| Overall Grade: |
A |
|
| Story: |
A |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A+ |
|
|
If you loved the book....
by Nancy (movies profile)
Jan 2, 2006
56
of
66 people found this review helpful
I have just returned from seeing "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and I can honestly say that I was not disappointed.
I was not a fan of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." I have spent many days hoping that Tim Burton's version would be more true to what I felt was the spirit of the book. I should not have worried. The movie was an exceptional adaptation of the book. There were many reasons I believed Burton's version was the superior of the two films. These reasons are, in no particular order, (SPOILER ALERT...STOP READING IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE AND HAVE NOT.)
1. Screenplay: The screenplay of Burton's version was much truer to the original text than that of the 1971 film. As a personal preference, I would rather have the movie reflect as much of the book as possible. This is most evident in the songs of the Oompa-Loompas. All of those lyrics were written by Roald Dahl; whereas the 1971 film had songs written by others. The subplot of Wonka's childhood (not in the book) was an excellent touch that the writers were able to weave into the story without hijacking the storyline. So many things, Slugworth, absence of Charlie's father, musical numbers from Charlie's mother and Willy Wonka, detracted from the story in 1971.
2. Sets: All I can say is ,"Wow." This movie is visually stunning without being overwhelming. I can't do it justice in writing. Just go see it.
3. The kids: Unlike the 1971 film, these children have no motivation for their behavior other than themselves. In 1971, Willy Wonka hired a man to impersonate Slugworth to "test" the children. These children didn't need another test to demonstrate that their character was flawed. As we progress through both films we see that Charlie is good and the other children are flawed. The children in Burton's film are not manipulated by Wonka/Slugworth/any other adult, rather they are allowed to eliminate themselves from contention as Roald Dahl had envisioned.
4. Johnny Depp vs. Gene Wilder-Who is the better Willy Wonka?: First and foremost, Roald Dahl's book is about one character: Charlie bucket. Certainly Willy Wonka piques our curiosity and delights us at every turn, but this story is about Charlie. In 1971, when Charlie is the only child left, instead of getting the warm reception from Willy Wonka he is reprimaned for stealing Fizzy Lifting Drink and is barred from receiving his lifetime supply of chocolate. That is why I detested the 1971 movie so throughly. Willy Wonka is not supposed to yell at Charlie. End of story. End of discussion. Gene Wilder was good as Willy Wonka but this ruins his character for me. In the 1971 movie, we have bought into how good Wiily Wonka is and to see him attack Charlie in such a manner is disturbing.
Fast forwad to 2005. Johnny Depp brings to life a much more legitimate Willy Wonka. Although he does want Charlie to give up his family to come to the chocolate factory, we have been given background info via the storyline, as to why this decision seems so logical to him. He does not understand Charlie's decsion to begin with but eventually Willy does come to understand Charlie's point of view. Wonka himself is in a state of arrested development due to unresolved childhood issues and lack of interaction with humans. The use of the notecard by Depp was an excellent. His performance was the perfect compliment to the story. To give a performance that was too over-the-top would have taken away from what the story is about: Charlie.
Sorry, Mr. Wilder but from now on, when I think of Willy Wonka, it will be Johnny Depp's character that I think of, not yours. |
My Public Profile 
