Johnny Depp Movie:

		List Price: $29.98		Label: Warner Bros. Pictures Salesrank: 16250 Released: December 20, 2005
		Our Price: $6.43
		Used Price: $7.12
		MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) Media: UMD for PSP

Editorial Review:
Mixed reviews and creepy comparisons to Michael Jackson notwithstanding, Tim Burton's splendidly imaginative adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory would almost surely meet with Roald Dahl's approval. The celebrated author of darkly offbeat children's books vehemently disapproved of 1971's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (hence the change in title), so it's only fitting that Burton and his frequent star/collaborator, Johnny Depp, should have another go, infusing the enigmatic candyman's tale with their own unique brand of imaginative oddity. Depp's pale, androgynous Wonka led some to suspect a partial riff on that most controversial of eternal children, Michael Jackson, but Burton's film is too expansively magnificent to be so narrowly defined. While preserving Dahl's morality tale on the hazards of indulgent excess, Burton's riotous explosion of color provides a wondrous setting for the lessons learned by Charlie Bucket (played by Freddie Highmore, Depp's delightful costar in Finding Neverland), as he and other, less admirable children enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime tour of Wonka's confectionary wonderland. Elaborate visual effects make this an eye-candy overdose (including digitally multiplied Oompa-Loompas, all played by diminutive actor Deep Roy), and the film's underlying weirdness is exaggerated by Depp's admirably risky but ultimately off-putting performance. Of course, none of this stops Burton's Charlie from being the must-own family DVD of 2005's holiday season, perhaps even for those who staunchly defend Gene Wilder's portrayal of Wonka from 34 years earlier. --Jeff Shannon

DVD features
The second disc is filled with a number of distinctive featurettes. The likely crowd-pleaser in most households is "Attack of the Squirrels," which recounts how those fuzzy little creatures (a combination of hard-to-train live animals, animatronics, and computer graphics) can be ornery in their own right. "The Fantastic Mr. Dahl" is a 17-minute look at author Roald Dahl through vintage footage and new interviews with family, friends, and colleagues. "Becoming Oompa-Loompa" follows Deep Roy as he is filmed over and over again through his dance steps and music performances.

Roy is a constant throughout the kids' activities as well. You can follow him to learn two different dance steps "Augustus Gloop" and "Violet Beauregarde," and make him taste weird candy inventions in a simple game. "Search for the Golden Ticket" is a five-part challenge that tests your remote-control fingers, your deductive abilities, or your luck. Finally, if you just want basic behind-the-scenes information, "Making the Mix" is a collection of featurettes (around 40 minutes total) covering the film's casting, music, production design, and special effects. --David Horiuchi

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [UMD for PSP] Reviews:
Let's Just Hope He Does A better Job With Alice
2009-11-30 - First off, I love Tim Burton. Quentin Tarantino is cemented as my favorite director, but if I had to choose other favorites, Tim Burton is easily one of my other favorite directors. Granted, he's not a genius as much as some of his saviors would like you to believe (you know the kind), and I don't rate all of his movies five stars or even four stars (Pee-Wee's Playhouse and The Nightmare Before Christmas are prime examples). However, I think he's more than just some goth symbol. He makes great movies that really have great visual styles, and for the most part, he's an inspired director and someone I can always count on for making something good.

Except when he tries to redo other movies. Granted, he's only had only one other re-make, but Planet of The Apes stunk up something fierce, and this one isn't much better. I actually don't like the Willy Wonka movie that much either (I actually like the book more), but it's not a bad movie for good reasons, and there are parts in the movie that seem very heartwarming (god I hate that word). If felt engaging many times, and while it's also kind of dated, it still retains some form of engagment and emotion. This movie, on the other hand, left me feeling cold throughout, with nothing to grab onto, with no character development. Visual style can only take you so far, and while I liked some of it, it didn't do enough to save the film from becoming a total mess.

This isn't a terrible movie by any stretch, but there's just not anything to grab onto. Tim Burton is usually known for his quirkness and strangeness (boy, how dumb does that sound), but I always thought he did so in a way that was always engaging, really making the world, characters, or situations come to life in some way. In this one, the weirdness is there because he wants to be weird. It does nothing to bring the world to life, just makes the world seem like a place that reminds you of a retirement home. I actually have felt more emotions at a retirement home than this movie, I'm not even joking. Plus, unlike the book which still had the heart but some of the deranged fun, this one doesn't have much with the sterile characters, and the two main people: Charlie and Wonka, being incredibly annoying on both counts.

Ah, the annoying characters. An example of this one would be the main character himself, Willy Wonka (?). This Willy Wonka is just plain annoying and totally unengaging. He has no real motivation in his actions, makes the stupidest and lame jokes, and just seems like the kind of person that tries to be all weird but in any case comes off looking like a person starved for attention. The lame subplot about his father was also worthless, a backstory that made me feel absolutely nothing and did nothing to make me like this character at all. Besides, when you don't give two _________ about the character now, why did you think I would care now? He's annoying, he's weird because he can't offer anything else, and comparing the two characters makes you realize how much more soulless this Wonka is (The Nostalgia Critic did some cool comparisons, although I have no idea where the heck James Bond villian came from).

I also liked the way the Nostalgia Critic pointed out how the Charlie character in this one is underdeveloped and annoyingly perfect. This is a boyscout indeed, a kid that is so perfect and unrealistic that you just want to deck whoever put together this moron kid together. As he said, the Charlie in the Wonka version (his name is in the title of the BOOK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!) is kind, but is more like a kid. He can get greedy, he is tempted at times, but really comes out at the end after conflict (at the end). He's more like a real kid. He's crucial to the story, which makes it all the better since he's engaging while the focus of this movie does not involve a character that's in any way interseting. See above for that reason.

However, there are some improvements, although most are on the visual front. The whole chocolate River is much improved, the original version did very much look like liquid _________. The river in here was extremely gloppy and looked very much like chocolate. I also thought the gobstopper was improved, I mean, what were the original gobstoppers supposed to me modeled after. The factory is kind of interesting to see at times, but not entirely all the time. It's kind of a person thing, but I think it overall looks pretty cool for the most part, and Tim Burton knows his stuff (too bad it didn't save the movie).

There are some plot points cleared up, and the character updates shows they weren't entirely lazy (Gloop is pretty much the same). The updates of Mike, and ESPECIALLY Violet, are very welcome. I also like seeing the kids come out after their survival through the factory. However, Veruca Salt was not improved at all, as the one in the earlier version was so __________ spoiled and bratty that you wanted to beat for being such a bratty son of a __________. And the opening parts weren't that bad either, although nothing special considering the characters weren't that interesting, so setting up uninteresting characters doesn't really make the movie better. It would only count if the characters were actually interesting. And when they do, there's not much screen time anyway.

Oh, and one other thing. The MUSICALS NUMBERS $U(% @$$!!!!!!! The whole different songs played during each kid's demise are totally annoying. Why Elfman why? Oh. _______ the Willy Wonka song. Eh, at least it's better than A Whole New World.

Sorry Burton, I love ya, but I'm not a patsy. It's worth a shot if your a Burton fan, but if you are going into the movie expecting to see something akin to the original, you're in for a rude awakening. I'm actually glad I saw this movie for some Tim Burton greatness scattered about, but there wasn't that much. It's kind of too bad. Oh well. I'm glad Ed Wood was released on DVD in special edition.

D+

Where' are the BLACK PEOPLE????
2009-09-23 - 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!

Another thumbs down
2009-09-17 - 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).

Much More Faithful and Brilliant Than the Original
2009-09-09 - 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?

Review by a Fan of the Book
2009-08-08 - 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.