Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) User Reviews

The Fabulous Return of Willy Wonka

[rspoelders · 7/10 · 5 July 2005]

Yesterday I had the pleasure of watching "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" at the Wilkinson American Movie Day. And, oh boy, I was in delight! Don't expect a bleak remake of the amusing (and rather psychedelic) 1971-version. It is in every way a genuine Tim Burton-movie, stacked with beautiful imagery, wacky humor and bizarre characters, but at the same time faithful enough to the spirit of the novel. Roald Dahl would've been proud. It also features outstanding performances by the entire cast. Johnny Depp gives us a strange, almost creepy Willy Wonka, Freddie Highmore is a perfect Charlie, the Grandparents are lovable and wacky, and the five other children and their parents are amusingly irritating. And last but not least, an excellent soundtrack by Mr. Danny Elfman, reminiscent of both Edward Scissorhands and his early Oingo Boingo-days. Go see this with your parents, children, grandparents, movie buff-friends, nephews and nieces ... they will be equally delighted!

Burton Studied the Book's Original Illustrations

[thurberdrawing · 8/10 · 18 July 2005]

If Tim Burton's out there I just want to thank him for bringing the spirit of the book's original illustrations to the screen. He even matched the facial expressions to the drawings, especially in the case of Charlie's family. Charlie himself looks like one of the drawings, and the Bucket house is so much like the illustrations it caused me to realize that Burton is as visual as any movie director can be. (Recent editions feature the work of a different illustrator. I'm talking about the illustrations from the 1960s. The difference between the older illustrations and the newer ones is the older ones feature a lot of cross-hatching. I imagine the older illustrations are still available, especially in a hardcover, but you'll need to search the net.) I don't know how he did it, but he got the facial expressions of Charlie's family and of Mike Teavea's father down perfectly. He also absorbed Dahl's sense of humor. The opening fifteen minutes or so, in which the winners of the golden tickets are announced one by one, really get Roald Dahl's sense of the ridiculous. I think Burton's addition of Wonka's childhood story fits well, although I'll agree that the way this is resolved is not completely in Dahl's spirit. Even in the resolution, however, Burton maintains sly humor. It is well-acted by everybody. I'd like to say that Julia Winter, who plays Veruca Salt, has turned in a truly well-observed comedic performance. Depp converts the novel's jaunty, precise Wonka into a quirky one, but it works well, because, as in the novel, Wonka's endearing traits contrast with the fact that he's a tyrant. Roald Dahl gets a rap for his cynicism, and this movie softens his message a bit. Dahl is a bit like Orwell. Both of them point out that man, given power, will exploit his fellow human beings. CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY the movie is not quite as dark as the book. But it comes very, very close.

Little girl? Don't touch that squirrel's nuts! It'll make him crazy!

[lastliberal · 8/10 · 11 August 2009]

I never cease to be amazed by the versatility of Johnny Depp. Whether he is a pirate or writing Peter Pan or an adventurer or a criminal, he never fails to entertain. There is nothing he hasn't done in his 45 films, or will not have done in the five films currently in production or the 15 films in pre-production. Even as the creepy Willy Wonka (Think Michael Jackson for comparison.), he was magnificent. Maybe we have to blame his father (Christopher Lee) for some of that creepiness. After all, depriving your child of Halloween candy is just mean.

But, the real star of this film was Charlie (Freddie Highmore), who was the only sane child that arrived at the factory. He was surrounded by four of the most obnoxious children (and their obnoxious parents) that I have ever seen. They got what they deserved.

The color, imagination, costumes, and sets were magnificent. It was such a pleasure to watch.

Depp comes through again. I am not surprised.

Nothing could be sweeter...

[griffin84 · 12 July 2005]

Growing up, my favorite book was, easily, "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory". Roald Dahl's magical tale of a young boy's adventure in the strange factory was spell-binding. Though I never had a problem with the original "Willy Wonka" move with Gene Wilder (despite how unfaithful it was, it was still a cute and heart-warming movie), I was doing back-flips when I heard Tim Burton, quite possibly my all-time favorite director, would helm a new version of the movie.

First and foremost, Johnny Depp is perfect as Willy Wonka. What people don't really pick up from the first movie is that Wonka was intended to be, well, crazy. He was eccentric and freaky, the way he allowed the rotten children to get what they deserved and protected his factory like it was his child. Gene Wilder portrayed Wonka more like a fatherly-figure, and really was just too nice. Depp pulls out all of the stops as a new Willy Wonka, though there are times that any audience member will get just a bit freaked out.

What I loved most about the movie was how faithful it was to the book. Everything that was mentioned, from the chocolate palace to the hair toffee, was taken directly from the book. I was incredibly impressed.

This is definitely a movie for everyone, especially those of us who hold the original tale in our hearts. Wonka chocolate bars for all!

A mixed bag

[Jithindurden · 6/10 · 7 December 2023]

In a lot of ways, this is way better than the 1971 version and in a lot of other ways, this is way worse. It seems that this is supposed to be closer to the original story but those seem to be a few things and the biggest differences are completely new ideas written for this movie. The film is so, so great with Burton's storytelling finesse up until they enter the Chocolate Factory. The grandpa's connection to the factory was great. Depp's Wonka is a whole different character than Wilder's but just the change wasn't the problem. Wilder made that whole movie great while Depp just like his character made the movie awkward. It was just awkward and not funny to see him trying to be too weird and awkward all the time. Willy Wonka is not particularly likeable with most of his actions, so Wilder's version was a charming guy who ultimately does the right thing, so it worked. Here, not only he's weird and unlikeable throughout the movie, but even at the point where the previous movie ended, he doesn't do the right thing. Now, the backstory given to him just didn't feel right until the end when it is used for further change in character. Even though that part was nice, it didn't feel rightly placed. Burton doubling down on the problematic aspects doesn't help too much either. The Oompa Loompas were a bit too much and all those songs were annoying as hell. However, it also had incredible visuals throughout the movie using both practical effects and CGI, the film looks beautiful in a unique way only Burton can do.

Rather disappointing effort from Tim Burton...

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 15 June 2009]

I know that the 1971 musical was unfaithful to the book, but I did much prefer that version to this well-intentioned but somewhat disappointing effort from Tim Burton, the director of Batman and Edward Scissorhands, and this adaptation was in some way more unfaithful in spirit than the 1971 film. The film does have some lovely sets and inventive visuals, the boat scene is fun if not as much as in the Wilder version, a great job is done with the Veruca Salt/squirrel scene and I liked the performances of Helena Bonham Carter, David Kelly and Freddie Highmore. But I was disappointed with Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. He just lacked the charm and grace Gene Wilder brought to the character, and I don't think Roald Dahl intended a characterisation that was more Michael Jackson than Willy Wonka. Some of the cast overact, especially the girl who plays Veruca Salt, even for the character the spiteful spoilt brat act was way overdone. I liked the music score by Danny Elfman which is filled with whimsy and appealing oddballness(I much prefer his Edward Scissorhands and Nightmare Before Christmas scores however), but the Oompa Loompa songs were rather annoying with none of the noisy melodies memorable and were shot like a music video. Tim Burton evidently tried to make the story darker, and in some respects to the book, it didn't quite work. A good example was the case of the additional character of Dr Wonka, as much as I like Christopher Lee, and he did perform well, but his character was unnecessary, and the script with some over-explanatory narration lacked the sparkle of the 1971 film consequently. The grandparents did bring some comedy, and the movie does start off well. But the unfaithfulness of the last half, meant that the whole film felt rushed and lacking in charm and magic which the Wilder had aplenty. 6/10 Bethany Cox.

Legendary to any kid from the 2000's

[freidenbergdavid · 9/10 · 6 February 2021]

Every bit of it hits you with amazing childhood memories. Watching it as an adult, you get to notice many dirty puns between Willy Wonka and Violet's mother almost explicit lol. The songs by the oompa lumpas are still pretty dull and useless though

Interesting but no Emotion

[got333got22 · 6/10 · 29 October 2006]

I bought both, the original (Willi Wonka 1971) and now Charlie and the Choc (2005). I found this 2005 movie different enough to be interesting, worth the purchase, but there is no emotion.

The songs in the 2005 version are crap, run of the mill MTV cheezy rap-crappy song writing. In the 1971, the songs Candy Man, Imagination and even the Lumpa song, were exceptional. I was really disappointed they did not use these original (1971) songs. Also Johnny Dep has a weird "Michael Jackson the Pedo" feel about him.

I liked how Gene Wilder, in the original, played with the kid until the kid gave him back the ever lasting gob stopper, then said "You Won Charlie", with the elevator blasting off - that really got to me. The "you are the only one left so I guess you won" in the 2005 version didn't work. Also in the 2005 version, Johnny Dep cruising around town in a glass elevator, for 10 minutes, just didn't do it.

The sets are way better in the 2005 version, there is just no emotion like the original.

Burton does it again !

[EdBloom · 9/10 · 5 July 2005]

I have seen Charlie & The Chocolate Factory last night and though I usually don't care very much in giving my opinion, the journey M. Burton and his team made me cross deserves an homage. Especially with all that criticism rising around the film before it has been released.

I have been a Tim Burton fan for more than a decade now; I grew up with his films. But what I have been through yesterday his really unique. I actually never thought he would offer us such a film one day. Fans of his first period, with all the lonely and desperate characters won't like it for sure. Since Mars Attacks !, and more specifically since Big Fish, Burton decided to tell things differently. His vision of the world slightly changed in every of his films : now, the rejected freak comes down to the world and stays. A world that remains frightening and weird even thought we call it "reality" but a world worth living in. And that's what Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is all about… It all begins with a main title sequence that may be one of the main weaknesses of the film. The sequence is very entertaining and visually ambitious but they decided to go with CGI and it looks like it was a decision they made in last minute. Since the film was proudly made with "real" sets, "real" Oompas Loompas, "real" squirrels, the main title looks inappropriate. It's not that important but it's a Tim Burton film and we know how much he usually works on his main title. Hopefully, Danny Elfman is there with a crazy mix of the Edward Scissorhands and Spider-Man (the music when the title of the film appears gave me shivers), a true musical roller-coaster that gives a hint on what his score will sound like through the film.

After that, it's just emotions. All kinds of them: laughs (many – the audience laughed almost every thirty seconds), tears of joy (we all know Charlie's gonna find that ticket but when he does, you just can't refrain your heart to beat faster), mercy (the way Burton depicts the social misery of the Bucket's family is really touching), amazement (the Wonka Factory and its many rooms is true wonder, one the most achieved design Burton ever offered us) and many mores. Very much like the book, even though it seems simple and childish, you would like to stop for a second to collect those feelings and try to analyze them but you don't have the time. It just never stops (I realize it might be a flaw for some people in fact). Burton never has been so generous in terms of human warmness.

Johnny Depp proposes another inventive and completely wacky interpretation here. I won't compare with Gene Wilder since I don't know the first film very well (pretty unknown flick here in Europe) and those comparisons should stop anyway. Depp makes of Wonka a tormented and unadapted character who doesn't know much about common courtesy and doesn't really care anyway. He built up his own universe in response to his authoritarian father and he's pretty proud of it. He just doesn't want those "weird" (a word he likes – you've all seen the TV spots) and boring parents with their despicable children to ruin what is life is based on. Yet… So Depp's Wonka is actually very moving and pathetic in his attempts to entertain his visitors. As Burton does everything he can to make you hate Augustus, Vercua, Violet and Mike at the moment you first see them, you get instantly closer to Wonka when you noticed he feels the same. In addition to that, John August's vision of Wonka's past (including an always perfect cameo by Christopher Lee) offers the character a real depth you didn't expect.

Danny Elfman is also one of the main attractions of the film. While his score is already classic Burton/Elfman work with some interesting experiments (the main themes are splendid), the songs he wrote for the Oompas Loompas are just so funny. Hugh laughs in the audience for some musical choices. Those songs don't intend to stay with you for months (it would have been hard as they're based on Dahl's lyrics that doesn't allow Broadway impulses), they're just off-beat numbers playing with many references in so many styles. Oingo Boingo fans have to buy the soundtrack when it'll come out, it'll bring them back 15 years ago.

What can I tell you more ? McDowell's sets are amazing, Pescucci's work is impressive as well as Rousselot's beautiful cinematography. Some Oscar Nominations should fall here.

As for the ending, without revealing it, August's additions are really touching and fit perfectly to Burton's new approach. Even though the final shot tempers the "family" theme that he developed through the film (it's still Burton, not Disney), Burton makes you feel good because he feels good (and what I'm writing here will ring a bell when you'll see the movie). I don't know for you but after so many distressed and pessimistic films, it really moved to see that he found a certain peace. Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a step forward in the direction he gave to his career with Big Fish. He lost his father, he became one, he's getting older and all those questions and doubts are expressed in many important and very complex images and scenes he imagined for the film. That's why I could call this film the "Edward Scissorhands" of his new period. Those films are very different but gave me both some very essential emotions.

Thank you, M.Burton. Thank you very much

I can't shake longings for Wilder and tangerine faces...

[Two_Pieces_of_Christina · 6/10 · 17 July 2007]

Director Tim Burton has come a long way since his first job as an animator for Disney in the early 1980's. He made several animated shorts, none of which were deemed suitable for children - an early indication of Burton's dark outlook. However, his hard work and talent did not go unnoticed. His subsequent directorial work on Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) cemented his role as an experimental and visionary director/producer. Nobody else, therefore, was surely more suitable to adapt Dahl's much-loved novel, and nobody else was surely daring enough to attempt a re-make of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971, directed by Mel Stuart), that enduring classic starring Gene Wilder as Wonka.

Burton's repeated use of Depp in previous films (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, and Sleepy Hollow to name just three) indicated him to be an obvious and, it could be argued, perfect choice to cast as Wonka. Depp is by far the best thing about this film. His character's whole persona - the costume and body language, the tone of his voice, his pithy lines delivered in a contemptuous and yet charming manner, are all presented in such a way to add up to a well deserved challenge to Wilder's crown. But does he steal it? I'd say he doesn't. For someone that grew up with Roald Dahl's novels and film adaptations, Wilder IS Wonka. Trying to ignore my obvious bias, I believe Depp does put up a good fight, and perhaps if the parents of the four terrible children had shown more spark, or been actors of a higher calibre, his comic moments would have had much more impact.

Burton's other muse, Helena Bonham Carter, is mis-cast as Charlie's mother. Her lines are delivered distractedly and with the air of someone very aware of her status in the film industry. Thankfully her role is quite minor and doesn't impact negatively upon the film. Freddie Highmore is fairly insipid, yet not offensive in his role of Charlie. The same description can be applied to David Kelley, who plays his Grandpa Joe. With the exception of Augustus Gloop, whose role is comparatively minor, the four ticket-winning children do not live up to expectations or standards set in the '71 Mel Stuart version. They simply serve to mildly irritate and disappoint, particularly Veruca and Violet. But I doubt anyone could match Julie Dawn Cole, the original Veruca.

A certain amount of furore has surrounded Deep Roy, the 4ft 4" tall actor who plays every single one of Wonka's all-singing, all-dancing Oompa Loompas. He also plays Wonka's therapist and, in a tongue-in-cheek moment, appears briefly on the closing sequence where he is revealed to be the narrator. The effects used to re-produce Roy as every single Oompa-Loompa I believe detract from the film. When viewing scenes, surely it's preferable to be absorbed and involved than to be distracted by special effects and wondering 'how/why did they do that?' Additionally, Roy's scenes are the only ones to feature music - there is no Wonka or Grandpa Joe breaking into song and dance in this adaptation. All we get here are the Oompa-Loompa's didactic lyrics, which unfortunately are drowned out by below-par sound editing.

In an unprecedented move, Burton and screenwriter James August have given Wonka a history. Christopher Lee, who is sadly under-used in this film, plays his father, and we get to find out exactly why Wonka is such an enigma. I won't reveal the outcome, short of saying it's pretty unsatisfying and takes away Wonka's mystery - the very thing that makes him appealing. Claims have been made that this adaptation follows Dahl's novel much more closely than the 1971 version, of which it does - everything is followed almost to the letter. Unfortunately, the Wonka/father storyline clearly undermines any attempt the film has made to stay true to Dahl's novel - should Dahl had wished there to be a father figure, he would have included that in his book. However, certain artistic license is always taken when adapting books and plays to the big screen, and this creativity is needed to keep images and story lines fresh and to prevent any static grounding.

As regards the imagery of the film, well, it's a Burton film and true to form we aren't disappointed. Typically, we enter and leave the film during gentle snow-fall. The poor Buckets' house leans pitifully to one side and almost makes you shiver when Charlie climbs into bed underneath a gaping whole in the roof. Colour is suitably hued down apart from certain scenes in the factory where the vibrant colours bring the songs and sets to life - the Chocolate Room and the Boat Ride come alive, and the Television Room almost blinds. The only fault I could find, and it is minor, is that at certain points of the Chocolate Room scene, the chocolate river where Augustus Gloop meets his untimely suction looks more like brown water than creamy chocolate. Apart from the afore-mentioned poor sound editing of the featured songs, audio here is of a top standard. Sound effects are clear, no dialogue is gone unheard and the musical score is in keeping with the tone of the film.

Verdict - It's easy to be over-picky when comparing a film not only to a novel, but also to an earlier, much loved and highly-established film adaptation. However, faults notwithstanding, this is watchable fare that should appeal to all ages. Is it a classic? No.

Just does not hold up to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

[rzg-2 · 1/10 · 10 November 2005]

This movie was simply awful. Willy Wonka lacked the warmth, humor and wit that was shown by Gene Wilder in the original. The use of one person as the Oompa loompas comes off as cheap production, whether it was or not. The changes made, even subtle ones such as the order or events between Charlie finding the money and getting the last ticket and the introduction of the elevator just seem off. One of the most memorable moments is left out, which is the fizzy drink that makes Charlie and Uncle Joe float around.

The oompa loompa sequences are horrible, the main characters fail to connect with the viewer as they did in the original.. I could go on and on but will just end by saying....

This movie is proof that new technology, different actors, producers and directors do not always equal a better experience.

Save your time and your money... buy and watch the original. My 5 year only daughter even prefers it over the new.

Depp has done it again as Willy Wonka. Yes my children

[GusherPop · 10/10 · 2 March 2021]

As i frequently watched one of the most loved Ronald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie (2005 version), and I would love to give my honest and loving opinion about this wondrous, never seen anything like this before film with the famous and talented Johnny Depp. This movie is full of Burtions imagination and talent to make Ronald Daul's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" come to life with the amazing cast, this Adventure, Comedy, and family film that tells the story of A young boy wins a tour through the most magnificent chocolate factory in the world, led by the world's most unusual candy maker.

This film takes place in Munich, Germany, in a poor village. The main characters are Willy Wonka, Charlie Bucket, Grandpa Joe, Mrs. Bucket, Mrs. Beauregarde, Mr. Salt and Dr.Wanka. The story of this film is When Willy Wonka decides to let five children into his chocolate factory, he decides to release five golden tickets in five separate chocolate bars, causing complete mayhem. The tickets start to be found, with the fifth going to a very special boy, called Charlie Bucket. With his Grandpa, Charlie joins the rest of the children to experience the most amazing factory ever. But not everything goes to plan within the factory.

Where to start with the cast......Johnny Depp did Phenomenal as Willy Wonka. And some Tim Burton films Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are in his films. Freddie Highmore did amazing playing Charlie Bucket, Johnny Depp suggested Freddie Highmore to play Charlie, which Depp has an eye for young talent in other people, and that's why I respect him. He gives young people chances to show their talent.. However, how they casted David Kelly as grandpa Joe was wise, because he bombed and did amazing in that role. Helena Bonham Carter always gets into the role so fast you can't believe who she is 100% of the time. Lastly oh my goodness how they casted Dr.Wanka..... Christopher Lee...Love that guy. Lee's Acting changes the whole atmosphere of the film.

Things that I loved about the movie where Johnny Depp played a Mad hatter like role, but took to another whole level of acting. Johnny Depp has acted over 35 years. I think this movie gave him so much more talent in his career. Some movies make the actor/Actress have better experience or talent. I think this film is what made Depp more famous. I didn't like how they casted the boy, he just didn't have the spirit of the other, and love for acting as the other actor/Actress did.

The lessons I learned from this amazing film are to take care of your family is more important than anything.The best things in life are worth waiting for and be grateful for the important and simple things in life, don't focus on what you want, focus on what lies ahead of you, and if you dream it, you can make it happen. Nothing is impossible. What I think others will learn from this heartfelt family film is that one thing in the world you should be looking for is if you can dream it, you can make it happen, nothing is impossible, and lastly always look for the thing your not looking for because it might be in front of your face, and you don't know it.

The group of people that would be interested in this film is Johnny Depp films, weird movies or a movie about dreaming and having that dream come true. I would recommend this movie 100% because it really hit me hard when I watched it because I started dreaming big and some of my dreams came true, and I don't focus on the bad in the world, I tried to focus on the good. The rating is PG. My final word on this film is watch it, think about, and spread what the movie message is. It is good because I have a high respect for Johnny and Tim's work. So I'm not surprised by how good Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is.

I Give "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" 5 stars out of 5 stars.

Film review: This film really touches on the subject of taking care of loved ones, and the love for chocolate. Hollywood lacks films like this anymore because movies like this one i believe that some parts depp was not acting at all, he was really feeling the emotions of the character. The love for Ronald Daul's stories over 77 years, hollywood has made films based on his books like the BFG, Witches, Fantastic Mr.Fox, Chitty Bang Bang, the movie business has always done an amazing job, but with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory they really make the story come alive with JOhnny Depp's role as Willy Wonka. Depp made me feel that he really was the character of Willy Wonka, and as the kids go through his factory. They get tempted to eat his candy, gum, and his crazy ideas in the factory, and the one thing they show in this film isc kids don't follow directions, only the smart ones or like Charlie with is grandpa, which had knowledge of the factory because he worked in the chocolate factory for s long time. I have never seen a film with different kinds of acting and costumes, and fun music. Another reason i have so high respect for this film and DEpp, he accepted the part as Willy Wonka without reading the script first, that's talent, and art in acting that is not in movies anymore.



Fun Facts 1.Deep Roy was paid $1 million dollars to play all the Oompa Loompas 2.40 real squirrels were trained to jump on Veruca Salt 3.Willy Wonka's Boat took 20 weeks to build 4.Nestle provided 1,850 bars of real chocolate for the movie 5.It took 6 months to create the model of the town 6.The colors were muted at the start of the film on purpose 7.The chocolate river was made with real chocolate 8Johnny Depp was nervous about shooting in the glass elevator 9.Gregory Peck passed away before getting the chance to play Grandpa Joe 10.Depp suggested Freddie Highmore for the role of Charlie

An interesting remake that actually does stand alone

[tomb_92 · 7/10 · 13 April 2010]

I should hate this, being such a fan of the original, but to be honest I really like it. The story has been realised in a lot more of an appropriate way for the modern world. Tim Burton has yet again done a tremendous job of bringing this fantasy world to life. It's eccentric, wonderfully mad, funny and just lovable. It does a better job of bringing the original material to the screen than the original, the only problem I have is with Johnny Depp. I don't have I problem with his acting, I think it's great, I just feel he's been directed to play the role too weirdly. The "tragic madness" of his character doesn't sit too well with me, and I don't think all of the back-story was necessary. Aside from that it is a great film that does stand up to the original.

Not bad, but not good, either...

[Dena-2 · 3/10 · 15 July 2005]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I wasn't jumping up and down about this movie. I loved the book as a child and loved the original film with Gene Wilder for its own original contributions...perhaps I'm biased. Still, I have always admired Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's work, and had been looking forward to this new interpretation of Roald Dahl's book.

This film was, indeed, more true to the book than the 1971 version...the squirrel room, the jungle scene, the children leaving the factory, perhaps a little "wiser for the wear." However, the character development of the 1971 version was MUCH better than here...you were actually given an opportunity to like or dislike each character, including Willy Wonka. I did think that Johnny Depp's portrayal of Wonka was more true to the book than Gene Wilder's...Willy Wonka is supposed to be quite childish and eccentric. However, I thought that this film's preoccupation with being true to the book caused it to overlook what is more important, which is to establish the intentions of each character. At least in the 1971 version, it's pretty clear what each character's intentions are...even if establishing some of these intentions requires a conspiracy involving "Slugworth." And though I haven't read the book in a very long time, I do NOT remember any details being given as to Willy Wonka's childhood...I thought these were unnecessary, distracting, and a waste of time. This energy could have been better spent on the children's' character development, in my opinion. This is, after all, supposed to be a story for and about children.

The oompa loompas. It's true that they are physically portrayed accurately here more so than in the 1971 version, i.e. very small people and not midgets with orange skin and green hair. However, though the songs they sing here are true to the book, they are less charismatic than those of the 1971 film and sometimes seem over the top. Also, I didn't like that they were all clones of each other...I think that was a poor choice.

Finally, I was appalled with the ending...this ties in with my previous comments re: Willy Wonka's childhood. It changed the whole idea behind the story itself, which is supposed to be (from my perspective) that people can overcome their hardships to have a happy and prosperous ending, as long as they're honest, selfless, and generous. This movie changes the whole theme of the story to one that emphasizes the importance of family over any kind of material wealth or prosperity. Both are perfectly good and legitimate themes, but my reading of the book left me with an impression that Roald Dahl was more concerned with the former theme than the latter. Accordingly then, this movie did not do the book justice in the most important and fundamental way, whereas the 1971 film was able to do so despite its shortcomings.

Depp Fails to Match Wilder

[jimj409 · 5 September 2006]

Let me begin by stating that I am a Johnny Depp fan. I generally find his performances to be excellent, and count his portrayal in "Blow" among my very favorite in cinema history.

That said, he fails here.

I don't know if it was due to improper or misguided action of the director, or if he chose his own tone and manner for the Wonka character, but Depp fails miserably in this film. Using the Roald Dahl novel as a guideline, Depp is nothing like the understated, dry-witted implacable and imperturbable Mr. Wonka. Using the original film from 1971 as a guideline, Depp can't hold a candle to Gene Wilder's performance, which, while overstated, at least resembled the character intended by Dahl when he wrote the book in the first place.

Johnny seems to be going for some sort of post-abused, mentally tweaked boy-man. Some have said that the portrayal reflects Michael Jackson. If so, WHY? Wonka isn't sinister, nor does he come off as a character hiding a brutal truth, which is how Depp plays him here. Unfortunately, he becomes the focal point of the movie and the "main" character is kicked to the curb shortly after his introductory sequence. Following Charlie's find of the Golden Ticket, he becomes an ancillary character with few lines, and Michael Jackson takes over, and ruins the film. Really, he ruins it. I found it unenjoyable and actually began to resent Depp's every appearance with a weariness.

This is no Wonka. This is Burton and Depp's idea of what Neverland would have been like if Michael Jackson chose to make chocolate there rather than exhibit exotic animals between kiddie rides.

The usual Burton mosaic of backdrop works well, and the musical scenes with the Oompa Loompas are highlights, although I found myself harboring nostalgic thoughts for the original Oompas as I enjoyed these new rocked-up songs. Well done, just much, much different.

A sidenote: I love that Mike Teavee challenges Wonka's notion that a candybar being teleported is a far cry from an image being transmitted. That drove me nuts when I was a little kid! Good for you for calling him out, Mike! I also love that Veruca Salt meets her match by the paws of many squirrels (as in the book) rather than being dumped down the egg hatch (as in the 1971 version of the film).

Overall, I disliked Depp's portrayal so much that despite the excellent imagery and the many highlights, I won't watch this again, and recommend it only to those who are interested in comparing it to the far superior 1971 effort.

Epic for All of time

[jzmpyxkrr · 7/10 · 6 December 2020]

I watch again again and beatiful movie for me special,epic:)

Another magical Tim Burton trip!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 1 August 2005]

Roald Dahl's exhilarating children's novella is brought back to life by the best possible team imaginable! If there's anyone out there in cinema land capable of re-telling Dahl's colorful – yet macabre – story, it has got to be director Tim Burton (with his unique ability to create dark, fairy-tale like atmospheres), class actor Johnny Depp (not one character is too eccentric for him…not even Willy Wonka) and music-maestro Danny Elfman (whose typical style gives an extra magical touch to every film). With these three icons of nowadays cinema involved, the new adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was bound to be an enormous success and definitely one of the greatest movies of the year 2005. Well, the movie didn't turn out as amazing as I hoped, but still it's a very beautiful and occasionally heart-warming experience with excellent set pieces and another highly memorable role for Depp. It's very likely that you've read the best-selling book or saw the earlier film version (starring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka) but in case you're from another planet: Charlie Bucket, the titular character, is one of five lucky children who wins a grand tour in Willy Wonka's world famous chocolate factory. Wonka is a bit of a loner who normally never grants anyone access to his factory because there were too many competitors in the past who were out to steal his recipes. Charlie and the others enter a magical world where chocolate and other types of candy are made in the most bizarre ways…and by the most bizarre kind of factory workers. The always-amazing Johnny Depp is very aware of the fact he's the star and tout of this production and he clearly is in a great shape again. His performance of Willy Wonka is very cheerful and, just as it was the case in Pirates of the Caribbean, you gladly allow him to go over the top. The young Freddie Highmore is really good as well in portraying Charlie, a boy with a limited imagination but a heart of pure gold. The screenplay contains some terrific dialogues and the (blackly tinted) humor is well spread over the whole film.

And yet…Tim Burton and C° slightly disappointed me during some moments in the film. The many flashback (for example revolving on Wonka's supposedly traumatizing childhood) are too extended and actually quite redundant. Also, some of the character drawings are definitely underdeveloped, like Grandpa Joe for example, whom we only get to know superficially. Biggest letdown of all was the "Oompa Loompas"-tribe. These little people fail to convince and especially their morality-songs are overlong and pointless. Compared to the first cinematic version of the book, released in 1971, I personally find Burton's film slightly weaker. Sure the older film had those very annoying songs and Johnny Depp simply crushes the memory of Gene Wilder but yet the wholesome was more captivating and the pivot sequences in the 1971 version (like the boat-ride and Oompa-Loompa life-lessons) were a lot more sinister. And if there's one term that fully describes Roald Dahl's oeuvre, it is "sinister".

Ignore the negative reviews

[duncannoella · 8/10 · 1 January 2024]

I've watched this film when I was a child and since I literally forgot the whole plot I decided to watch it again and I'm actually suprised by how much I liked it like in my memories it wasn't that good. I would say ignore the negative reviews reagrdless if the film is truely accurate to the book or not. I mean maybe it doesn't respect certain aspects of the book but that doesn't invalidate the film. I really enjoyed it actually and I found it genuine, heartwarming and funny. I also love Johnny Depp's comedic portrayal of Willy Wonka. He definetly carried the film. And a big shoutout to the kids in the film too. Overall a great film that I would recommend.

Could have been worse but could have been much better.

[EdnaWelthorpe · 6/10 · 18 July 2010]

This was a film that I had high hopes for when it came out. I loved the 1971 movie and of course, Gene Wilder's performance as Wonka is one for the ages. Nonetheless it does deviate from the book quite a bit so I was very interested to see if Tim Burton would present a more faithful adaptation. All the magazines seemed to say so. I saw the film about a month after it came out and I must say -- -- I was quite underwhelmed.

There are good things about the film. The visuals are excellent, Burton does a terrific job modernizing the story to fit the plot (or is it the other way around?) and the supporting cast are pretty good. The other kids are as bratty as can be remembered and I liked that they actually went ahead with the nut checking squirrels (talk about your double entendre -- hehe).

However this film has two very big problems that hurt it in my opinion.

1. Johnny Depp's performance as Wonka. Boy, talk about a let down. I don't know whose idea it was to portray Wonka as some sort of Michael Jackson figure but it was a big mistake. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was charming, devious, clearly intelligent and most importantly, had a nicely defined dark edge to him, Depp's Wonka was just plain annoying. Depp is incredibly awkward, silly and shows no sign of the intelligence, creativity or control that makes him the genius as he's supposed to be in the story. In fact if you were to have never read the book or seen the first movie, there is no way anyone can believe that this wincing wreck who has Vietnam like flashbacks could be the greatest candy creator of all time.

Honestly, Depp should have just brought along Captain Jack Sparrow to portray Wonka. Sparrow actually is far closer to Wonka than what his portrayal of Wonka ended up being.

2. Wonka's back story. Honestly this was just completely unnecessary. Why did Tim Burton decide that this was a good idea? Does the audience really need to know that Wonka was the son of a dentist (played in paycheck receiving fashion by Christopher Lee) who hated candy and was abandoned by him? Do we even care? I mean honestly, how arrogant does one have to be to decide that a 200 page Roald Dahl story is not enough to adapt and instead puts in a back story that adds nothing but time to the movie and ends up being more of a detraction? Not only that, it makes it an abrupt shift since we're supposed to be focused on Charlie and suddenly, we have Willy Wonka's childhood!? Oy.

Overall, a moderately satisfying film that unfortunately falls short of the potential it could have achieved. That's also why I say the 1971 version is the superior one. At least their changes to the story didn't involve frequent, time-consuming flashbacks.

As Good As I Hoped It Would Be

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 15 January 2006]

I was pleased to have this "Willy Wonka" re-make meet my expectations. Those expectations were high, at least in the visuals department. I expected a wild, colorful ride with brilliant hues and good special effects...and I was not disappointed.

It was inventively fun with those great visuals and another wonderful kid playing "Charlie." I doubted they could ever come up with another child as appealing and nice/wholesome as one in "Willy Wonka" but they found one in Freddie Highmore. He filled the bill magnificently, as did the "brat" kids.

A different feature of this version, as opposed to the 1970 original, was that here the Oompa-Loompas were all played by just one person, a very small Indian man named Deep Roy. One of the interesting "features" on the DVD details how difficult that was to do and how much time Roy had to put in to do all the things he did.

Johnny Depp, meanwhile, "did" what he always does - do a good job of playing a weird person. I get the feeling he relates easily to strange characters. He seems to play enough of them. This was the only part of the movie, frankly, where I preferred the 1970 version: the role of Willy Wonka. Yes, Depp was interesting as always but a little too weird, too Michael Jackson-like, for my tastes. I'll take Gene Wilder's take on the character.

Otherwise, this re-make has it all over the original, simply because it has 35 years of technology and computer work that the original wasn't able to have. It made this re-make a real "hoot" to watch. Since entertainment is what the business is called, and this movie is extremely entertaining, then I have no complaints. A fun two hours!

Should Have Been Better

[ReelCheese · 6/10 · 18 July 2006]

The wonderfully whimsical Tim Burton was the perfect choice to bring a contemporary twist to the familiar tale of Willy Wonka. Unfortunately, it never really works as well as it should. Perhaps it's because we already know the story, or because Burton just doesn't translate as well when he's trying to be cute rather than weird. In particular, the musical numbers from the Oompa-Loompas, the strange little people who work in the chocolate factory, seem so out of place. Still, there is a lot that clicks, from the colorful scenery and characters to the apt performances from the child actors and Johnny Depp, who was well cast as the eccentric candy man. Children are bound to love it, but those expecting vintage Burton or a tongue-in-cheek nod to the original 1971 version will be disappointed.

This film is just wrong and horrible

[acehembling99 · 1/10 · 4 July 2006]

First of its important to say that I am a Roald Dahl fan, and indeed a fan of the original 1971 film Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. What that film and the work of Roald Dahl have in common is charm, warmth, eccentricity etc. This Tim Burton film does not share in any of it. Having sat and forced myself to watch the entire film hoping something good would happen I was left feeling nothing but empty. I enjoyed most of Tim Burton's work and was rather excited about this film when it was announced, the trailers never gave away too much and I kept on hoping right up until the credits rolled. So whats so bad about it then? My first massive problem with the film is the reactions from the children through the film. Were they sedated during filming? Watch the scene where they tear down the chocolate river in the boiled sweet boat, does one of them even scream in delight? are they not amazed they are on a boat made from candy on a river of flowing chocolate? Most of the time they stand there looking like they would rather be somewhere else, how are we supposed to believe in the wonder of this amazing factory if the kids there aren't even impressed (too much blue screen work perhaps, means the poor actors had nothing to be amazed at)

my second not quite as massive problem with the film is Burton's muse Johnny Depp. Perhaps their relationship is getting stale but Depp's performance as Willy Wonka was nothing but irritating; less eccentric, more pathetic. The creepy grey skin, luminous teeth, puppy dog eyes and hushed voice all add up to a character that I was bored of in the first 5 minutes after seeing him. The ridiculous back story of his childhood was totally superfluous and added nothing to the film, it's like Burton really wasn't trying 'why does wonka love candy....? hmmmm maybe his father was a wicked dentist who wouldn't let him eat it... I could get christopher lee to play him! get on to casting!' Wonka was supposed to be a man with years and years of experience behind him, a weathered eccentric not an excitable/sedated puppy

point number 3 THE MUSIC, perhaps the worst score to a film I have ever heard, Danny elfman, shame on you. OK so they wanted to bring the songs up to date but jeez the music is just bad, the incidental music is bad also, its all bad.

#4 the Oompa Loompa's. this really made me sad, really sad, so in the revised book they are like miniature cavemen, in the 1971 film they are crazy psychedelic dwarfs, in this film they are... one man, one dwarf, Burton employed him in 'Big Fish' he did OK there but he is so wrong for the part of an oompa loompa and why does he have to play all of them? another gimmick that I suspect Burton really didn't waste any time over coming up with, his expressionless face might have worked as a sad clown but the cheeky Oompa Loompas? I think not there were a few god points, the authenticity (minus the stupid flashbacks) I loved seeing the candy boat in all its glory, the fudge mountain , an actual glass elevator rather than the weird gold thing in the 1971 film but who really cares about all these things when not one person in the film seemed to be impressed by it, did the crew record dry run rehearsals by accident? ( by the way the original elevator of the book didn't have rockets on the side it used sky hooks and was powered by sugar but kids would just laugh at that right?) It was nice to see charlie's dad regardless of the fact he is of no importance to the film. The sets were OK but lacked any real wow factor.

basically if you took burtons script chucked out all the nonsense hired a new director kept the sets and gave them a bit more wow and hired a new sound guy and told everyone to smile and have a laugh it wouldn't be that bad, but that didn't happen, mores the pity. OK so one day, say 30 years from now I will make it again its the only way I can resolve my issues with this disaster.

in short if you are a roald dahl fan and like the 1971 film DO NOT WATCH THIS, honestly I regret ever seeing it

Mmmmmm.....Chocolate.

[kirk-246 · 10/10 · 20 July 2009]

This movie surprisingly has many comparisons to candy.It's sweet, delightful, and rich in taste.Johnny Depp also does a marvelous job as Willy Wonka himself.There's nothing that parents will have to worry about this movie.It'll make a fine and delicious treat that the whole family will devour over and over again.It's also better than the original, in my opinion.But Johnny Depp isn't the only big star in the movie.The movie itself wouldn't be as candy-coated as it is today without the performance of Freddie Highmore( August Rush), who plays Charlie Bucket.Trust me when I say that you will be in for 115 minutes of pure and delightful fun.This is one movie that even chocolate can't top.

ENTERTAINER FOR KIDS

[sunilaas · 7/10 · 28 September 2020]

An feel good movie.. Worth watching, Johnny depp carries the whole movie his reactions Marcel... definitely worth watching with kids..

Wonkatrastrophe

[Clownbird · 1/10 · 20 July 2005]

Tim Burton kept saying he wanted to make a version much more faithful to the source material, which leaves me wondering why he didn't.

There's the awful (and unnecessary, and counterproductive) back story showing Wonka's childhood, which is nothing more than an excuse for Burton to bring in one of his horror movie heroes from childhood (Christopher Lee) while completely killing any sense of mystery Wonka might otherwise possess.

I like Johnny Depp, but his Wonka had zero warmth...and was just plain creepy and random - one minute he's snippy and/or oblivious to the kids, the next he's paternal, offering Charlie some nourishing hot chocolate because he "looks like he could use it" (and because it's a line from the book).

Wonka in the book is a spritely little gent...neither Gene Wilder nor Johnny Depp are really much like him (much less so Depp), but Wilder's interpretation always has that twinkle in his eye - you know he's a little eccentric but he's always in control. The kids in this version are all pretty good. But Wonka himself? Yikes. Give me Gene Wilder's version over creepy Johnny Depp's Michael Jackson take any day.

The Oompa-Loompa musical numbers blew. The first one, in the chocolate room, was okay. But overall, I had a hard time understanding most of the lyrics. It was all just raucous noise. Come on, Elfman, you can do better than that.

Wonka telling Charlie he can't bring his family to live with him in the factory was insane. First of all, it makes Wonka look even more like a freaky pedophile; second of all - how on earth is that faithful to the book?!

This is the second time in recent memory I've heard of a producer/director wooing the widow of a beloved children's book author and then she deciding that her dead husband would love this new big-screen version of his source material.

Somewhere, Dr. Seuss is consoling Roald Dahl.