Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

report broken trailer
< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

52% Liked It
liked it

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Annasophia Robb, Christopher Lee, David Kelly, Deep Roy, Freddie Highmore

'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' is a tale about an eccentric chocolatier, Willy Wonka, and Charlie, a good-hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka's extraordinary factory. ...( read more  read more... )Long isolated from his own family, Wonka launches a worldwide contest to select an heir to his candy empire. Five lucky children, including Charlie, draw golden tickets from Wonka chocolate bars and win a guided tour of the legendary candy-making facility that no outsider has seen in fifteen years. Dazzled by one amazing sight after another, Charlie is drawn into Wonka's fantastic world.

Id: 2249368

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Recent Reviews
  • magnum32004
    October 31, 2007
    magnum32004
    A feast for the eyes! Much faithful to the source material.
  • Passenger1986
    September 19, 2009
    Passenger1986
    *Looks around* Right, before stepping out and reviewing this, I want to make note of two things.

    First off: although it is nit-picky of me, I must address that this film is technically NOT a remake of Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. It is based on the book of the same nam...( read more)e by Roald Dahl and as such, is a second adaptation. It is not intended to be a remake of the first film, it is intended to be closer to the original story. Burton knew the story from childhood and admired Dahl's writing style. In fact, one anecdote about Burton's experience on the film recalls his visit to Dahl's former home. He enters the shed where Dahl did his writing and said "This is the Bucket's house!" and Dahl's wife Liccy thought to herself "Thank God, somebody gets it".
    So, please bare that in mind. None of this "It's a remake and remakes suck" nonsense. Save that for actual remakes (unfortunately, the same approach must also be used on The Stepford Wives. Doesn't prevent the second adaptation from being something that needs to be erased from time and space though)

    Now, if I haven't offended you (it probably does come across as condescending and if it does I apologize but I am so tired of misconceptions in film. Interpretations are individual and I can respect that but when dealing with facts, some things just cannot be tolerated), hopefully this next part won't make you want to throw tomatoes at me: I prefer this over the first adaptation *Raises umbrella just in case*.

    Hear me out, so to speak. Besides being more faithful to the original story (which I too read as a child), the film goes to more lengths to ensure that Dahl's style translates better in the modern day. In no way does it mean that I hate the first adaptation. No, I do still smile at the thought of it. Good performances, good effects and something that I will go into later that makes that film win in one aspect. Anyway, time to get started.

    I'm going to assume that most of you know the basic plot, be it from looking this movie up, watching the first adaptation or reading the book. The events largely play out the same between films and book, the conclusion is just a little different. Despite the fact that many of you would probably know the ending, I won't go into great detail about this film's take on the events. So, let's compare the tone of the films.

    What makes this film largely win out over the first adaptation is it remembers that the children are the antagonists. The first adaptation, while making the kids obnoxious, doesn't make them down right repulsive (well, your mileage may vary, to quote the trope). Veruca Salt may have been the only exception but the others just seemed a little show-offish while still fundamentally decent. Let's look at this film:
    Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz) is a greedy bully, rather than just being a food obsessed buffoon. To him, all food is his and he doesn't like sharing.
    Violet Beauregarde (AnnaSophia Robb) is highly competitive whereas her counterpart from the first adaptation just has a little too much pride.
    Veruca and Mike, oddly enough, perhaps deviate the greatest from the first adaptation.
    Veruca Salt (Julia Winter) is still spoiled but the way she demands things has changed greatly. In the 1971 film, she basically throws tantrums and screams "I want it, I want it, I want it!" and her father finally gives in. She was the most vile character in that particular adaptation and I think a lot of us were thinking "For God's sake, Violet, slap her silly!" and if she had, we would have gotten down on our knees and thanked her, all while sobbing.
    2005's Veruca on the other hand... well... let me put it this way: when he goes to high school, university and then in later life, her way of asking for things will involve eyelash batting, flirting and empty giggling. She's a manipulator through and through. She's cold and uncaring (her parents are exactly open-hearts either but more on them later) and this is most evident when she receives the Golden Ticket from her father, taken from one of his more unscrupulous employees (I'd like to point out that this is my favourite scene, again, I'll cover that when talking about their parents later).
    Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry) is a hyperactive little beast who is probably the the very creature Jack Thompson fears all gamers would become (on the subject of Mr. Thompson, I am very pleased he has been disbarred and his limited power has been removed. People who think video games breed violence obviously are not familiar with the Tetris franchise) but the 1971 version has a TV obsessed kid who's still sociable amongst his fellow competitors (Veruca withstanding).

    To put this in another respect, look how the children interact with each other. Augustus offers Charlie (Freddie Highmore) a chocolate bar but retracts, stating he should have bought his own; Violet calls Charlie a loser; Veruca and Violet act all sweet to each other at first but it's clearly fake (noted later as when Violet is in her blueberry-like state with her mother wondering what she'll do with her, Veruca states "You could put her in a county fair"); Mike, however, has little interaction with the others which was a great move on the production side of things as it relates to how Mike is viewed as an unsocial child, due to his gaming (I may be a gamer but I acknowledge that there is a portion of us that don't like being social or at least, for different reasons than the rest of us).

    While reminding the viewer that we are supposed to want these children to suffer, Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) remains relatively unchanged in personality terms. Still as noble, kind, courteous and considerate as ever. That might make him a Marty Stu since he appears to have no faults (something they tried altering in the 1971 film, perhaps to avoid that) but is it that hard to believe that parents aren't capable of raising a boy with strong values in this day and age?

    Like the kids, the parents are considerably more bastard/bitch like too (big exceptions to Mrs. Gloop, played by Franziska Troegner, who doesn't get a whole lot to do and Mr. Teavee, played by Adam Godley, who is oddly a little sympathetic and is almost like Mr. Salt from the 1971 film); Missi Pyle plays Mrs Beauregarde like a parent who pushes their hopes and dreams onto their children and looks almost like what Violet will become (and is very flirtatious too)
    The Salts serve as the best example. Mr. Salt acts like the smug rich white man you see on Law And Order that has the best lawyer and makes snarky comments about the DA and his workers and might even pull the "Do you know who I am?" thing that infuriates me so Goddamn much. His wife, in her one scene, exemplifies this best: she drinks martinis and rolls her eyes. That's it. Rich bitch to the extreme. Trophy wife, methinks.
    That scene I was referring to was when one of Mr. Salt's (James Fox) employees gets the ticket and decides to keep it for herself before he snatches it away. Helps drive home the "people are greedy and somewhat materialistic" themes the book had (though the 1971 film also has that and those scenes were done wonderfully too. Case in point, the woman who was being asked to give up her Wonka bars in exchange for her husband's life and she hesitates).

    Before moving off the subject of parents, I loved Helena Bonham Carter and Noah Taylor. They were lovely parents and Freddie Highmore gives me confidence that he'll grow up and shake the acting world for years to come.

    One other aspect I want to praise is the effects. Burton kept digital effects to a minimum and went with models, props and different techniques to present everything in different sizes. And it all looks wonderful. Truly magical. And the squirrels are back! (This replaces the geese from the first adaptation. The squirrels were also in the book and they are real squirrels, thoroughly trained, even though there was a little CGI and animatronic action to assist the final product).

    The one aspect that this film falls in, ironically enough, is the music. Proof that perhaps sticking to the source material too much is a bad thing, the songs are lifted from the original novel. However, most of them sound a little more light hearted. Plus, while Deep Roy does a nice job with the entire Oompa Loompa population, he doesn't come across as particularly ominous.
    The other Oompa Loompas from the 1971 production look a little menacing and sound like bringers of doom to an extent, with the songs sounding like predictions of what to come if the children do not change their ways. Just a minor thing but it's enough for Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory to win a point.

    Before closing, I have to say something about Johnny Depp. Once again, Burton and Depp create something special here. His Wonka is generally mistrusting of most people, deeply cynical and a deadpan snarker. His snide comments to the kids make him a man not to be trifled with. The newly created father character (played by the wonderful Christopher Lee) offers an angle not explored anywhere and attempts to offer a reason for the way Wonka acts.

    At the end of the day, I like both films. Nothing really wrong with the first adaptation. But this is a true tribute to Dahl's style. I really wish Burton and Depp would make Charlie And The Great Glass Elevator. A man can dream, right? A man can dream.
  • 76Majikat
    August 27, 2009
    76Majikat
    Much more colour and obviously being an updated version, it has much better graphics than the original. It has it?s good moments, but I think I?m inclined to agree with the majority here and prefer the original.

    The songs were definitely better in the original and despite lov...( read more)ing Johnny Depp, Gene Wilder was also the better Willy Wonka.

    This version did provide more of a back story to Willy Wonka and had little chops and changes from the original film throughout.

    I?m sure to the younger generation it keeps the story alive and for that reason, worth while as a remake.
  • SirPant
    August 26, 2009
    SirPant
    Its not a bad film and although it was more faithful to the book, I much prefer the original with Gene Wilder. I guess I'm a little biased thought as Willy Wonka was one of my favourites growing up. It was also a little too Americanised for my liking, it just doesn't sound right ...( read more)when your hear an English person say 'Candy bar'.
  • TheMachinist
    July 12, 2009
    TheMachinist
    "The best kind of prize is a surprise. Hahahaa!"

    Roald Dahl's imaginative story about Charlie Bucket's adventure in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory comes to life for a second time. Tim Burton's remake of the 70's classic, which starred Gene Wilder as Wonka, is a big budget film ...( read more)full of technical and visual achievements.

    I don't remember the original film that well but I have some recollection of it being a musical? There are some musical scenes, featuring the Oompa Loompas, which occur everytime a spoiled, ungrateful brat meets his/hers doom. What? Like you didn't know. Of course the good hearted boy will win! I must confess that I really didn't like the Oompas that much. Everytime they came out singing and dancing, I got a bit frustrated. It didn't look like something out of Burton's head. Annoying segments, but necessary for the story.

    Once again, Johnny Depp pulls off another mind-blowing performance. His version of Wonka is very eccentric, demented and scary. Some has tried to compare Depp's Wonka to the late Michael Jackson. I don't think so.. The only thing that may slightly resemble is their voices. But just so you understand me, Depp is really the biggest reason why you should see this movie. Outstanding work and strong proof of Depp's versatility as an actor.

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

    The visual image of the film is guaranteed to fulfill every Burton fans hopes. Some really nice scenes are given, especially the squirrel scene was nicely done. The colors are vivid eventhough the main visual image may seem a bit dark. In fact, I think that Burton's version is a lot more darker than the original.

    "Sorry we're late. We were brainstorming.
    - Thought I heard thunder.."

    This version focuses also more on Willy Wonka rather than Charlie Bucket. Burton has been, especially with his latest work, somewhat fascinated by the relationships between fathers and sons ('Big Fish', anyone?) This film also has an important segment of that element. Christopher Lee does a nice performance as Wilbur Wonka. But I guess Willy's father has become a bit demented as he doesn't recognize his son eventhough he has his walls covered by news bits of Willy's achievements and life... And he hasn't aged a bit. Still looks the same although decades have passed. A minor flaw, blooper, goof or what you may call it.

    Tim Burton is, and will always be, one of my favourites. In overall, 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' doesn't give me the same satisfaction as 'Big Fish', 'Edward Scissorhands' or his 'Batman' movies. The film is a decent work by one of the most imaginative directors and surely worth a look. Especially Johnny Depp fans will be pleasantly surprised, again.
  • Mfk20091
    December 31, 2009
    Mfk20091
    I love both of the movies, very good movie for the whole family to set and watch.
  • mistakentrekkie
    December 31, 2009
    mistakentrekkie
    This movie had no reedeming quality whatsoever. Johnny Depp ruined Gene Wilder's role. He made Willy seem like that creepy guy in a neighborhood that the parents tell their children to stay away from. The songs were hard to listen to, the oompa loompas were not likeable. The chil...( read more)dren were alright, but overall, not great. This film in its entirety, I feel is an insult to what was once a remarkable, classic film.
  • BEACHBUNNI
    December 31, 2009
    BEACHBUNNI
    disapointed in this one and much preferred the 1971 original version better as gene wilder was amazing as wonka!
  • lacrybaby21
    December 31, 2009
    lacrybaby21
    its jhonny depp duh!
  • joylenecurrie
    December 31, 2009
    joylenecurrie
    i like the old one :)
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD