Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

This is topic Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000953

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-13-2005, 05:29 AM:

With very film Johnny Depp gets weirder and weirder.
I rather enjoy Tim Burton's style of directing and I think that certainly helped me enjoy this movie.
Very Tim Burton-esque.

I found it a little hard to really get into, it just didn't engross me the way I had hoped it would and comparing the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory to this one makes for some good after-the-show conversation.
Especially in the differences between the ompa's and such.

Good acting for the most part, but there were a few cheesy parts that dragged a bit.

Fujicolor film stock and the prints looked very good to me. Not the best, but pretty darn good.

Posted by Oliver Pasch (Member # 1335) on 07-13-2005, 05:54 AM:

I've seen it at CinemaExpo in Amsterdam and think that "Charlie..." is brillant - not a childrens movie at all!

Wonderful acting (even though Mr. Depp - his role, to be correct - tends to remind me every now and then of Michael Jackson on his Neverland Ranch... [eyes]

), wonderful story, wonderful pictures and some very nice quotes from other films such as "2001". Really great cinema!

Brillant presentation in Amsterdam in 2K-digital and Extended Surround (soundmix seems to be VERY loud!).

Loved it!

Oliver

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-14-2005, 11:50 AM:

Yes, this was clearly a Burton approach. I thought Johnny Depp was very Johnny Depp. If another actor had played Willy Wonka the way Depp played him, you would say, "Hey, that guy's playing Johnny Depp playing Willy Wonka."

There was a washed-out look explicitly on some characters' faces. It was as if they discovered Smart Blur and decided that some peoples' complexions weren't too hot.

I liked the music! As cheesy and lame as the songs might have been in the film, I was just really excited to hear Danny Elfman doing some rock-type stuff again. There's some Oingo Boingo left in the old guy! I don't know if I'd buy the soundtrack, but it's definitely a little more fresh than his past dozen or so scores.

A note on the IMAX DMR transfer ... WOW! Like with Robots, this film actually fills a good deal more of the frame than the other movies do, since they're Scope and I guess this one is not. And it's CRISP! The look of the film is very colorful, with a hint of that signature Burton darkness; it's very nice. There isn't any quick-cut action sequences, like in Batman Begins or the Matrix movies, so the IMAX format works a bit better. You can let the colorful images soak in, rather than fight your eyes to keep track of everything in your peripheral.

(Now, the Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire trailer that came with the print does NOT look good. The DMR transfer was horrible ... almost not even remastered, but just, plain, blown-up. Grainy artifacts all over the place. It's the same teaser I've seen in 35mm, but says "In Theatres and IMAX" at the end.)

Overall, I found "Charlie" quite entertaining. I'd watch it another couple times. Plenty of great lines and reaction shots. Fun, fun movie.

People of the type who don't like Burton and would assume that anything he could possibly do in the future would, by default, suck just as badly (people like my roommate, for instance) will most likely hate this one, too. [Smile]

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 07-14-2005, 04:39 PM:

Maybe your optics are dirty because I thought the HP trailer looked fine. [Smile]

I think the looks of the charaters were done they way they are on purpose. Although, Johnny Depp looked scary on some of his closeups. I think this remake is a lot better than the original, I don't remember liking the original at all.

Posted by Tracy Bellar (Member # 3049) on 07-16-2005, 01:20 AM:

Loved it! Different than the original and I'm glad they didn't just rehash the old one. I liked the way Johnny Depp did the character. All of the actors fit thier parts exellently. Very good casting. Very good directing. I liked the extra effort done to develop the characters personalities. It was really nice to see the modern technology take it to an extreem that the original could not have gone. I think the boat ride and the exit of the characters was more elaborate and made the movie and Wonka's factory seem larger more dangerous and more of an adventure.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-16-2005, 01:50 AM:

..and Burton's coming out with "Corpse Bride" - in the classic stop animation as he did with "Nightmare before Christmas.."

Posted by Eric Webb (Member # 2772) on 07-16-2005, 02:35 AM:

this movie was simply amazing, perhaps doubly so. the children were amazing in their roles, and it was a pleasure to see the boy who played Charlie again (he also played peter in Finding Neverland).

the role of willy i think was a little risky, but i feel Depp pulled it off nicely. also the directing and writing of the movie helped fill out some of the story, giving some insight into why some of the characters are the way they are.

the visual styling is pretty much on par for a Burton movie. just about every scene was breathtaking in it's detail, and homes and surroundings that are well lived in take on quirks and personality of those characters that dwell in them.

i personally enjoyed the fact that the musical portion of the movie was toned down a bit. i think it really added something special to the songs that are in. don't expect to hear any of the classics, because the new songs are quite different.

anyways, i definitely recommend it. i will probably see it at least two or three more times in theatre.

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-16-2005, 03:05 AM:

I have to say that I went into the movie thinking flop from the first trailer that I saw. After viewing it, I have to say bravo. Very well done on Burton's end, and Excellent on Depp's aswell. I still feel that the original with Gene Wilder was better. Don't know why, it just seems to hold a special place in my heart as my favorite childs movie.

I think the main reason that most people feel that Burton put his own spin on it is due to the fact that Mel Stuart is the one that put the spin on the movie. If any have read the book, and I'm sure many here have, this movie was more like it. The ending was just as the book read with Peter viewing all his fellow visitors from the glass elevator. From what I've heard, the person that wrote the script actually has never seen the original. Granted, he might have by now, but when he wrote the script, he hadn't, and Burton insisted that he not see it.

Over all, Very well done.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-16-2005, 05:09 PM:

CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 9
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three stars (out of four)

quote: Monte Fullmer
...and Burton's coming out with "Corpse Bride" - in the classic stop animation as he did with "Nightmare before Christmas.."

That trailer was AWESOME.

We arrive at the satellite concession stand, where a rather frustrated concessioneer is selling pretty much everything on the menu to an elderly woman who relays one item at a time as her two grandchildren bug her. "And he wants a popcorn." He gets the popcorn, butters it, hands it over. "And he wants a nachos..."

While this is going on, trouble erupts on the two-way radio.

"Satellite to Projection."

Must be the other satellite stand.

Projection doesn't answer the first time.

(Satellite): "Satellite to Projection."

(Projection): "Go ahead".

(Satellite): We have a guest complaining of a black spot in the upper right corner of the picture in 18."

(Projection): "Okay."

(Grandma): "...And he wants a Coke..."

(Projection): "I'm going to have to stop the show to fix this."

(Mysterious third person over radio): "What did you just say?"

(Projection): "I've tried blowing it out, it won't go away."

(Mysterious third person): "What does it look like"

(Projection): "It's a large black dot. It's not a hair. I don't know what it is."

(Wife #1): "Do they have any larger straws?"

I guess I don't get to stick around and find out if the black dot stays or goes in 18, but I'm impressed as hell they're actually working on the problem.

I read "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" when I was in the third or fourth grade. A couple of years later, I saw Gene Wilder's movie. It was then that I learned about how movies don't always translate books, and basically stopped reading books. I'm sick of those stupid books ruining my movies.

Watching this new Burton version was a good example of that thinking in action. Wife #1, who has never read the book nor seen the Gene Wilder film, LOVED this one. I'm sure she'd be nitpicking if she were familiar with the book.

Books suck.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-16-2005, 05:56 PM:

I think the reason I couldn't really get into it is because it jumped around. I don't know.
I just couldn't get lost in the world of Wonka.
Oh well.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-16-2005, 06:01 PM:

Decent summer fun. I could have done without Tim Buton's "Plot expansion".

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-16-2005, 06:39 PM:

Today, 11:55AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #3, DTS-ES. Attendance about 30. Looked slightly out of focus to me right from the get-go. [Mad]

Even more annoying, there was a strange echo or reverb in the DTS sound, especially noticeable in dialog. Is it possible for both digital and analog to be on at the same time and the slight time difference causes an echo? Anyway I waited for the feature, and the problem did not go away. With 2 strikes already, after assessing my options, I politely notified the manager of the sound problem, and made my way to...

House #8 for the 12:45 show, unknown digital sound format. Attendance about 25 at most. The port glass looks filthy, even with no show running. The slides are shifted left of center by about 4 feet. Show starts, looks to be in focus. Woo hoo. The rolling stock is rather sloppily assembled, with snips of sound missing at the beginning of some. Feature starts and looks and sounds good so I am happy. Then someone sits behind me and puts their feet up on the chair next to me and starts popping soda cans and rustling candy wrappers. I glare at them to no avail, and end up moving.

I enjoyed this, yet there's something wrong with it. It's very very odd, and I don't just mean Tim Burton-odd. The story at the heart of it (about Charlie Bucket, well played by Freddie Highmore) is engaging and individual scenes are good but somehow it doesn't add up the way it should. I don't know why. Johnny Depp didn't seem to know what to do with it, or Tim Burton wasn't directing him, or something.

Because I overall liked it, 3 stars out of 5, but I would hesitate about recommending it to my friends.

[ 07-16-2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2005, 11:31 PM:

I've never seen the Gene Wilder film so I can't compare, but I enjoyed this. Depp was pretty creepy, a bit too much like Michael Jackson. I read the Roger Ebert review on this and he said that Depp reminded him of Carol Burnett, and damn if he isn't right on that too.

Overall, it was OK. I didn't like the songs much, but the sets and design of the show made up for them. Nice ending too. 3.5 out of 5 for me.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2005, 05:34 AM:

I was quite skeptical about this movie after seeing the AWFUL trailer that was cut for it, but after screening it tonight I must say Tim Burton did a great job with this and I enjoyed it much more than the original. The children were better, the (sole) Oompa Lompa was much funnier than the ones in the original and even though I very much liked Gene Wilder's performance, Johnny Depp worked out well as Wonka.

I should also mention that of all the cgi crap we have had to endure these last few years in movies, the cgi in this movie was perfectly used to enhance things. Very well done.

There is one thing I would've changed, other than of course shooting it in scope. At the beginning of the movie grandpa has a flashback to the premise of "back when I was much younger", yet they had him at his existing age in the flashback. I only wish they would've had ALL of the flashbacks played by the existing-aged actors. That premise would've been worth a lot of laughs.

4 out of 5 stars

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 07-17-2005, 03:39 PM:

Awesome piece of work. Bravo to Tim Burton. I loved this film, and had goosebumps on my arms while viewing it. Not one person has complained about the remake, and its weird to actually hear the audience clapping during the film. Numerous repeat customers is always a good sign of a hit. As much as I adored the original, this version is far superior. Charlie is totally adorable and you feel for him. I can't say that I could say that for the original star from the 70s.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-17-2005, 10:03 PM:

Audience reactions here have been very favorable too and we've had several repeats. I think using the original book title, rather than naming it after the original movie, was a great move.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-18-2005, 02:17 AM:

quote: Mike Olpin
I could have done without Tim Buton's "Plot expansion".

He seems to be on a father/son relationship kick. That was kind of a huge point to Big Fish. I don't think this movie particularly suffered for it, though. Characters can't just be wacky or weird or in any other way unstable, these days, without there being some childhood trauma or back story to "justify" it, or so it seems. That was my reaction to the development of Willy.

But it did seem odd ... Using the original title would seem to indicate focusing on Charlie. But this movie really focused on Willy Wonka more.

But, yeah, the kids were all more rich as characters, and you actually cared about Charlie, and the Oompa Loompa(s) actually had funny moments. Good decision to use one guy for all of them, even though some of the digital fudging to get dozens of them in the same shot were less than fully convincing.

But I agree with Brad. The CGI in this movie was effective and well-used. It was rarely so obvious but, when it was, it wasn't distracting for it.

Yep, audiences are loving it, even after shelling out $13 a ticket for the IMAX. Or maybe my pre-recorded pre-show announcement was just THAT good! [Wink]

"Please exit up the stairs to the top of the auditorium, thank you."

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-19-2005, 08:06 PM:

Absolutely fraking awesome!!!

This just furthers my love for IMAX. The presentation was super crisp and the colors were just spectacular. I also adore that 12,000 watts of sound power. I took my little brother to see it and his eyes lit up for every major scene. The songs were very different. It is very little like the original. This was true Tim Burton at it's best. Very weird and sick.

Very awesome

IMAX presentation: 5/5
Movie in general: 4.5/5

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-20-2005, 01:37 PM:

Regal Hollywod 18, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 9, 2005/07/19, 19:00

I had just seen the original movie one week earlier and I think I prefer the 1971 movie to the new one. I've never read the book, so doing so may change my opinion in the future.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "Michael Jackson!" when I first saw Willy Wonka.

The focus was poor on the right third of the image (but sharp over the rest of it) and there was an asshole kid behind my friend and I who would not shut up. I just don't enjoy movie theatres like I once did and I see far fewer movies in theatres now compared to a couple of years ago. It seems people were far better behaved in theatres 10 years ago than today and far fewer advertisements were shoved in our faces and the presentation quality was better, on the average.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-20-2005, 07:02 PM:

My wife brought home the book last week, and I read it over the weekend. The movie follows the book almost exactly, until the ending which is slightly different and which I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it.

A couple of small details are changed -- in the book, the kids each get to take both of their parents along (although Charlie still only takes his grandpa). And, in the book, Wonka has a goatee. But other than that and a couple of other things, it's pretty close -- right down to some of the dialogue being exactly the same.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-22-2005, 01:37 PM:

I made the trip down to Grand Rapids with a fellow employee and some friends to Dan Suomi's wonderful IMAX location, as many probably know Dan is the Chief Projectionist at this location. First presentation...this is by far the best IMAX film I've ever seen. The colors and the sharpness were just great.

It was a sold out show at 7:30 on a Tuesday night. A great crowd of young and old. I was a little skeptical of this, I figured I'm going to love it or hate it. This movie was unbelievable. It had me laughing and actually caring for Charlie, unlike the other one. Johnny Depp was perfect as Wonka...after seeing this film I'm not sure if I will ever watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

This is right up there with Batman Begins as the best film of the summer. Five out of Five

P.S. Dan, great presentation. Also were you the one working Tuesday night?

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 07-22-2005, 03:08 PM:

HEY, DON'T FORGET LANSING HAS A IMAX ALSO......

-BB

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-24-2005, 05:38 PM:

Wonderful........the CGI is "under control." (Usually they just duplicate one or two loops...ad nauseum.)(Is one spaceship enough? we'll use 10....no 20; no 200.) This time Oompa Loompa nation actor Deep Roy actually acted his part over & over again. He probably has more screen time than any other actor this decade.

Louis

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-24-2005, 08:48 PM:

Now that I've seen the film quite a few times, I'm impressed with the job they did with Deep Roy. There are a couple shots where they looped his performance and added a slight delay, but most of the shots were clearly done with either different performances, or different camera shots simultaneously of the same performance. Either way, merging it all together as seemlessly as it was, in as many sequences as there were ... wow!

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 07-26-2005, 03:37 PM:

Burton has a weird, warped, wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his best films. The kids were fantastic and he couldn't have found a better collection of character actors for the rest of the cast cast. The takeoffs on other films had me rolling in the aisles. Depp looked like his makeup artist was a mortician's apprentice. I don't know why, but I could never stomach the 1971 film.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-29-2005, 06:19 PM:

Let's face it, this film wiped the stench that was "planet of the apes" from our memories.

I mean I liked it the first time I saw it, but after repeated viewings, I can honestly see why Burton regretted making that picture.

This one, is a pure and simple treat I will enjoy for years and years to come.

Ciao

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-03-2005, 05:44 PM:

I have deep affection for the 1971 film, but I also enjoyed this one very much.

Looked OK on the new smaller Imax screen at Showcase Springdale, but not as good as BATMAN.

Johnny Depp is a true actor, bringing an entirely different look and approach to each character. He works well with Tim Burton.

Only troublesome part was that, during the final shot, the voice of the Oompa Loompa (wonderfully portrayed by Deep Roy), came from the center channel, while the character was obviously on the far right. It would have sounded much better from the right speaker.

Again, I noticed a slight wobble in the sound. I'm not sure of the process (guessing DTS), but occasionally, during sustained notes, there is a slight flutter to the sound. I'm not sure just what is going on there.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-24-2005, 11:14 AM:

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it very much.
Many fine actors, beautiful set design and great score by Danny Elfman - I noticed that he did the vocals for the songs, like he did for THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

The squirrel scene to me was the funniest part of the picture.
That long shot with a superimposed title "Düsseldorf, Germany" (when the fat little boy is introduced) got a great laugh from German audiences because of the Rothenburg-like city (where they shot WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM). The real town of Düsseldorf is about as pitoresque as Baltimore...
[Big Grin]

The only negative thing I have to say about CHARLIE is in terms of image quality, it seems to me that 2K resolution is not adequate for detailed long shots as in this movie (referring to the 35mm version, of course).

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-25-2005, 06:57 PM:

Our print of Charlie looks great after almost 5 weeks. I've only seen little snippits of it when checking focus, and I want to see the whole thing now. I've never seen the original.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 09-03-2005, 08:36 AM:

Hi All

Last night I saw Charlie & the Chocolate Factory at the Dandenong Drive-in along with my family.

For comparison, I watched Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory which was shown on tv tonight here in Australia. I have seen this film before but not for a while.

The first point to note is that my kids (both 4 or less) both were entranced by both films. They are in fact quite different in style and substance, the first film of course being a musical. I was surprised at how well the new film has been made and it definently kept me entertained.

Now about the Michael Jackson thing. People have got this all COMPLETELY wrong. Please let me explain. I think you will be surprised at my take on the whole make-up thing.

Take a look at the following two links and please take careful note of the way that Depp looks slightly to the right and slightly upward to camera in the publicity shot.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808403419&cf=pg&photoid=568020&intl=us

Now look at the following publicity shot

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/

See the similarity? That's right - I reckon the makeup and publicity shot have been borrowed straight from Amelie and that Depp has been made up to look a bit like Audrey Tautou.

Far fetched? Maybe but remember that Depp is partnered to French actress/singer Vanessa Paradis and lives some of his time in France.

I didn't like the weirdness that Depp brought to the role of Wonka. Whilst the part is well acted the character is not likeable whereas Wilder's somewhat eccentric Wonka was a very likeable and caring character.

Burton's film also missed a little in terms of believability. Although the premise is far fetched to begin with, the first film had Charlie living in a real house. In the Burton version the house is clearly fake. This causes a problem in that the contrast between the reality of Charlie's existence and the fantasy world of the factory is a little lost. It is as if the whole story is a fantasy. The film would have been helped greatly if Charlie's background had been more realist and believable, then when he steps into the factory the contrast would have been greater.

Another problems with Burton's film is that you can't understand the words in the songs which is a real problem as the songs are meant to explain and highlight key points & morals to children.

My principle criticism with Burton's film however is that he changes the ending used in the musical version. In the 1971 production Charlie is shown to have his flaw to but his unprompted act of contrition earns him the forgiveness of Wonka. That was the key moment in the film - a moment of genuine drama and tension - and Burton just threw it away.

In Burton's film Charlie (by default) simply wins the factory. The extended plot which sees Wonka reunited with his father just didn't work for me and didn't have much emotional depth.

This is not to say that the first film didn't have its faults, one of which was that it could have been ended better. Further some of the psychadelic elements could have been toned down a little bit for children i.e. the boat ride could have caused nightmares.

These criticims aside both films were very enjoyable.

Finally I really enjoyed Tim Brooke Taylor's performance in the original film. He was very funny. It was almost like a scene from the Goodies.

cheers Peter

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-06-2005, 08:08 PM:

[sleep]

Anyone else nearly fall asleep during this one like me?

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 09-06-2005, 10:29 PM:

No, I most certainly DID fall asleep during this one ... for about 45 minutes.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 09-14-2005, 09:04 AM:

Hi all again

After making a point of buying the book and reading it it is interesting to compare the differences between the book and the two films.

CATCF is more true to the book than WWATCF and after reading the book it would be fair to say that Depp probably was more like the book's Wonka. Tim Burton has however taken some liberties in adding on much extra plot towards the end of the film.

I actually preferred the way the film was ended in WWATCF to the book itself. The book itself has flaws in my opinion, not the least of which is that Charlie automatically wins the chocolate factory (by default having not been put through any test himself). However the rewrites to the plot in WWATCF repaired this and Willy Wonka as portrayed by Gene Wilder was quirky, unpredictable but most of all genuinely caring for all the children in spite of their individual faults.

For that reason in particular I find WWATCF the more endearing of the two films.

cheers Peter

Posted by Max Einhorn (Member # 3364) on 10-02-2005, 09:43 AM:

I can be pretty harsh when it comes to reviewing remakes, but this film just happens to
be what the original film was supposed to be ( Not to mention more true to the book).
Surprised? Yes, me too.
The film is a remake of the 1971 film, starring Gene Wilder as the original Willy Wonka,
who was a much different Willy than the one portrayed by Depp. The original film’s
Wonka, was creepy, and almost evil at times.

In the new film, Charlie Bucket (Freddy Highmore, also featured in Finding Neverland
with Depp), is a poor boy, who lives with his family in an old run-down shack. The
legendary Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) is always in the mind of his Grandpa Joe (David
Kelly I), a former employee of the famous candy factory. Many times Grandpa Joe tells
Charlie stories about working at Wonka’s original store. Times have changed since
those early days, and the once flourishing factory has lost its popularity with the public.
In order to revive interest in his candy, Willy Wonka decides to sponsor a contest. One
day, posters appear on street corners announcing that he has hidden five golden tickets in
his candy bars, tickets which will admit five lucky children into his factory. After five of
the five golden tickets have been found, Charlie gives up hope. Charlie and his family are
soon swept up in the excitement. Who will find a ticket? Who will get a tour of the
mysterious chocolate factory?

The new version of the film is darker, wilder, and closer to the book than was the
original. We learn far more about Willlie himself in this version. actually in this film, and
finally we learn a lot of Willy Wonka’s childhood. A recent viewing of the original
reminded me how slow moving and lackluster that version is in contrast to the colorful,
imaginative Tim Burton vision. The new Oompa Loompas (all played by Deep Roy), are
much more entertaining and their musical numbers are terrific (The soundtrack is a must-
buy!).

I like the look of the factory in this version too – much more interesting and exciting.
Johnny Depp’s performance is outstanding as he creates a character of great complexity
and humor. Director Tim Burton has dished out many wacky and odd films, some of
which (Edward Scissorhands, Nightmare Before Christmas)cult classics. Charlie and the
Chocolate Factory is a lot of fun for the family, louder, sweeter, faster paced than the
original…a future classic for Mr. Burton, I think. For an even more exhilarating
experience, catch the IMAX version. Rated PG for quirky situations, action and mild
language. Running time 115 minutes.

Posted by Rob Ferreira (Member # 3406) on 10-20-2005, 03:18 PM:

Worst movie I saw all year.

It is not better than the original and, despite claims from the entire cast and crew, no closer follows the book than the original. In fact, they stole things from the original movie that were NOT in the book at all. For Tim Burton to say he hated the original movie is crap - he wouldn't rip off something he hated.

This movie was utter garbage, not unlike Corpse Bride. Adding in the whole ridiculous backstory about Willy's life (and adding close to a half hour of movie in the process) was senseless and annoying. I didn't care about why he was obsessed with candy. They had to change so much from the book to make this movie, I can't even figure out what IS like the book.

It's films like this that make me glad I get free movies.

1/2 [fu]

out of 5