes them on that horror show of a boat ride, shrugs off all questions and then screams at Charlie for breaking the rules. He's unstable, but I believed he was a mad genius who shuts himself off from the rest of the world. Depp just acted unstable.

He never even was especially unstable. Just sort of pleasantly high. He never quite got a wild look, like you see the tongues wagging and eyes bulging out of sockets on all those cereal boxes these days. None of that. Just mildly retarded ding-a-ling Wonka. Falls ass forward into fortune and fame.

...... okok i admit i spell like a 2nd grader

While I respect and admire Harry's giddy enthusiasm for the Burton film, I'm still not sure about it. After two viewings I still think the weakest element was Depp's portayal of Wonka. It seems unfair to compare Wilder and Depp, but it's hard to sit down with a clean slate. Depp is an amazing actor, but I think he fell short of my expectations. Wilder was manic and aloof but always had that air of knowing more than he let on, as if he had the kids pegged the second they walked in the door. Depp hinted at that early on but lost it within the doofiness of the Ed Sullivan/Emo Phillips with a dash of Cher from Clueless routine. I never felt that he connected with the kids enough least of all Charlie. I would have liked to have seen more interaction with the kids rather than flashbacks. Once the kids get to the factory they just seem to fall into place without displaying their vile personalities along with their long suffering parents. I missed the greek chorus theme of the Oompa Loompa songs that were just as enjoyable as they were creepy.The new songs were too ripe with our culture and didn't feel indigenous to Loompaland. Burton's flim never captured the darkness and slightly mean spirited humor of the book or the original film. That is what makes Dahl's books so fantastic, he didn't pander nor hesitate to scare his young readers. That said, the look of the film is beautiful.Could have been more fantastical and kooky in the prop department. Violet turning into the blueberry was great. The Small World opening and Charlie's house were spot on as were the grandparents. I loved the family moments. Like I said I'm on the fence. Wanted to love it but maybe expected too much from Burton and co.

And it was absolutely brilliant. Tim Burton really knocked it out of the ballpark with this one. I would recommend for others who have not seen it to read all the other reviews. Don't just take the word of some of these cynical fanboys here because they hate pretty much everything. AICN talkbacks are famous on the internet for their rabid vulgar cynicism. Read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or the user reviews on Yahoo movies to get a better balanced picture. In my opinion this was a fabulous movie experience and money well spent on a full price ticket.

Burton's pretty hit and miss for me. I'd call "Charlie" a hit.

And even I was dissapointed. I only pretened to like it because my buddy paid my way. What a mess. This movie is simply the most rushed, undercooked wasted of a good idea I've ever seen. I so wanted it to be great. Granted there are some decent parts here and there, and there are by far worse films out there. But for everything it had going for it the film simply does not use any of those virtues with any acceptible amount of efficiency. The fact that Tim Burton claimed that he wasn't necessarily a fan of the original it terribly evident. He tried to capture some of the feel of the original, but the fact that his heart wasn't in it like another director caused Burton to skip a beat on many of the key things that made the original the great film that it was. While the original film had a split personality, this film is simply grey. -Az

For those of you are nitpicking tiny little details, I thought it might be worth noting that this is a fucking KIDS movie. Kids don't give a damn about details. They're entertained by shiny objects.

This one's doing VERY well, I assume they will in a year or two.

I have no idea why this was remade. Johnny Depp was the worst thing about it. He was just plain creepy in a idiotic way. There was no character arc with him at all. Very disappointing. At least with Gene Wilder's Wonka - he was evil genius with a secret motive. With Depp's Wonka, he was just a loopy, airhead creep with no real motives that I saw. All of the character were almost exactly like the previous incarnation, with the exception of Charlie and his Grandpa. Charlie was great, the Grandpa was kind of just standing around except for the scenes early on when he was in the wierd little house in bed or dancing to winning golden ticket. The oompa loompa guy was kind ok, but when there are 50 of them looking exactly the same - stupid to me. Kids might enjoy it. Harry orgasmed over it like just about everything else he sees, but I thought it was weak and certainly inferior to the original film.

There is nothing that's really all that appealing in the second book--certainly nothing that would justify it ever being made. There's some interesting outer space stuff, but then the story goes nowhere for a couple of chapters and then it just ends before they go the White House. The book is really just a series of episodes featuring characters from the first book that don't really add up to much. Charlie does virtually nothing, Wonka hawks vitamins. Nothing at all like the junior morality tale that preceded it. Making it would be a waste of time.

In the passing days since the release of the new and improved take on a classic children's novel CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY , I have purposley refused many friends, colleages, and loved ones an explanation and analyzation of why I not only hated director Tim "PLANET OF THE APES" Burton's new film, but fear and depise the aura of negativity and unappreciation it will build around a TRUE cult classic piece of 70's cinema in the years to come. The following speaks for no one except myself: Many moons ago when I discovered the news that the man responsible for many of my most beloved childhood films (PeeWee's Big adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands) was going to remake one of, if not my MOST beloved childhood film, WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY I felt a slight shudder of disgust run through my genitals and up my spine. Surely the man that just destroyed a science fiction classic by remaking it (WITH CHUCK HESTON AS AN APE!?!?!?!? WTF!!!!!) would not then jump over to another genre and destroy one of it's flagship films as well...would he? Oh yes my little ones, he most certainly would, but there was hope at the end of the tunnel. As the clock was allowed to turn it was noted that Mr. Burton, not being a fan of the Gene Wilder version, wanted not to remake that movie, but make a completely separate movie straight from the book. Aaaahhhh the relief, i thought, as long as he keeps it completely separate and original then it just might possibly be worth doing. It was not long after that I started imagining the twisted, dark, german stylized nightmares and eccentric evil undertones that will lie in wait for me in the Burton film to come. He promised a fresh new take, a rebirth, a renewal, a re-envisionment that will knock todays audiences off thier seats and make all the fans of that old, tired, shitty, 70's filth starring that hack Wilder realise how wrong they were all this time. What I got was not a renewed, re-envisionment, but rather a un-original, putrid mass of obvious incomprehensible box office gold. A movie so bad, so misguided and so painfully blasphemas that its taken me over a week to fully let out how much I loathed it. I assume that I should point out what anyone bored enough to read this must be thinking, and yes, I have read the book. When I read it however I was a newly budding 5th grader and since that time it has been no doubt completely replaced with thoughts about college,money, and naked females. However, I will go out on a limb in this case and say that at this point in time and history and popular culture the book, in the world of film, has become irrevocably irrelevent. I realise how that sounds, but hear me out. The 71' movie is not just an old favorite, it is a monolith of cult love, a powerhouse on which so many people's understanding of this story and these characters are based that in the 34 years since it's release it has fully replaced the book as the true telling and understanding of what WILLY WONKA is all about. How many cartoon shows have full episodes based on that movie alone? How many people in this country think of the name Ronald Dahl and not Gene Wilder when they hear the name WILLY WONKA? Now if you disagree with me you are probably not a fan of the Gene Wilder version, which is fine. Do realise though that you do stand alone on a rather medium sized island with all your fellow "fuck wilder wonka" comrades, whom are only there because a) they didnt grow up with the movie, b) they think the first pokemon movie is a certifiable animated classic, c) they are a 20-something prick whose favorite movie is based on quality more so then personnal enjoyment and meaning (ala..."my favorite movie is pulp fiction cause tarantino is a genius and is a perfectly crafted piece of cinema"...which is true, but come on...where's the heart behind that decision?), d) they directed MARKY MARK AND THE PLANET OF THE APES. Thus note that I am obviously addressing those that love, or at least like the Wilder Wonka, if you dont belong in that category, then i'm sorry and please enjoy your Fried Food during the friday night 8pm showing of the hot new FANTASTIC FOUR movie from Tim Story...director of TAXI!!!! All of that blithering mouth yabber behind, we come to the movie at hand. Donning the silly clothes and eccentricity this time around is everyones favorite pirate-cry-baby Johnny "Ed Wood Scissorhands" Depp, a casting choice so obvious, and financially safe it almost sickens. I personally am a fan of Mr. Depp, but am most definetly not a fan of his fans, if you get me. They (they being who?...you figure it out) will eat any warm package of pus labeled with his star on the cover, filmmaker, plot, or supporting actors aside. We all know that Depp is fully capable of handling this role, and most could almost guest exactly how he would be in it. There is no surprise coming from his corner this time. We've seen his eccentric half-gay pirate, which was cool, we dont need his eccentric half-gay confectioner. Originally in line for this role was apparently Burton's old go to guy Micheal Keaton himself. Not the most obvious choice mind you, but I would have enjoyed the challenge set forth. Accepting Depp as wonka as an audience at this point in his career is simple and nothing more then a passing "uh...yeah...cool i guess", but with Keaton they would of had to win us over, which is undeniedbly more fun. Not to mention he could totally handle an closed off pyschotic genius like the Wonka character, if you dont believe me see the movies Desperate Measures or Multiplicity to get a good idea of Keaton's unnappreciated range (and come on, give the dude a chance, he's no longer batman, he's the guy in the new HERBIE movie).

Tim Burton needs to stop doing remakes, Planet of the Apes anyone? God that was awful... I like when Depp and Burton make movies together but make something original and don't freaking remake a film that's a classic. I never want to see Edward Scissorhands remade, never never never remake Ed Wood - love that movie. But I'm sure in 20 years someone will decide to remake it. With so many talented writers out there just iching for a chance and big studios keep recycling there movies and tv shows... GFY

Bogusjourney--Agree, Keaton would have been cool with those devil eyes of his. Would have been nice for Burton to revive his career again like he did with Beetlejuice and Batman.

That bit, where the earthworm crawled across that person's lips in the boat ride tunnnel sequence of the original film, fucked me UP as a kid... ... I'm just sayin', is all. -KK

IM AMAZED THAT HARRY AND CO DID NOT REVIEW MIRANDA JULYS FILM (YOU ME) IT SUCKS. IT SUCKS SO BAD THAT I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND I WENT TO THE MATINEE! HARRY IF YOU SEE THIS SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS FILM SO YOU ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE WONT GO AND SEE IT. CANT WAIT TO SEE CHARLIE.

saw it last night and it was rubbish.Great beginning but the other kids just were'nt horrid enough.Depp was okay but what the fuck is that about his father and all that?!Rubbish.No joy to it at all and it seems to NEVER END....I understand this is aimed DIRECTLY at kiddies but ..jeez.I'm guessing that vpoice-over was an impersonation of Dahl?..Buron has yet again proved he's visual over story ability.Rubbish.Oh and when in the fucking book do the use Dollars as tender?Fuck.THe.Hell.Off....Cack

The movie was amazing, I didnt expect it to be nearly as good as I thought it would be. The audience in the thearter were actually clapping when the movie ended. Depp and everything about this movie was excellent. Its probably not as good as the original, but its pretty damn close.

A British newspaper did a feature on what happened to the kids from the 1971 movie. The "pure evil" Veruca who terrified so many of you is now a beauty/makeover "expert" on the morning GMTV tv show in London. Now that is scary.

Moviemack has been exploited and he finally admits everything. Also my penis IS big, and you still can't sing.

It has interviews with the whole cast, including the kids. It says where they are now and the part I thought was the coolest, the cast of now grown up kids does a commentary for the film. It's interesting to hear their takes on themselves.

Wonka spoof "Kill Charlie" (on IFILM) is histerical - 3 min long & 10 times better than the Burton mess. Its 25 years later and the kids are pissed!! Didn't Planet of the apes teach Tim anything!

But that would mean I'd have to stop watching it on my 1975 Phillips top loader vcr (two brick-sized tapes) including the bit where the 2 inch wide tape's got mangled -- just at the part when Charlie nearly hits the bubble extractor fan. It was 20 years before I got a VHS version and found out how they escaped.

I decided to treat my mother to this movie since she loved the original and loves Johnny Depp. Lets just say the entire theater emptied out randomly during the film. Even one young couple on a date went out the exit under the screen and yelled "This movie fucking sucks!" while closing the door. So my mother and I suffered the rest of it out. I was simply bored to death with it. I grew up with the Gene Wilder version and missed that great acting he brought to it. I still thought Gene's scene where he gets all mad at Charlie like possessed by Joan Crawford. Then goes all nice after Charlie returns the Gobstopper. Fucking brilliant performance!! This version had no touches of that like Gene playing an old cripple and falling into a roll. I just grew up on it and liked that. Depp's Wonka was just too Michael Jackson "my childhood was fucked up" creepy wierd for me. No offense to MJ because I'm behind his music and the fact the poor guy needs help badly... but this Tim Burton version bored me to death and the humor fell beyond flat with me. Even the Oompa-Loompa's came off as a unoriginal cop out to special effects because of "budget" or whatever reasons to make them all look the same was just stupid. Only good from them was the cute funny backstory. Still why they made them all look like some ugly owner of a New York pizza shop is beyond me and completely unflattering on the eyes. I dunno... I thought this was stupid and I agree a remake that shouldn't have been made. THIS IS A RENTAL!

Worse.. just the victim of a dad who was too early an "early adopter". We had a betamax player, too.

I was shocked to see Harry single out Teevee as the one with the least "presence" when I felt the exact opposite. Veruca was a tamer version of the original (even looked like her a little). She never got to pitch that terrific fit that you knew was coming. Violet was overshadowed by her mother. And Agustus Gloop was shown to enjoy eating. See that's not how he came off in the original--there he was kind of like a shark or a machine that just ate out of habit. In this one he enjoys eating to the point that it made him more sympathetic and I guess more forgivable. But Teevee had the best expressions (particularly his reaction to the openning fanfare of the factory), and easily he hit the biggest nerve by being the one child who hated chocolate. All of it I know was the result of focusing on Wonka as a character with a lesson of his own to learn and that was fine. I just can't believe Harry would dismiss the best of the rotten kids like that. I think he's comparing him too much to the original because he liked that kid (and probably the actor whose love of the movie is very much in Harry's line of geekdom).

Seriously.

Go kill younglings with this, Analkin Skywonka! That's my opinion of this waste of film and reel. If you truly wish to speak for fun and goodwill, of mind-inspiring, passion and wonders of imagination, maybe other virtues, too... or just GOOD movies for HEALTHY kids and like-minded adults... Go see NARNIA.

...It just proves that Johnny Depp is indeed God