Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Open Spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

Took the wife to see it for her birthday (Happy Birthday, Mrs. Fresh). I thought it was great. Much closer to the book than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. A couple of points:

Johnny Depp makes a great Wonka. Dahl’s Wonka was merely eccentric, while Depp’s Wonka is flat out deranged, which I think is a lot more believable.

Charlie was great. The actor playing him was wonderful, and didn’t feel the need to constantly remind us how waif-like-and-destitute-yet-lovable he was. The one thing that threw me were his eyes. This kid has seriously dark-colored pupils, and in the context of the movie, I was reminded of those cheap Lovecraft movies that come out every so often. Grandpa Joe was great, too.

Augustus Gloop and Veruca Salt: Acted very well. Nothing really surprising here, though. They were played pretty closely to both the book and the original movie.

I was seriously creeped out by Mike TV and his dad. In the book and original movie, his mom accompanied him, but in this one, his dad took him. I think the reason for this was to show just how deranged a father and son couple could be. The kid looked ready to snap at any minute. His father looked like that nice quiet man at the post office, who noone could imagine in a million years killing his coworkers, but who does anyway. His father taught geography, and I couldn’t honestly tell whether father or son would be the first to freak out and turn their school into the next Columbine.

I actually felt sorry for Violet in this movie. In the book and original movie, all she did was chew gum, which didn’t strike me as being that terrible even decades ago when I first came across it. The powers that be must have thought that just chewing gum would be too boring, because they also turned her into an obsessive-compulsive, win-at-any-cost overachiever. The thing that gets me is that in the movie, she is clearly very talented, and while she was pretty high-strung and annoying, she had accomplished everything by herself on her own merits, and her sin of taking the gum struck me as more childhood impulsiveness than greed. She didn’t deserve what she got. Oh well, it was still a great movie.

I didn’t see anything that looked like it would scare kids. Most of the children in the audience. were laughing louder than we were. I’d definitely recommend it.

2

There was a strong undercurrent of that in the book, IMO. It wasn’t just chewing gum–it was obsessively chewing gum, and making it something to gloat over.

3

Wasn’t she World Champion gum chewer, having chewed the same gum for a record length of time? And having stolen the title from her former best friend, too.

4

Yes.

In the first movie, she bragged about it on camera (just after she’d found the golden ticket).

5

Uh, I think the thread demands a title change…

6

Leaving this minute to see Willy. :cool:
Hope it’s everything it’d touted to be!! :stuck_out_tongue:

7

D’ohhh!! Can you tell I’ve been drinking today?

8

I am so prepared to hate this movie, so I can’t decide whether to see it or not. I love the first one, and this one just seems… wrong. Perhaps I’ll try to open my mind a teeny bit and see it anyway. I haven’t read a bad review, yet.

Suppose an antsy 4-year-old would enjoy it, or at least sit through it?

9

There were a lot of small children in the theater, and they all seemed to love it. We went expecting a real noise problem from the kids, but everyone seemed enthralled.

As far as wrong, I really think CATCF followed the book more closely than WWATCF. It did take a few detours dealing with Wonka’s father and how he came to love chocolate which didn’t show up in the book at all. Also, they drew out the ending. But overall, the movie kept the faith.

Also, I realized that Violet showed some obsessive qualities in both the book and original movie. It’s just that . . . I dunno, unlike the other “bad” children, she really did seem to work her butt off for what she got, even if she was an impulsive control freak. I just felt a little bad for her, that’s all. Augustus was punished for his gluttony, Veruca for her greed, and Mike TV for being a total psycho wingnut, but Violet was basically a good kid who got punished for one impulsive action. I don’t want to deconstruct the movie, but that’s just my $0.02.

10

I plan to see it next week. I think I’ll take some dark chocolate along just to enhance the experience.

11

viva at the concession stand: One Hershey’s bar, please.
Cashier: That’ll be eight dollars.
Lost wages, indeed.

12

Just got back. It was great. Johnny Depp was great. The kid who played Charlie was great. The oompah loompahs were a relief after the first movie (and it’s a kick that the same guy played them all). I was a kid who loved the book first and I appreciate this much more. The advance of technology since the first movie certainly didn’t hurt.

13

That echoes Homer Simpson at Disneyworld:

Homer: I’ll have one churro, please!
Vendor: That’ll be seventeen dollars.
Homer: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!

14

Man, that was a blast! I loved the extended ending and the flashbacks, but I’m sorta nostalgiac for the oompah-loompah songs I loved from the first movie.

I thought Violet was a snotty little bitch who deserved her fate as much as the rest.

If anything, Augustus got shafted. WW tells the kids to try “anything” with a sweeping wave of his hand, how was Auggie to know the river was off limits? He was a poopyhead to Charlie, but didn’t do anything wrong by trying the river and accidentally falling in.

Our theater was nearly full, and the kids kept pretty quiet and just watched.

15

Just got back and WOW.

I was a nay-sayer and a doubter all the way, but this movie was MUCH better then the original (imho).

I’m still gathering all my thoughts, so forgive me if I lack direction.

[ul]
[li]All the kids were great, but I agree that TV kid was…creepy- his dad, too.[/li][li]Charlie’s family was adorable, funny, and quite likable (“I like grapes.”)[/li][li]Visually the movie was astounding. Fantastic sets, bright colors, wonderful direction.[/li][li]The music fit perfectly (even the Oompa songs- which were…different). [/li][li]I like the added bits, as they explained all the things we were left questioning in the prior film.[/li][li] I also agree that Depp nailed the part, which I hate to say because I was really doubting him. Honestly, Depp played the part better than Gene. :eek: :smiley: [/li][/ul]

I’m still giddy. Great movie. A must see, for sure.

16

I also just got back and loved it. I highly recommend it to everyone.

It followed the book much more closely than the first movie obviously, and what it did change or add worked perfectly. I wasn’t sure about the movie from the trailers- the voice Johnny Depp was using just seemed annoying and too Michael Jackson-like, but Johnny Depp was perfect in this.

Also, there were a bunch of added lines and things that were really, really funny. My favorite line (paraphrased):

Everything here is eatable. I’m eatable, but that my children is called cannibalism and it is frowned upon in most societies.

I probably do get disturbed more easily than some people, but I must say there were a few parts that would have freaked me out pretty badly if I was 10 years old and watching it. Mainly:

Mike’s and Violet’s consequences. They were cartoonish, but still disturbing.

This has been such a great summer for movies. I have seen four movies this summer: Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, and now Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and all have been really good movies that greatly exceeded my expectations.

17

[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
[li]Charlie’s family was adorable, funny, and quite likable (“I like grapes.”)[/li][/quote]

Dragonflies?

[quote]
[li]Visually the movie was astounding. Fantastic sets, bright colors, wonderful direction.[/li][/QUOTE]

Definately. Great job, Danny Elfman!

I knew Depp would kick ass because he’s Depp, but everything else was :: THUD! ::

(I gotta remember where I park that thing.)

Anyway, even the added subplot was fun. I’ll never look at latex gloves without tearing up again.

18

Dragonflies? I should probably get that…but I don’t. Help?

19

Or I could go to Trader Joe’s for a big ol’ bar of the dark goodness, pay far less, and make those concession folks cry a river at their lost profits.
They don’t have a clue as to what I have smuggled in my purse.
:cool:

20

DiosaBellissima, you don’t even know what we’re talking about! :wink:

I’m going to be the first one to say I didn’t particularly like it. It wasn’t bad, it just didn’t really add anything to the original movie. It’s been too long since I read the book as a kid to remember how the book differs from either film, but I thought the added sappy ending and the flashbacks “explaining” Wonka’s psychosis were rather bad.

IIRC, Wonka in the books wasn’t particularly psychotic, nor did he even have the hint of disturbing weirdness that Wilder (briliantly) gave him. He did let terrible things happen to the children (who deserved them), but he was a mysterious sprite-like magician, more than anything else.