Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: the review that will hurt

[thehefner]

So it would seem most/all of my Rudes friends absolutely loved it and most/all of my WAC buddies seriously disliked it. Well, since everybody's been dying for my take, I finally saw it last night with Kristen. NOW... I must say that for me, it was utterly impossible to not draw comparisons to the original WILLY WONKA, which certainly biased me. NONETHELESS, I am not so petty that I cannot realize a brilliant, funny movie when I see one. If it is truly great, I cannot deny it in my heart. Unfortunately, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY was not brilliant. Fun? Often. A return to what Burton does best? Well, it ain't EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, but it's a good step in a better direction than APE-BRAHAM LINCOLN.

Let's go with what I liked, in no particular order. Charlie's house, wonderful. Oh hell, the whole Burtony world. So full of Burtony goodness. Violet's mother was utterly creepy, just an astounding performance. In fact, whenever she or Augustus Gloop were there in closeup (GAH! German Pugsley with no eyebrows! He's baby Robert Blake from LOST HIGHWAY! "Ja, call your housen, und I vill ne dere. See? I told you I vas dere.") Grampa Joe was great too, if only because I love the actor. I remembered him as O'Reilly, the inept construction worker on FAWLTY TOWERS, and who could ever forget, try though they may, when he rode bare-ass naked on a motorcycle in WAKING NED DEVINE?

The Oompa-Loompa guy was astounding in deadpan excellence. Christopher Lee is the motherfucking man, who rules every second he's on screen. Like, no wonder Willy grew up the way he did, he Dad was Dracula! He's the only one in the entire cast who just forces you to turn and look at him every second he's on screen. And Danny Elfman finally producing an Elfmanian score, not to mention giving us glimpses of Oingo Boingo, well, that's just happy right there.

Unfortunately, that's about where the happy ends. See, look, I know Depp is brilliant. But I am kinda sick as to how there's this knee-jerk "Oh, everything Depp touches is gold!" reaction to him. Maybe it's not undeserved, but seriously, it bugses me. But not nearly as much as his performance as Wonka bugses me. Now, I don't know how much Michael Jackson was an influence there, or how legit those claims are by many critics that he even was an influence. Forget that, put that aside, and he still annoyed the shit out of me.

I didn't think he was likeable at all. I know he was meant to be immature and childlike and kinda innocent in his way, and sure, Depp suceeded at all that with flying colors. And that character annoyed the utter living shit out of me. I'm sorry, but I just think Gene Wilder's knowing, darkly evil Wonka had far more life and entertainment than Depp's gaunt, hollow fop. In fact, hollow is the word, just like a large chocolate egg. There was no depth to Depp's Wonka, you knew exactly what he was the second you saw him. There was no richness to the character. Now, maybe that comes from delving into his backstory, which Wilder did not, and thus eliminating the air of enigma that Wilder still maintained. Or maybe it was just a two-dimensional character as depicted in this version.

And also, I guess most of you weren't bothered by this, but this movie had serious pacing issues. Like, it's been a long time since I've been repeated boooooored in a movie I paid good money to see in a theater. The worst moments were right after each Oompa-Loompa song. The songs were so full of Elfman life, and then in the minutes afterwards there's no music, only awkward silences and meek, lifeless, lame-ad-lib-quality humor and interaction between the characters. It's like going from Bubsy Berkely to Napoleon Dynamite with no transition whatsoever, and those scenes draaaaged, mainly because there was absolutely no life in these characters! Not even Depp, for all his mystical and unattainable screen charisma, could keep the whole pace from sinking like a lead balloon. Depp could not summon the over-the-top life necessary to live within Wonka's world. Where was the joy, the childlike energy, the glee of living in a chocolate factory that they seemed to be shooting for? Y'know, I honestly think they would have done far better had Pee-Wee Herman played the role.

And let's go back to those Elfman songs, shall we? Now, Elfman rules, we all know this, and he rules all the more for using the actual Roald Dahl lyrics. Each of the songs are fun and would be great to have on your ipod. However, I have to wonder, aside of the Willy Wonka theme they used in the trailer, how many of these songs stuck in your head? How many of you walked out of the theater humming the Augustus Gloop's song? Or the Abba-esuqe Veruca Salt song? Anybody? I'm frankly amazed at Elfman here. This is the man behind Oingo Boingo and Nightmare Before Christmas, capable of producing some provocative, aggressive, subversive, toe-tapping tunes that latch onto your soul and never let go. Yet here, he gave up his trademark originality to do takes on disco, hair-metal, and motherfucking Abba of all motherfucking things, which is what I'd sooner expect from lazy unimaginitive Hollywood hacks, but not Elfman. I mean, Elfman still did it better than they would have and they were entertaining, but it paled in comparison to what he could and should have done.

The movie lacked life, that's the problem with it. Seriously, take when Veruca was dispatched for example. It was hugely anticlimactic, and I don't know whether to blame Burton, Elfman, the actress, the squirrels, or everyone involved. In fact, when each of the kids were dispatched, I felt nothing. There was none of that evil satisfaction that we should be feeling. It was just, "ok, another one down. Next?" I'm sorry to make comparisons, but the this new one lacked the life, vitality, and heart that the original and hell, the original book itself had! I was expecting this kinds of forgettable mediocrity from Fantastic Four, but not Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I was just bored through too much of the movie, and when John Hefner, lover of Sergio Leone epics like Once Upon a Time in the West, thinks a movie boring... well, that really should say something.

Burton and Depp were going through the motions, and what they produced was something sweet and tasty, but quickly and ultimately hollow and forgettable.

Comments

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Some have suggested that Depp gives a brilliant performance for a completely different movie.

[whimmydiddle.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Doll, for making me feel that much less Alone In The World.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Heck, if you felt the same way I did, I should be thanking you. That alone feeling definitely nags at me at times like this.

[2sick2pray.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but i definitely have to completely disagree with you. I thought the movie had a great deal of life and I thought it was much better than the original, which I hated in spite of Gene Wilder. Oh well, different strokes...

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Meh, like I said, the Rudes loved it. Although I have to say you are probably the only, the ONLY person I have ever heard of to hate the original. I really can't understand that. It's like hating Ringo, a human impossibility.

[dormsquirrel.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY! Horrid movie. I was really sad I paid money to see it. The design of the house was excellent, and some of the characters were good... but the rest was terrible.

And now Arik wants to add on to this comment...

Arik: At least the previews were good! Got to see previews for the next Harry Potter, Ice Age II, Wallace and Gromit and Corpse Bride! Why are kids movies so much better than the shit they're trying to feed to adults?

Anyway, back to Willy Wonka. It was worse than San Diego... and by San Diego, I mean a whale's vagina. ("Whale's vagina" of course being a euphamism for the vagina of a whale) Well, the sets were good at the beginning at least. And I love that little boy. Go watch Finding Neverland. Now.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Now, I wouldn't say "horrid," I did enjoy myself through most of it. I just thought it was mediocre at best. However, may I just say that even though I have no idea how you could see any connection between Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to San Diego to a whale's vagina, it still amuses me greatly. I've heard mixed about Finding Neverland as well, actually.

[fiveseconddelay.livejournal.com]

Not to put down the Oompa Loompa's acting, which was good, but if you need little people, and you cast little people, but then make them littler outside the camera, then you didn't really need little people. See either "Eternal Sunshine" for doing it in camera, or "Time Bandits" for how to cast (in this case, big people - the giant that wore the ship as a hat).

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Y'know, now that I think about it, it does seem mightily unnecessary. Good point.

[jgurlpunkrck.livejournal.com]

Oh man. OH MAN. oh man.

I HATE THAT MOVIE. In fact, I ducked out early. I was like, "I can't take this anymore" and bolted.

But that's partially b/c I'm totally in love with Gene Wilder, and so basically Johnny Depp never had a chance. But I think one critic put his performance best: watching him was like watching your parents trying to be cool. It was shudder inducing.

And Burton said this one was going to be scarier and darker than the original? Um...no. Lack of Gene Wilder killed that notion, my friend.

I...ungh...I just can't...ungh...*shakes head*

But yes, Missi Pyle does seem to have a talent for being eerily unnerving.

Oh well. I'm still crossing my fingers for the Corpse Bride.

P.S. Saw "Wedding Crashers." Seeing Rich on screen is frightening, for lack of a better word.

[karmaflouge.livejournal.com]

watching johnny depp play that role is supposed to make you uncomfortable simply because he's supposed to sem very out of place. he's supposed to be a childish man who makes whatever he wants when he wants it and HAS no depth to him. that's why it's kinda fun at the end seeing him...well, essentially, grow up. he realizes his father didn't hate him, he realizes that family isn't a bad thing, etc.

sorry hon. i absolutely loved it. i took it for it's own worth instead of trying to compare it. the only thing it was supposed to share with the original movie was the title and general storyline. hell, the original was supposed to be nothing more than an advertisement for a chocolate bar that was to be released at the same time. the chocolate ended up having problems and being recalled and the MOVIE became a classic. haha irony rules. but burton pulled from the actual book and made it darker. you actually had to pay attention to the characters' definitions. they weren't constantly defining themselves. they gave you a basis and then built on it.

don't get me wrong, i absolutely love the first one too. but i didn't compare. i enjoyed both immensely. i didn't decide that it was because it was depp, not because of burton (though he is a god of directing when he finds a direction), not because of elfman...it was a good story that I felt was well-executed.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

"watching johnny depp play that role is supposed to make you uncomfortable simply because he's supposed to sem very out of place. he's supposed to be a childish man who makes whatever he wants when he wants it and HAS no depth to him. that's why it's kinda fun at the end seeing him...well, essentially, grow up. he realizes his father didn't hate him, he realizes that family isn't a bad thing, etc."

Well, again, that was the intention, and again, it was fucking annoying. Great job if that's what you set out to do, I just have no interest or sympathy for such a character.

And erm, I dunno which movie you saw, but I really, really thought the original was darker. Much more subversive, much more evil. For one thing, the kids actually DIED. Or at least, we could easily believe that happened, especially with Veruca (and Burton's Veruca Salt was a brat, but the orignal Veruca was an acid-tounged vicious little monster, faaaar more hateful). We didn't get to see them alive at the end again.

See, they gave you a basis, but for my part it just feels like they kept the basis and didn't build on it at all, thus we get a movie where everyone's a charicature, except for Charlie. And while that works for most of the characters, as that's what they should be, Willy should not be that. And I'm sorry, but for me he sure was. You knew exactly who he was and what he was going to be from the second you saw him (as opposed to, say, Captain Jack Sparrow).

[marred82.livejournal.com]

I liked the movie. It was a great bio-pick about Michael Jackson and his Neverland Ranch. Including his endless supply of Chocolate and little orange men, his yen for children, and his whiteness.

But really, I did like the movie on the grounds that it is a separate entity than the original. This new one has more of the creepiness of Roald Dahl book. The last Willy Wonka was only creepy in the damn boat scene...where Wilder is looking at the kids as if he's going to rape them and eat them. Also, keep in mind, that the original was a musical, which creates a different feel and a different movie.

As for Depp's "brillance"...I saw SECRET WINDOW. He's not that brillant for doing that movie. It ends with him biting into corn...CORN, people, a cob of f-ing CORN!

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

And this one wasn't a musical??

I dunno, dude, Wilder was a malevolent force the entire time. He seemed to take more perverse glee in watching the kids get knocked off. "No, wait, stop, you don't know what you're doing." I think the original is more subersively creepy because of all its bright colors and the fact that it's purporting to not be creepy at all but a happy family friendly movie. Whereas Burton actively sets out to make a creepy film. See the difference, from where I sit?

[marred82.livejournal.com]

I would not count either as legitimate musicals, but the older version had more "musical" feel than the newer one.

I dunno. I think Depp's Willy Wonka is a bit darker, while Wilder is creepier. Depp's has problems, psychological and emotional, and you know what they are. Whereas, Wilder's is more mysterious and creepy. Maybe this is a better rationalization of my point.

Either way, I think it was better that Depp went in a different direction. I would have hated a film where Depp is just trying to be Wilder, and everything is the same.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Good points all around. I got nuthin.

[composerscott.livejournal.com]

And did you catch the cameo of an actor from WWatCF? Admittedly I haven't confirmed it, but I'm 90-some percent sure that who I saw is who I think it is..... And I didn't see any others, so I'm not sure if there is more than 1 or not.