« halfway point meanderings on harry potter | Main | i had a dream last night »

very quick (and gushy) review of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory

Tim Burton = GENIUS
Danny Elfman = Brilliant
Johnny Depp = Weirdly fascinating

I loved this movie. LOVED it. Burton's touch on this story is nothing short of amazing. The scenery - unbelievable. Wow. The music, the dialogue, eerything is just great. Depp's Michael Jackson affectations are little creepy at some points, but overall, I love the job he did with Wonka.

And I can't help it, but no matter what movie Helena Bonham Carter is in, I see her as Marla Singer. Which was weird here, to say the least.

My favorite scene is when the oompa loompas come out after the squirrel incident. Reminded me of Tommy (the movie).
Anyhow, amazing movie. I truly loved it. The script is perfect. Everything is perfect. Will see again.

Saw the preview for Corpse Bride. I must see this movie. I want to have Tim Burton's babies.

I almost forgot. Deep Roy, who plays all the oompa loompas, deserves some kind of award for his performance. He was brilliant.

Comments

Oh,Deep Roy rules,no doubt about it

Uh oh.
Zombies.

Really, michele? Cuz I keep thinking there's no real reason they needed to do a remake.

I figured this one was 50/50 either awful or brilliant.

Damn. Now it looks like I have to see it.

Depp said in an interview on Leno that he devolpoed the character based on the oft-creepiness of old-time children's shows- Captain Kangaroo, Mr Rogers and the like.

I'm torn because I either LOVE Tim Burton movies or I LOATHE them. Never in between. I'm also in the "Why remake a classic?" corner. I think if we go, we'll go to an iMax showing.

It's not really a remake. The original movie was a retelling of Dahl's story. This movie steers closer to Dahl's storyline. There's no singing and dancing, except for the Oopma Loompas, and the whole moralistic Slugworth scenario - invented by the screenwriters of the Wilder adaptation - is gone. This is the real story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factor. The Wilder version (which I do love for its own reasons) is a "remake" of the book.

My wife was pissed because they left out the "lickable wallpaper/snozzberry" scene and the scene where Charlie and Grampa Joe drink the Fizzy Lifting Drink, thereby showing that even Charlie has his fault -- good-natured curiosity.

The Oompa Loompa songs were excellent, and Deep Roy did a great job acting just creepy enough.

I liked the film.

Totally agree Michele. Saw it this weekend for the wife's birthday. She loved it, I loved it. Still, I don't see the comparisons to MJ. It was pretty clear to me that Wonka hated kids and was looking for a kid he hated the least.

I had heard that Depp used Michael Jackson as a model, but it was more of an annoyed Mr. Rodgers.

I was pissed that Burton chose to remake what was one of my favorite movies, but he pulled it off. While the story is the same, the atmosphere is completely different.

I think Depp could read the dictionary and make it entertaining.

My wife was pissed because they left out the "lickable wallpaper/snozzberry" scene and the scene where Charlie and Grampa Joe drink the Fizzy Lifting Drink, thereby showing that even Charlie has his fault -- good-natured curiosity.
Except that the Fizzy Lifting Drink scene wasn't in the book, at least not in that sense. It's mentioned in passing, when Wonka says that he regrets losing an Oompa Loompa who couldn't (or wouldn't) burp. In the novel, Charlie and Joe don't try out the drink. As Michele said, this isn't a remake of the 1971 movie, it's the first more-or-less faithful filmed version of the book (actually the 1973 second edition of the book, which turned the African pygmies of the original into refugees from Loompaland).

The whole Slugworth subplot of the original movie, and Charlie losing because of the lifting drink/winning when passing Slugworth's test, was thankfully discarded. This movie adds the Wilbur Wonka backstory, but it fits the story in the book better than all the changes of the 1971 hippy-dippy musical (which was quite good in its own way, but not really faithful to the source material).

The reverence for which some folks hold the Wilder version surprises me. I read all the Dahl books voraciously as a kid (28 now), and distinctly remember most of my friends considering "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" to be pretty crappy when held up against the book.

The movie's grown on me some since then, but from the the first announcement of Burton's version, my only worry was that it wouldn't do the book justice, and I had no concern about the older film.

Looking forward to seeing this one, hopefully this weekend.

I agree with you completely! I loved it. Every bit of it. I can't wait to see it again.

Huh...they must not have chose the best scenes to advertise the thing, because I personally found the bits of Depp I saw in the ads monumentally creepy and annoying. (yeah, yeah, I know Willy Wonka is supposed to be creepy, but to me I got too much of a "Michael Jackson" vibe).

maybe I WILL have to go and see it.

I admit to loving the Wilder version, but I'm kind of a hippie at heart, and I also love being able to pick up on all the little literary allusions made in the movie...

Ricki,

I agree, the ads for the movie almost turned me off on seeing it. But I'm very glad I did. I did like the "don't touch that squirrel's nuts".

As always, I'm late to the discussion. But I'll add my comment anyways.

I completely agree. I came out of this movie raving about it. And I wrote on one of my blogs the very same thing you did - I want to have Tim Burton's babies.

Ah. The oompa loompas were amazing.