Movie Reviews
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Tim Burton�s �Charlie and the Chocolate Factory� is how the title and story surrounding Willy Wonka takes a complete turn from Mel Stuart�s �Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory� (1971). Stuart�s film changed the title of Roald Dahl�s book (from �Charlie...� to �Willy Wonka...�), but was surprisingly little about Willy Wonka � certainly not so much as it was about Charlie anyway. Meanwhile, Burton�s film has regained Dahl�s title, but is much less about Charlie than it is about Willy Wonka.
Burton has constructed a much darker, gloomier and � forgive me � perhaps more beautiful world. Charlie�s house stands out against the modern townscape, literally about to fall over. (It is tilted much to the degree of the house in �Big Fish.�) Charlie, played by the precocious, and yet dead-on Freddy Highmore, is cuter and easier to like than the Charlie Bucket of 1971. Part of that is because Highmore is plainly a better actor than Peter Ostrum.
The Oompa Loompas are all one actor duplicated hundreds of times over. And instead of a quirky little song, these Oompa Loompas sing and dance in massive, funny dance routines. The elevator that takes you all over Wonka�s visceral jungle of a candy store is a glass case that goes up, down, and all around while the Oompa Loompas shoot fireworks out of anti-aircraft guns. And Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) is pale-faced, sleek, and pretty creepy.
There is not a shred of doubt that Depp is one of our finest character actors. He can make mundane movies splendid because of how animated he is. Burton and Depp�s numerous collaborations have brought them to this point; where Depp is trying too hard, and Burton is loving it anyway.
It is not that Depp�s performance is bad. On the contrary: he�s funny and strange, but doesn�t belong in this particular film. Also, we don�t get that momentous chemistry between Depp and Highmore that we so treasured in �Finding Neverland.�
Here, we get a back story to Willy Wonka: the first piece of candy he ever ate, how insane his dentist father was, and why he became the candy-making genius. Christopher Lee is his father, and once again proves that he is invaluable to the cinema; he somehow creates a character that is frightening and tyrannical, but proves to have a sensitive side. Lee's performance is assured and fun to watch.
And I�m concluding that I did not like the ending. It is as if John August�s screenplay wanted to have a jazzed-up twist to the original ending. In its stead, August unnecessarily provides an unkempt and trivial caboose. Not to mention the explanation of who has been narrating the story, which doesn�t work either.
Nonetheless, Burton�s film is a visual splendor, as most of his films are. It treats children as intelligent and observant creatures, starving for imagination and appreciative of exciting images. And that is precisely what a children�s film should do. ***