charlie

[mamajoan]

Yesterday I went to see "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I can honestly say, as a Johnny Depp fan and a Roald Dahl fan, that ... I didn't like it much. I didn't get what Johnny Depp was trying to do with the character, and I didn't like the idiotic plot element that they inserted to give Willy Wonka "motivation." Johnny Depp's portrayal was really creepy and frequently reminded me of Michael Jackson, which is NOT a good thing. It made me wonder whether they were trying to make a statement about the original Gene Wilder movie, that it had tried too hard to make Wonka a likeable character. In the book, I don't think we're supposed to like Wonka at all. But if this was Johnny Depp's/Tim Burton's idea of how to make Wonka unlikeable again, I didn't, uh, like it.

I also thought it was interesting that they stuck so relatively closely to the book, much more so than the Gene Wilder version. I thought it was interesting that whereas the Wilder version changed the title to "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and then focused heavily on Charlie, this version changed the title back to the original but yet focused more heavily on Wonka. And I thought it was interesting and kind of strange that they undid the major plot changes that the Wilder version made and yet added a whole bunch of new stuff at the end, which I thought was totally gratuitous. I really kind of hated the ending.

Anyway, I could go on, but this movie is ancient news to most of you so I'll stop. ;) I did think the kid who played Charlie was excellent (edit: and now that I've looked him up on IMDB, I feel dumb for not having placed him before -- he played Peter in "Finding Neverland," the other recent Johnny Depp movie. Duh!), the other kid actors were quite good, the Oompa Loompas were, uh, "interesting" ;) , and all that. But overall I'd have to say I didn't like it and shall be sticking with the Gene Wilder version, departures from the book be damned.

Comments

[chaosvizier.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. Making Willie Wonka have a "motivation" and "origin" kind of detracts from his magical power and personality. He's supposed to be a mysterious kind of guy, an anomaly, a magical being. Now he's just someone with deep seated parental issues and childhood trauma. Sorry, that's old hat and pretty generic, in my book.

Johnny Depp is a good actor, but here I feel that he did not succeed.

However, I do still maintain that the line "Don't touch that squirrel's nuts; it'll make him crazy!" makes up for at least 22 minutes of bad film.

[calihope.livejournal.com]

soooooo...when are you going to tell us about your eventful weekend? Did you hook up with Eliza? Are there two Cosmos? Did Isaac start speaking French? I'm beyond curious! (as youcan see ;))

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

LOL. Nothing nearly that exciting, alas. Mostly it was eventful for Isaac, who injured himself several times in just two short days (never seriously).

[shmuel.livejournal.com]

I like both films a lot, but I understand your opinion.

The thing about the ending is that, frankly, it's the weakest part of the book. Both films had to find a better way of resolving the story, and each does so by adding an additional layer and having the resolution hang on that: in Wilder's case, it's the subplot with Slugworth; in Depp's case, it's the subplot with Wonka's childhood. Neither is gratuitous, although it's certainly debatable whether either works well.

I agree with everything you said

[lightningrose.livejournal.com]

I spent large segments of the new film damning Freud and all his intellectual children. I didn't want to see Wonka running away from a dentist, I wanted more wonder. I would have liked more Charlie, less Wonka. And a Wonka who is more to my liking -- one who is very much a less-than-grown-up which is why he can be so petty, capricious, and occassionally mean-spirited. He isn't an adult picking on children, he sees the kids as very much his peers an equals.

Oh dear, now the Michael Jackson parallel _is_ starting to freak me out....