Ouch, baby, very ouch. 
Who does Helena Bonham Carter play? curious
“I thought he was great but he turned out not to be. And he has weird hair.”
Throwing down newspaper- “I DO NOT HAVE WEIRD HAIR!!”
She plays mrs bucket, Charlies mother.
Although I haven’t seen the movie yet, she plays Charlie’s mother.
Grandma Josephine (the senile “I like grapes!” grandmother) was played by the same actress who played Mrs. Snow, the very old fan in Finding Neverland. She has very few film credits; I wonder if she was in the movie because Johnny Depp just happened to like her. (She was certainly good.)
Was Charlie’s father dead in the book? The one in this- the whole situation really- reminded me of Angela’s Ashes- I kept waiting for Charlie to come home and find Da passed out drunk on the stoop with his week’s wages in cabbage.
I never thought that the Oompa Loompas’ songs might be left out or altered, since they’re diegetic elements (actually happening in the context of the story, and observed by Charlie and the other characters.) I’m thinking of the little bits of verse that are part of the narration in the book, and which were omitted from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
refers to text
hangs head in shame
Of course they were the Oompa-Loompa songs.
My memories have been corrupted by the Gene Wilder movie.
I don’t think so. IIRC, his job screwing the caps onto the toothpaste tubes was in the book. I don’t remember him getting the job of fixing the automated cap-screwer at the end of the book, though. Come to think of it, I don’t remember the automated cap-screwer at all.
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. Starring Johnny Depp as Emo Philips as Michael Jackson as Willy Wonka.
I hope you’re being sarcastic. In any case, thanks for the warning – I forgot that Burton’s movies always have that crappy music. If Tim Burton and Stephen Spielberg both decided to try using good composers, they’d end up with better movies.
Some thoughts:
I was a fan of the book before the first movie came out. I found the first movie to be a disappointment and this to be a surprising treat.
All that stuff in the commercials and trailers that makes Depp look like a horse’s ass works in the context of the movie.
I missed the bubble room scene.
I didn’t miss Slugworth.
I liked that the store where he bought the winning Wonka bar was more like your average local lotto and newspaper store than a pretty little candy store.
And they’re bad because…?
Because he said so!
Anyway, Baldwin, you oughtta see this movie just for the characters of Veruca and Mrs. Salt. Having lived in Atlanta most my life, I can say that the script nailed them cold. Hyper-competitive type-A yuppie wanna-be’s living in a brand new McMansion in a neighborhood so new that there’s not a tree to be seen - other than outside the hood.
Speaking of which, was Veruca from Atlanta in the book?
Just got home.
LOVED it. The visuals, especially the first half-hour, before they even get to the factory, are just incredible. Freddie Highmore continues to amaze me in the way he can steal a movie without hogging any one scene.
Depp is all kinds of creepy, in a very good way.
Loved the ending. Shocked the hell out of me, but I loved it.
I thought that (in the movie) Violet was from Atlanta - Veruca was from England somewhere.
Well, whoever was the hypercompetitive one (I think you’re right - Violet Beauregard is a more Southern name.)
[pointless hijack]While I know that every southern city of any size has that particular expensive but bland subdivision (it will be the One True Neighborhood for nouveau riche yuppies for about five years, then will move and the houses go on the market) but when I saw the movie I said to myself “Punjab [that’s what I call myself on Fridays], that looks exactly like the _____ neighborhood of Montgomery.” Then I remembered that Burton did a lot of the shooting for Big Fish in Montgomery a couple of years ago (where I was at a restaurant and saw Tim Burton with Helena Bonham Carter who was smoking while heavily pregnant- grrrrr!). I’m wondering if this is some left over stock footage.[/pointless hijack]
Chock Full of unboxed SPOILERS
I went to the theater with medium-sized expectations. I was expecting a different take on the book and some bits of original fun. Aside from a few minor tidbits, I liked nothing about the movie.
Refutations
"Depp is good."
I like Depp and think he was fantastic in Ed Wood. But here his portrayal of Wonka is monotonous: the same kind of snappy comments over and over (“yawn”), the same facial expressions, the same manner and tone. It’s tiresome.
The script is flawed and Depp’s acting further undermines the character. One major problem is that Depp’s Wonka does not have the gravitas to serve as the children’s judge, and does not even seem interested in doing so. In great contrast, the scene in WWATCF in which Wilder is about to toss Charlie and Grampa Joe out on their ear is one of the best in the film (“Good-day, sir!”).
Depp assumes the prefab mantle of the character but does not create it anew; he is Wonka by fiat. It is hard to imagine how this effete, dysfunctional fool ever built anything or accomplished anything. In youth he was bitch in facial traction unable to stand up to his father. What’s to root for?
But you could see Wilder as the master, the ruler, the creator.
"Deep is good."
Ah, cheap CGI tricks–when will we get our fill? When will directors understand the difference between an effective effect and a technologically advanced effect? The whole Oompa-Loompa thing in this movie sucked large. I didn’t like the Deep guy. He’s multiplying himself, pronouncing judgment on the kids–now, as far as I’m concerned, a character has got to earn that right. The 1971 OLs were also a little OTT and prone to pussified, after-school-special moralization, but their demeanor and the music that they worked with gave them a believable Voice of Transcendent Wisdom quality. On the other hand, my reaction to the many Deeps was, “F**k off.”
"Elfmann is good."
Go reform Oingo Boingo you talentless t*at. The maturity and vision of your faux-credative songs and abominable background music clearly demonstrates that you’re still “Only a lad.” One of Anthony Newley’s pubes had more talent than you.
Whew! Glad I got that off my chest.
I found the OL songs in this movie excruciating, just real audio-trash. But what was worse was the “score.” The standard swoops and dips and chords symbolizing “wonder” and “oh wow-ness” and–wait, it’s the same swooping chord again, so I guess it’s more wonder! oh wow!
We really need some new ideas in movie music. Stale, stale stuff.
"The visuals were good."
The joys of CGI. Compare the berrization of Violet in the two movies. In 1971 you get the primitive but effective inflation and blue makeup technique. When the OLs are rolling her around, they’re really rolling her around! Little things mean a lot. In 2005 you get tarted-up CGI that looks. like. ass. I will grant that the spreading blue, kind of following the veins and moving outward like a disease is rather cool. But then the massive expansion, so that she’s as big as a house–WTF?!
At the end of the movie you have more rotten CGI with violet flipping around like a Tekken character and Mike looking ever so thin and unrealistic.
Nothing else rings true. Even the opening was for me an immediate red flag and a disappointment: the robot arms packaging candy. Whoever conceived this obviously has no knowledge of automation or what the inside of factories look like. I toured a very modern popcorn packing plant recently, and the fact of the matter is that reality is more interesting than these creepy alien hands touching the chocolate–plus it has the benefit of being real.
Burton has aimed for size and impressiveness but each attempt backfires. He doesn’t understand that realistic + 1 is always more interesting than realistic x 100. The chocolate factory may look big and “wondrous,” but it doesn’t work because it’s too big and wondrous, thereby looking cartoonish. The eye dismisses it.
And so on. Nothing looked good.
"It’s darker."
What’s dark about this fluff? Name one thing. It’s dark because it’s Tim Burton, right, and we all know how “dark” his stuff is, right? BS.
I think the 1971 movie easily qualifies as darker, and not paint-by-numbers '00s dark but quriky and intelligent and edgy in its own distinctive way. Consider the boat scene from the original: where did that come from? It’s one of the most transcendental, imaginitive movie scenes ever. Whereas Depp is merely quirky, Wilder seems genuinely angry at times.
The darkness of the 2005 attempt is further undermined by the unforgiveably cheesy and chiche “my father and I have issues and we must reconcile” CRAP that was not in the book and wholly gratuitous. I’m no Burton fan, but I think he is intelligent enough not to let such Hollywood gunk get into his films. What happened?
"It’s truer to the book."
Well, we know that the father crap wasn’t in the book. But please name some concrete things that make this truer to the book. As far as I could tell, it was very much the same as the 1971 movie as far as scene order and construction went, so that I could pretty much compare one-to-one all the scenes (except those that were wholly missing in either).
**Original assertions
It was devoid of large and small touches.**
What sticks with you from this movie? Nothing clicked for me. The squirrels? No, not really funny or interesting. I would say I liked Violet’s mom and the look of disdain she had for Wonka (more on this in a moment). I can’t think of anything else.
But compare it to the 1971 movie. You have the room where everything is cut in half, the organ as a door code, the lickable wallpaper, the contract with super fine print, the look of the candy store, Charlie’s mom stirring laundry (a more believable type of poverty), the jelly bear hanging on a tree in the candy room, etc. etc. It’s just one of those movies in which everything seems to jump out at you, larger than life and more detailed than ordinary imagination. Oh, and Wilder pretending to limp and flipping up to the cheers of the crowd. And, and–now that’s a movie!
Scene for scene, 1971 outclasses 2005.
1971 is always better. How about the thing I just mentioned, Wonka’s appearance. 1971 better. Wonka’s costume? 1971. The little room that seems to have no exit? 1971 (bad pacing in the 2005 scene: crapola direction). The big candy room. 1971 by a great distance. The OL dances? 1971. The invention room? 1971. The boat scene? 1971! The ending? 1971 (satisfying, doesn’t wear out its welcome).
Little things mean a lot. In 1971, the Everlasting Gobbstopper is a multicolored little knobby thing that looks quite good to eat. In 2005, the same candy (not used in the movie at all, really) is a big red sphere that could never fit in your mouth.
Further, the 1971 movie just gives you a lot more of the factory and a lot more of everything else. The golden ticket search seems longer, fully, just better. You have the bubble room and the Wonkamobile. The confrontation before Charlie proves himself (which is a great scene, by the way, when he leaves the Gobbstopper behind–satisfying storytelling). 1971 gives you more and better. So when people say that 2005 is truer to the book, do they simply mean that a lot of scenes not in the book were left out? Or that it was squirrels not geese, or what?
The kids were better in 1971.
Better script, better actors, and just that cool international feel that fit the year just perfectly. I think the new Charlie was fine, but he is not allowed to shine. He barely even seems to be the main character.
C’mon the old Veruca was a movie classic. The new one just seems forced.
Violet is the movie’s true main character.
I was pleasantly surprised that other Dopers picked up on her merits. She is a will-to-power ass-kicker, and her only fault–arrogance and unkindness to others–seems arbitrarily grafted on. (Because it’s OTT. As in all cases, the 1971 movie does her flaw a lot better: she is not disdainful of others, just totally self-centered and oblivious of others. A much more realistic character flaw.)
Both she and her mom have the right attitude: Know what you want, get what you want. She doesn’t cheat, she doesn’t whine–she just goes for it. WTF’s wrong with that?
As others have noted, she doesn’t do anything wrong in the gum incident, either. She’s clearly offered the gum and has no reason to suspect that it will harm her. (IIRC, in the 1971 movie she actually snatches it out of Wonka’s hand, making the fault worse.)
But Violet, as she always does, makes blueberry ade out of her setbacks. Little Charlie is beatified and receives assets for his goodness, whereas Violet leaves a transformed superhero, blue like Krishna and backflipping her way to self-realization. Viva Violet!
I think you have Nestle to blame for that one. Under their Wonka brand name, they manufacture jawbreakers under the Everlasting Gobstopper brand name. Quite good, actually.
I thought the film was pretty interesting. I liked Depp, thought the father subplot led to a satisfying ending (and a funny irony gag involving Wonka walking next to flags and what it could represent), and the songs were catchy…especially that Disney-inspired Wonka’s Welcome Song. I think more people would enjoy “It’s A Small World” if the dolls caught on fire at the end. That Wonka is a genius!