Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Updated

Well, I did get to see the film this weekend and it wasn't good. I would say that it is okay/fair at best.

I really think that Burton misjudged this project. There was no since of wonder about what was in the factory and very little imagination to be seen. The 1971 film is SO much better. How much better? Well, let me just say that the parts of the recent film that are best are the ones prior to entering the chocolate factory. Remember how wonderful the room which is entirely made of candy in the 1971 film? Even with 30 years of increased movie magic and digital computer effects, the 1971 room looks a whole lot better than the 2005 room. The Oompa-Loompas? Not good. Grandpa Joe? Grandpa George was a better, more interesting character. And what about Willy Wonka? Well, I think Depp is a great actor but I think he misjudged his character. To be more precise, I think Burton misjudged the character. And added subplot involving Wonka's dad (which is not in either the book or the 1971 film) suggests that Wonka is simply a overgrown child who has parental issues. Well, Depp plays hims as such and does a good job in doing so, but that really doesn't fit the story. Again, I do not blame Depp so much as I blame Burton. It ain't good.

Yes, I would not recommend this film. It's unimaginative, uncalculated, annoying, a bit boring, and totally lacking in any originality. Save your money and either rent the 1971 film or read the original book and its sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.

I think that most of us from a certain age group were quite excited to hear that a fresh adaption of Roald Dahl's book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was being made. Even though many of us have never read the book (or its sequel), we were all familiar with the 1971 film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder.

But as I have observed others and even my own response to the first previews of the new film, I understood that we were all thinking the same thing: this new film is not going to be good.

Now I and most everyone else are not thinking that this film fails in comparison to the previous version (even though we all suspect that it does), but, more accurately, the previes gave us the impression that the film fails as a film in itself. I am sure we all hoped that such early previews were somewhat misleading and that subsequent previews would honor our faith in the project ... but that didn't happen.

Yes, even until today there is a whole generation of potential theatre goers who are not looking forward to this film. Perhaps our kids do not yet have the sophistication to harbor such concerns, but I wonder if the time-honored classic of choice for telling this story will remain the 1971 film version?

It's almost like the time Hollywood made the sequel to the Wizard of Oz, the Return to Oz. What were they thinking?

I do believe that my faith in this new film has been somewhat helped by the review of Roger Ebert, who's opinion on such films I tend to trust. However, I now have new concerns about this version.

I think it is safe to say that Tim Burton is a hit or miss director. He can make films like Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, and Sleepy Hollow ... but he can also make films like Mars Attacks, Planet of the Apes, and, now it appears, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I have provided a link to Ebert's review. I would very interested in hearing opinions and reviews of the film in the upcoming weeks.