4/4  Good Morning Starshine
This movie is at once heartwarming, creepy, fanciful, and brilliant. Tim Burton's key style is showcased as he takes on one of the most bizaar children's stories ever written. My favorite parts of this movie include the performances of a... (read full)

3/4  Fun for everyone
This is a remake of a movie that was a big part of my childhood. Well a big part in the respect that every teacher in my grade school when they ran out of ideas and decided to have a movie day would play the original. So I wasn't sure wha... (read full)

2.5/4  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Quick Review
This was a bit overdone, but still a decent movie.

2.5/4  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Quick Review
Based more on the book than the more colorful, earlier version, Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a bit darker, but still retains that whimsical feel. I still prefer the original, but this version is decent.

1/5 Where' are the BLACK PEOPLE????
  by waffle girl
Okay, I'm all for remakes of old films and such...but I can't help but notice this film has like ZERO black people. (scratch that, there's like 2 for about 8 seconds shown in the crowd before the children enter the factory)OH and the candy shop owner that sells Charlie's ticket is a black guy, yet once again showing a black guy in a serving behind a counter role, can you say back to the 50s films? Not only is this film missing black people, but it has an all white cast with NO other races whatsoever. The oompa lumpa's are played by a single Indian midget. And there's a scene in Maraco I think where they're looking for golden tickets, how nice, the only slightly big scene is showing the poverty stricken area of a third world country...how non insulting to them... I can't help but wonder if Tim Burton is a racist...It's obvious that Tim Burton is LOVE with Johnny Depp, but from the get-go, he's had a strict policy of NO BLACK PEOPLE. I can remember his early work like Edward scissor hands, there was not ONE black person that had a speaking role, or even a under minor role. IF there was ANY black people cast in these films they were in the background, or offset refilling coffee. I'm a white girl, and even IM insulted by this.

It's just a good thing that this movie sucked in general, I'm glad it wasn't given credit from all as one of the best films ever made. It doesn't deserve to even be compared to the quality of the original.

Back in the 70's when this film was made, it was unHEARD of to cast black people or black children in major roles, unless it was deliberately to show their 'ethnicity' like in roots or dumbo. So it was understandable of why the original had no diversity. BUT NOW...when we've reached a time where ALL races should be equally considered when cast for movies, we see that Tim Burton really has NOT taken that step forward and is determined to live in an all white world. Even the setting in the movie is for OUR TIME era, and if I recall OUR era includes black people everywhere. I'm curious to see his new remake of Alice and Wonderland; I'm willing to bet BIG MONEY that all the major roles will be white people. Anyone want to make that bet?


Tim Burton=Racist Biggot!

2/5 Another thumbs down
  by G. Snyder (Gardnerville, NV United States)
The people who seem to like this movie seem to fall into one (or more) of three classes: Tim Burton fans, Johnny Depp fans, and literary purists. I enjoy some of Tim Burton's and Johnny Depp's films, but cannot say that I'm a fan because I will not see a movie just because Burton, Depp, or both are associated with it. I also do not believe that a movie must adhere to the original story to be brilliant. Many memorable and truly enjoyable movies - Disney's "Mary Poppins", "Peter Pan", and "The Little Mermaid", Fleming's "The Wizard of Oz", and Chuck Jones' "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" - are not absolutely true to but simply extremely entertaining treatments based on the original stories. "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" deviated in specific details from Roald Dahl's book, but the essential elements and plot of the screenplay (written by Roald Dahl) of Charlie's visit to the factory were absolutely true to the book. If anything, Charlie passing the ultimate test by returning the Everlasting Gobstopper to Wonka, rather than seeking revenge by trying to sell it to "Slugsworth", was far more satisfying than the book's version, in which he gets the factory simply by being the last child left.

That being said, there were three specific items that ruined this version of the movie for me. The first was Depp's portrayal of Wonka. The character in the book is an eccentric but far from the psychologically damaged character that Depp decided to portray. The second was the backplot that tried to psychoanalyze and explain Wonka's character (the same mistake Ron Howard made in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"). Wonka was meant to be an enigma and should always remain so, much in the same way that "no one quite knows the reason" why the Grinch hated Christmas. The third was the dismal and forgettable songs in the remake that added nothing to the movies, especially with a single character portraying all the Oompa Loompas. Granted the first movie was a musical and the remake a movie with songs, but if a movie contains songs they should be worth remembering (which is probably why Newley and Bricusse rewrote the Oompa-Loompa songs for the first movie).

5/5 Much More Faithful and Brilliant Than the Original
  by Aleydis
Nearly everyone I talk to refers to this movie as that "horrible screwup" and "totally unnecessary, nearly ruined my memories of the original", etc.

And so apparently I'm the only person I know that actually loved this movie.

I've never been a fan of the original, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". I saw it when I was about eight, and unlike the other kids, was totally disenchanted. Willy Wonka was angry and somewhat intimidating. The songs were campy as hell and golden GEESE? GEESE? I understand the technology wasn't available to have digitally stimulated squirrels, but honestly, like the previous adaptations of Lord of the Rings, it could have waited.

Seriously, WHY the complaints? Yes, this movie had creepy and slightly morbid undertones. But so were Dahl's books. I think people seem the remember the cuter aspects of his books and forget that Dahl occasionally had some truly unsettling elements in his books - a boy turning into a mouse only to have his tail chopped off, abusive relatives, death, implied murder, etc. It wasn't all chocolate and kitty cats. And that's why I think Burton's movie captured the true spirit of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory much more than the camped-up original: Hilarious, bizarre, charming, and slightly creepy. Plus they had the SQUIRRELS.

For hilarity, refer to the awesome one-liners and recurring jokes between the children and Willy Wonka "You really shouldn't mumble, because I have no idea what you're talking about" or "I can't have a blueberry as a daughter. How is she supposed to compete?" "You could enter her in a county fair."

Bizarre: This is a Tim Burton movie. Moving on.

Charming: I would be lying to say if Depp's freaky Wonka was charming, so we resort to Charlie, played by the ever-endearing Freddie Highmore, who imbues Charlie with the same quiet intelligence and dogged optimism that he showed in Finding Neverland (also with Depp). Better than the original.

Slightly creepy: Ok, Depp claims this tag. But I still liked his performance, just because it made so much more sense than Gene Wilder's. Willy Wonka isn't Santa Claus or any other kind of fatherly figure. Having been a recluse since he was a child, the film implies that he has about the same emotional maturity level as the kids (perhaps even less, having spend 20+ years in a candy factory) and a total lack of social skills. I do wish they would have made him less unnaturally pale (he was practically purple), but Depp conveys his childish humor well.

By the way, just LOVED the Willy Wonka background story. It enhanced the film, I think, because it added the individual touch that all good adaptations need, yet left the main storyline unmolested. And it's always a pleasure to see Christopher Lee. I think Dahl would have loved it.

Add in pitch-pefect performances by the children, a knockout whirlwind of colorful eye candy (literally), beautifully entertaining montages, and you got yourself what I consider a truly wonderful, re-watchable classic.
And this film actually has the squirrels. Did I mention that already?

3/5 Review by a Fan of the Book
  by Pauline J. Alama (Rutherford, NJ United States)
I loved the book _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ when I was a child, and so I was intrigued when I heard that the Tim Burton movie was a more faithful retelling of the book than the 1970's Gene Wilder vehicle "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Now that I've watched the DVD with my young son (also a fan of the book), I'd say that it is a *different* reimagining of the story than the 1970s version, though neither director was content to reproduce the simple morality play of the book.

The best thing about Timothy Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the factory itself, beautifully visually imagined, sometimes in ways that have nothing to do with the book but don't contradict it, either. The opening titles are accompanied by dazzling visuals of Rube Goldberg-like machines packaging bars of chocolate and parachuting them out of the factory. My son was completely enchanted, and I also enjoyed the ballet-like movements of the imaginary machines. All in all, the movie continued to dazzle the eye, giving the chocolate factory a magical appeal well in keeping with the fascination it holds for the characters in the book.

The acting is also top-notch, especially by the children. Nice Charlie is sympathetic but not cloying, and all the other children are convincingly unpleasant, as they're supposed to be. The grandparents are also fabulous, and manage to each project a distinctive character, even though 3 of them have very small roles. The characters of Mike Teavee and Violet Beauregard were creatively updated in a way that made them convincing contemporary characters in the era of the movie.

On the other hand, I felt disappointed by a slight under-playing of the naughty children, especially Veruca Salt, who doesn't have a proper tantrum. I don't mean that the young actress underplayed, but the script undercut this aspect of the story, making the naughty children's punishments seem less justified than they did in the book.

This takes me to my main criticism: Tim Burton's clear discomfort with the book's simple bad kids/good kid morality play. While he dared to make Charlie as good as he is in the book (which I appreciated), he felt compelled to psychologize Willy Wonka into a damaged eternal child forever replaying his dysfunctional relationship with his own father. This led to a lot of flashbacks of young Willy with his stern father which I found overdone, clicheed, and dull. There's also a dull section at the end that has nothing to do with the book and everything to do with this compulsively added bit of amateur psychoanalysis. It's not that I can't appreciate psychological depth in a story, but it didn't belong in *this* story, it slows things down, and it's done in a way that practically makes the psychoanalytic parody "High Anxiety" look subtle by comparison. While I didn't like all the ways the earlier "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" movie changed the plot of the book, I think Gene Wilder, with his air of detached amusement, was more like the Willy Wonka of the book than Depp's neurotic Michael Jackson caricature.

5/5 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
  by Susan Hunter
This is a really good movie to watch over and over again. Johnny Depp is superb and the entire movie was done so creatively. You will find yourself wanting to watch this movie over and over for the sheer entertainment of it. Another Tim Burton masterpiece.
A must have for anyone's collection.