This was a film that I had high hopes for when it came out. I loved the 1971 movie and of course, Gene Wilder's performance as Wonka is one for the ages. Nonetheless it does deviate from the book quite a bit so I was very interested to see if Tim Burton would present a more faithful adaptation. All the magazines seemed to say so. I saw the film about a month after it came out and I must say -- -- I was quite underwhelmed.
There are good things about the film. The visuals are excellent, Burton does a terrific job modernizing the story to fit the plot (or is it the other way around?) and the supporting cast are pretty good. The other kids are as bratty as can be remembered and I liked that they actually went ahead with the nut checking squirrels (talk about your double entendre -- hehe).
However this film has two very big problems that hurt it in my opinion.
1. Johnny Depp's performance as Wonka. Boy, talk about a let down. I don't know whose idea it was to portray Wonka as some sort of Michael Jackson figure but it was a big mistake. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was charming, devious, clearly intelligent and most importantly, had a nicely defined dark edge to him, Depp's Wonka was just plain annoying. Depp is incredibly awkward, silly and shows no sign of the intelligence, creativity or control that makes him the genius as he's supposed to be in the story. In fact if you were to have never read the book or seen the first movie, there is no way anyone can believe that this wincing wreck who has Vietnam like flashbacks could be the greatest candy creator of all time.
Honestly, Depp should have just brought along Captain Jack Sparrow to portray Wonka. Sparrow actually is far closer to Wonka than what his portrayal of Wonka ended up being.
2. Wonka's back story. Honestly this was just completely unnecessary. Why did Tim Burton decide that this was a good idea? Does the audience really need to know that Wonka was the son of a dentist (played in paycheck receiving fashion by Christopher Lee) who hated candy and was abandoned by him? Do we even care? I mean honestly, how arrogant does one have to be to decide that a 200 page Roald Dahl story is not enough to adapt and instead puts in a back story that adds nothing but time to the movie and ends up being more of a detraction? Not only that, it makes it an abrupt shift since we're supposed to be focused on Charlie and suddenly, we have Willy Wonka's childhood!? Oy.
Overall, a moderately satisfying film that unfortunately falls short of the potential it could have achieved. That's also why I say the 1971 version is the superior one. At least their changes to the story didn't involve frequent, time-consuming flashbacks.
There are good things about the film. The visuals are excellent, Burton does a terrific job modernizing the story to fit the plot (or is it the other way around?) and the supporting cast are pretty good. The other kids are as bratty as can be remembered and I liked that they actually went ahead with the nut checking squirrels (talk about your double entendre -- hehe).
However this film has two very big problems that hurt it in my opinion.
1. Johnny Depp's performance as Wonka. Boy, talk about a let down. I don't know whose idea it was to portray Wonka as some sort of Michael Jackson figure but it was a big mistake. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was charming, devious, clearly intelligent and most importantly, had a nicely defined dark edge to him, Depp's Wonka was just plain annoying. Depp is incredibly awkward, silly and shows no sign of the intelligence, creativity or control that makes him the genius as he's supposed to be in the story. In fact if you were to have never read the book or seen the first movie, there is no way anyone can believe that this wincing wreck who has Vietnam like flashbacks could be the greatest candy creator of all time.
Honestly, Depp should have just brought along Captain Jack Sparrow to portray Wonka. Sparrow actually is far closer to Wonka than what his portrayal of Wonka ended up being.
2. Wonka's back story. Honestly this was just completely unnecessary. Why did Tim Burton decide that this was a good idea? Does the audience really need to know that Wonka was the son of a dentist (played in paycheck receiving fashion by Christopher Lee) who hated candy and was abandoned by him? Do we even care? I mean honestly, how arrogant does one have to be to decide that a 200 page Roald Dahl story is not enough to adapt and instead puts in a back story that adds nothing but time to the movie and ends up being more of a detraction? Not only that, it makes it an abrupt shift since we're supposed to be focused on Charlie and suddenly, we have Willy Wonka's childhood!? Oy.
Overall, a moderately satisfying film that unfortunately falls short of the potential it could have achieved. That's also why I say the 1971 version is the superior one. At least their changes to the story didn't involve frequent, time-consuming flashbacks.