Your browser does not support or blocks cookies. The site will not function properly. Do not ask for support.


Such a strange movie.. but then again Johnny Depp is in this so it shouldn't come as such a shock! Plus it's a Tim Burton film. I don't know if I like this better than the original. Although the original is weird in it's own way, I don't think anything or anyone could beat Gene Wilder. 7/10
They didn't destroy it as much as I thought they would with this remake. It got a little weird at times but it's never going to outdo the original.
@Pls Thanks, Dad. I'm glad that you don't confuse ridiculous humor with personal attacks. You have just enough imagination, don't you dare take any more.
@AddLightness You're Really Stupid.
Think before posting a comment next time.
@Pls Ha, nine years is old? Don't tell us your age or anything there.
Old Movie But still Good.
I think that this movie might be very good I know because I read part of the script when auditioning for the part of Mike Teevees role in this movie of course I didnt get the part:( but then again Id rather crush peoples dreams rather then be part of them but anyway from what I know its a slight remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory and seeing as it will have Johnny Depp in it I can only hope it will be as good as I read and I can also only hope that they didnt pick some fat kid with no acting talent over me
Could you get anything more stupid? This movie takes away what the original movie did. The original movie was a story about a poor boy and his family and how they get a miricale by getting the factory. This is a ridiculous movie about NOTHING!
The creators of this movie seem willing to tell the public just about anything in order to make CATCF appeal to the largest audience. They KNEW that remaking the classic would leave a bad taste in quite a lot of people's mouths so they suggest to the public its not a remake and even further some have suggested that they never even liked the original story to begin with. WOW! What better credit for a director to have to do a movie then absolutely hating the original story... Ironic when his new "ORIGINAL" creation looks so much like the 1971 version. Some of the scenes look almost shot for shot. Coincidence... I think not. Believe what you want, but the creators of this film knew the original film very well and they simply downplay the 1971 film in order to draw more attention to this new "synthetic" remake. For that fact alone, they dont deserve even one dollar for their efforts. As far as this movie being closer to the book, I dont think so. Yet again, another marketing ploy to sell tickets. When comparing the two, Burton has taken quite a few liberties as well, and actually quite a few more then the 1971 version. Its fantasic that the creators of this REMAKE feel the need to besmudge the original so horribly just to make theirs seem so much better. Well, if the movie really was better, it would stand on its own merit. No one would need to criticize the original. Depp as Wonka is all wrong and as far as people criticizing the comparisons of Depp's Wonka to Michael Jackson... they just need to just get over it. Depp looks like Jackson at his worst, and its actually extremely distracting in the movie itself. Depp is just not convincing in the character of Willy Wonka and his little one liners really dont work very well. Depp was simply the wrong choice for the part. Period. Depp is too young and feminine looking in the role. Depp flushes the role of Willy Wonka right down the toilet and he never seems to be able to invoke any of the charm that made Wilder's Wonka so natural and beloved. The making of this movie quite angers me because not only was it unnecessary, but the people making it have no idea what made the original so charming. They took the original idea, stripped it of all the childlike wonder and heart, and in its place they created a very plastic and synthetic copy. Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the equivalent of tasteless, reheated leftovers, where the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory never seems to go stale.
I feel bad. I haven't updated in so long. And I've seen plenty of movies...Mr. and Mr. Smith, Batman Begins, Save the Green Planet. I may be forgetting something else. I haven't been doing a whole lot of movie watching. But I will review Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, since I saw a sneak peek: Generally, it was good. I was a little afraid of what Johnny Depp would do with Willy Wonka, because it looked a little messed-up in the trailers. But he did a very good job. A very, very good job. The rest of the acting was pretty good, too. Now, this movie is supposed to be more like the book (also entitled "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") and not a remake of the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The guy who wrote the screenplay had never even seen Willy Wonka, but only read the book. So I went in with pretty high expectations. I read the book in fourth grade. And, you know what? Willy Wonka was actually closer to the book when it came to the ending. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory added in this whole thing about Willy Wonka's father. At first, I really didn't mind...until the end. By the end, I was pretty pissed off about the whole father thing. I felt there was no use for it in the whole movie. It wasn't in the book, so why put it in the movie? The movie would've still been a decent length without it. There was some horrible CGI, namely the part where Violet turns into a blueberry. That was just awful and over-the-top. Bad CGI! BAD! At first, I didn't like the Oompa Loompas. I tried not to make comparisons to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory since I knew that they were different, but I couldn't help but think about how much I loved the yellow-skinned, green-haired, goofy-looking Oompa Loompas. Though, these new Oompa Loompas were closer to the book version. I did like their songs. I was in the minority here. My boyfriend said he had a hard time understanding what they were singing because of the flange and chorus and whatnot (by the way, Danny Elfman did all of their singing voices). I understood what was going on. And it was fucking hilarious. The movie on a whole was fucking hilarious. I laughed quite hard a few times. But yes, I'd say on the whole, I'd recommend this movie. Just wish they hadn't had the whole father subplot. That almost ruined it for me. Before the movie, they had some trivia. The first question was, "name another Tim Burton/Johnny Depp movie". My hand shot up and I was called. I named one of my favorite movies: Edward Scissorhands. I got a kick-ass t-shirt that's red, has a line of white Oompa Loompa silhouettes and says "Imported from Oompaland", a bouncy ball with Willy Wonka inside and a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory bracelet. I fucking rule. I'm going to go ahead and say I hated Save the Green Planet. I walked out after an hour. I appreciate the trying to meld together all kinds of genres, but it was so unoriginal. And boring. And seemed longer than it was. Batman Begins was good. I liked Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow. I liked that the relationship between Katie Holmes' character and Bruce wasn't too complicated or took too much time. It was a very small subplot. Mr. and Mrs. Smith wasn't bad for what it was. Wasn't genius, but entertaining for when you just want to be entertained without any real substance to it. Good soundtrack. Unfortunately, all of Vince Vaughn's good scenes were in the trailer.
I'd have to say I was mostly disappointed. It was, unfortunately, another typical Tim Burton production -- great visual style and technical camerawork (except some surprisingly bad CGI toward the end), but poor storytelling. Without giving away spoilers, let's just say everything about the Oopma Loompas is embarrassingly bad -- we're talking Jar Jar Binks bad. And I couldn't believe some of the basic story lines of the original movie that they cut out altogether (one, a major subplot completely eradicated) All in all, kids will probably like it okay. It has enough visually to keep them interested. The kids in the audience giggled a little here and there, but this remake lacks all the charisma and energy of the old. I'm sure some reviewers will be using this type of description, so let me be the first: Charlie and the Chocolate factory is like the confection Willy Wonka creates -- on the surface is looks and tastes good, but ends up being an unsatisfying meal.
Really, really annoying.I think Johnny Depp is the best actor working in Hollywood today,but he made a rather large mistake appearing in this misfire.I don't think i've ever seen the original movie but i remember reading the book and in it the Factory didn't come across like some big plastic,hollow fair ground.As for Depp well theres alot of energy there but its channeled in the wrong way, hes creepy when he should be quirky or making lame jokes when hes supposed to be warm and friendly.The movie spent too much time focused on him, and for me it took away alot of what was fun about the book.I'm probably the wrong target audience for this, kids will most likely love it and i'm not disappointed as such, i just want to forget i ever saw this headache inducing pile of nonsense.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory The key thing to remember when attempting to enjoy Tim Burton's adaptation of Roald Dahl's classic book is that this is not the 1971 Mel Stuart-helmed film. Comparing the films only makes you see what's missing, not what's actually there; however, comparison on an even playing field does separate Burton's film, allowing its differences either to succeed or fail on their own terms. The stories are different with Burton's film being less magical and more message-oriented. Burton's film focuses more on a complete Willy Wonka character arc, including showing his childhood and some of his past exploits. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory pushes its titular character aside and other than leaving behind poverty, Charlie doesn't do much or change in any non-superficial way. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory doesn't lose its focus on Charlie during its middle, but keeps Wonka on a slightly less humane, incomplete level (the approach to the material I prefer as it results in mystery). The visuals are never that awe-inspiring as they often needed to be. Some of the close-ups of the children reveal strange CGI work meant to generate a colorful creepiness, but which come off as odd for all the wrong reasons. It's hard not to notice how much better the child actors were in Stuart's film, but while a lot of that film's impossible-to-calculate magic doesn't strike again, all the acting in Burton's film is kooky enough to keep the spirit alive. Particularly, Jordan Fry as Mike Teavee and Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beauregarde are hilarious even when not saying anything. Johnny Depp's Wonka is a different character than Gene Wilder's Wonka. Depp's version is haunted by his past, a little nervous, clumsy, and speaks with an affected shot of lunacy. Helena Bonham Carter's Mrs. Bucket stands-out as with one simple facial expression she conveys heartbreaking sympathy. Freddie Highmore has a couple heartfelt close-ups, but, with such few lines, is otherwise useless. The Oompa Loompas don't leave a strong impression, although a few of their musical numbers definitely will get you tapping your toes enough to maintain interest. Danny Elfman's music is energetic and a high-point in the film. The film's structure reminds of one of my favorite films, Burton's own Edward Scissorhands. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's self-referential flashbacks don't elicit enough of an emotional response to provide the proper set-up to allow the film's ending to resonate. The tone of the flashbacks is pure Burton, but like the rest of the film, is often infused with humor that didn't always agree with me. While it didn't work that well, there is no inherent problem with the flashbacks unless you're not able to separate both adaptations. Other, non-childhood flashbacks are shown, too, such as Wonka's discovery of the Oompa Loompas. Scenes like that are indicative of the interest the entire film demands, but also shows the much more family-oriented (in more ways than one) approach Burton has taken with the film. The drama was completely ineffective and while the moral is a meaningful one, the film fails to make us feel anything. Still, there is a lot to be said of the details in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it's nice to have a different take on Dahl's material and I suspect the further away I get from this film, the more I'll anticipate a possible rating-increasing second viewing.
I am Sorry. Johnny Depp In CATCF = Michael Jackson. And he is overacting all teh Time. Terribele.
I'll admit it, I was kinda dragged into seeing this movie by a Johnny Depp obsessed friend. I've never seen the original nor do I ever intend to. Still, this was an enjoyable film. Willy Wonka seems like he's on drugs all the time thanks to some ancient family issues, and other than the characters of Charlie and his grandfather, the rest are just plain annyoing. And yet I can say I had fun. It's good for both kids and parents and at least it's not a draggy movie that seems to go on forever. In fact, when it ends you kinda want more, which to me is the simple secret to success.
Theater First Viewing, 10 Burton films seen - (5/10)Theater Second Viewing - (4/10) Charlie & the Chocolate Factory is a mixed bag. Just like Robert Rodriguez's Sin City, I enjoyed some parts but have serious problems with the rest. Both strive to be great, innovative films, but both fail due to huge social problems: Sin City with sexism and Charlie & the Chocolate Factory with racism and animal cruelty. In the film's opening minutes we are treated to some backstory of Wonka's character, which was a good idea considering the first film did nothing of the sort. In this scene, Wonka makes a chocolate palace for an Indian man. Wonka tells him to hurry up and eat it before it melts, but the Indian man declares that he aims to live in this chocolate palace. A few days later, the palace melts (and the scene looks identical to this year's remake of House of Wax). Obviously, there is nothing racist about an Indian man's chocolate palace melting, but guess where Tim Burton, John August, and company decided to have the first chocolate "dot" land!!! That's right, you guessed it! Right on the middle of his forehand. But this is only the beginning. Don't even get me started on the Oompa Loompas. The first film always weirded me out, because they were these orange creatures who worked for free in the Wonka factory. Slaves, anyone!? It's a good thing that this is not the problem in the new film. But it's a shame that the new problem is even worse. It is deep-rooted in American ideology - aka RACISM. Deep Roy is the actor who plays the Oompa Loompas. ALL OF THEM!!! Americans are stupid enough to reduce every other foreign culture to "looking the same." It was disgusting to see this problematic ideology played for laughs in a family film. What the hell are we trying to teach our kids? Well, at least the filmmakers saved money, right? Which brings me to my last rant - why is animal cruelty funny? There were a few examples of this as humor in the film which really disgusted me. Would whipped cream really be better if you WHIP THE COWS!? I mean, jeesh, is that EVEN funny to ANYONE!? Also, Wonka didn't want to talk about how he bred sheep with candy to be able to skin a sheep and get cotton candy. I guess that one was a little more creative and I had less of a problem with it, but my question still remains: WHY IS ANIMAL CRUELTY FUNNY!? I know a lot of ignorant people will read this post (but I also know you probably won't get this far). You'll just dismiss my comments and claim me a nutjob or something. Instead of doing that, please be smarter and just think about something critically for once. Are the Oompa Loompas and animal curelty jokes really intelligent family entertainment!? Or are they harmful to an American culture deep-rooted in racism and white privilege!? Think about it!
I am absolutely positive that many filmgoers will not be able to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as its own independent whole. While this isn't completely fair to Mr. Burton (who claims this is yet another "re-imagining" after his particularly unimaginative Planet of the Apes), I wouldn't say these fans of the classic are completely off the mark. Your opinion of this film really may just come down to how intruiged you are by the following questions: Why is Willy Wonka weird, and why does he dig chocolate so much? Where did those spoiled kids go in the end? What is the climate like in the Oompa-Loompa's land of origin? If your interest has absolutely piqued, then be sure for the questions to be answered, but don't expect to be riveted. Aside from Depp's performance, this film is aimed at an almost strictly single-digit age group, who will be amazed by the many aesthetically pleasing moments the film has to offer (although allusions to such 'archaic' landmarks as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Beatles will most likely fly right over their heads). Perhaps there should be a 40-inch sign outside of Wonka's factory, designed after the ones seen in front of roller-coaster rides, that states, "You must be this tall not to enter". Depp turns in a deliberately strange performance, and tries just a bit too hard to creep out childrens' unsuspecting parents (and movie studio executives). In an attempt to remain a morality tale, while overindulging in gorgeous visuals, the film becomes awfully hypocritical. Although the titular character is Charlie, the film has much more in common with the other sweet-toothed Golden Ticket holders. This film is no different than the avaricious brats who recieve their deserved comeupance -- it is simply shallow eye-candy. As the credits began to roll, I was just waiting for the Oompa-Loompas to begin singing the subsequent death song of this (unfortunately, only) occassionally droll film.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
"Not aiming at all to remake the unjustifiably “classic” 1971 Gene Wilder nightmare, Burton has gone beyond the call in adapting Roald Dahl’s (truly classic) satirical children’s book