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. ***