# How could Johnny Depp fail so miserably. . .Charlie and the Chocolate Factory woes.



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2005)

I went to see 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" today with my lil'sister. I went in very hopeful. I had noticed right away that the title was not "Willy Wonk and the Chocolate Factory" (the title of the very well done but unimitatable Gene Wilder film) but "CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory" (the title of the book itself.). I was full of hope that this version, rather than copying the uncopyable film, would make a fresh go at one of the freshest, funniest, open-hearted books of the last century. Roald Dahl was a genius, and "Charlie" is his master work. The Gene Wilder film was good (I believe Dahl himself was in on the screen play), but there were some things that could have been fixed. I never got that whole "gobstopper/Slugsworth" addition. I like having squirrels as the hands of God, rather than the more passive and stupid geese who just sit there while Veruka Salt basically throws herself down the garbage shoot. 

So, I was hopeful. I was worried too. The original movie scared me to death when I was a child, and I wasn't sure how Kelly would take kids getting sucked up pipes and getting filled with juice. She is a braver child than I, however, and I don't think she'll have any nightmares from this one.

Tim Burton is an interesting director. I seem to be one of the few ones who like his Batman renditions (my comic book friends curse him for putting Micheal Keeton in the part among other things). He is a bit dark for children's movies, but I think Dahl is a darker author. Kids die in his work. 

Initially I was thrilled with the movie. They did a lot right! The begining was so much what I had always imagined Dahl would have had it. The story of the Indian prince, left out of the first movie, was excellently portrayed. The mood was perfect. The Bucket family's poverty, which came across as sappy and altogether too real in the first edition, was more in key with the original text, being more humorous, as if they don't know how strange they are, as if they don't know that they are living in a house that slants at an acute angle. Etc, etc, etc.

The children, who came on one by one, were perfectly cast, the finding of the tickets was beautifully done. I really enjoyed the scene in the candy store "He has a golden ticket!" It was gorgous!

Then something went wrong, and that something was Johnny Depp. I couldn't believe it, but the person that they were probably depending on to sale the film, the Oscar winner, the man who played the perfect pirate, I just wanted to knock him off the screen he was so pitiful and so annoying. He was not funny, simply weird. 

Truthfully, I wasn't crazy about Gene Wilder in the part either, so maybe I just have an unusual idea of what Willy Wonka is, but why can't he be a short, slight, jumpy guy in a beard. Why does he have to be a spacy, philosophical weirdo or a limp wristed (which is how Depp comes across), not all there, slightly traumatized weirdo.

The whole "dentist father" back story was interesting, but what was wrong with him simply doing it because he loved candy. Christopher Lee was wonderful in the part, but the part simply didn't belong in that movie. Neither did the whole "family" conflict at the end. It was out of place. It over complicated the character. 

It was simply WRONG. 

Why couldn't they have done it right? The rest of the elements were so wondeful. They DID put the squirrels back where they belonged. They DID restore the original songs (I wasn't crazy about the musical style because it was too hard to hear the words), taking away the ridiculous but all too catchy "Oompa Oompa" whatever. They did get the snowy streets, the chocolate castle, the mountain of fudge, the great glass elevator, the beauty and strangeness. . .but why, oh why, did Johnny Depp fail so miserably at a part that could have been done so well? UGH!

Ok, I'm done now. I'll just go and wait patiently for Steve Martin to screw up on the Pink Panther (no one can be Peter Sellars! NO ONE!).


----------



## Hammersmith (Jul 18, 2005)

Well, I've not seen the film yet, but I always pictured Wonka as a bizarre and strange character, more sinister than funny, just like most of Dahl's brilliant characters. I've loved Depp in almost everything he's been in, and that review's making me wish I could go see the film. It sounds excellent. I wonder how many more sentences I could spend saying the same thing repeatedly? Maybe one more. And a fragment.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 18, 2005)

Have yet to see the new one. Liked the original. Trying to think if it's worth the price of a ticket... Is it? I was told it might be best to rent the movie when it comes out, but I would like to have a reason to go out for a while with some friends or family. 

So Elgee, you have seen it, should I? 

Chocoholicks unite!!!!! hehe


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Well, I've not seen the film yet, but I always pictured Wonka as a bizarre and strange character, more sinister than funny, just like most of Dahl's brilliant characters. I've loved Depp in almost everything he's been in, and that review's making me wish I could go see the film. It sounds excellent. I wonder how many more sentences I could spend saying the same thing repeatedly? Maybe one more. And a fragment.


 
Unfortunately he is sinister in a Michael Jackson sort of way rather than a good, old fashioned Dahl sort of way.

Though I never saw Wonka as sinister. He is the sort of person who could find the funny side of death and torture, too, and all the while you were being boiled alive think only of the candy, but comparatively he is a heartlessly decent fellow.

Anyway, my personal take on this one is "wait for the video/dvd and then rent." Movie tickets are expensive. But if you want to see for yourself, I'm always in favor of that. Then we can both moan about it together!


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 18, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> But if you want to see for yourself, I'm always in favor of that. Then we can both moan about it together!



 One must ask... Is that an invitation?  Or are you saying I should see it on my own so we can have more to talk about?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2005)

You can see it on your own because I could not stand watching Johnny Depp in that movie more than I have to. . .I'll take you all to any other movie, but I am NEVER seeing that again. . .I'll take you to see the Pink Panther, though. That's my next stop in moviedom.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 18, 2005)

Fine! You're on!


----------



## Wraithguard (Jul 18, 2005)

I voted for Elgee's cats because A) I'm afraid of chocolate (long story don't ask) and B)They are all 3 fine for me (book, movie, and movie)


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: How could Johnny Depp fail so miserably. . .Charlie and the Chocolate Factory woe*

I haven't seen CatCF, but...



HLGStrider said:


> Ok, I'm done now. I'll just go and wait patiently for Steve Martin to screw up on the Pink Panther (no one can be Peter Sellars! NO ONE!).


 ...I can only agree.


----------



## Corvis (Aug 3, 2005)

This movie was compleltley awful! I saw it and hated it, and Johnny Depp as Williy Wonka. I never knew Tim Burton could destroy such a beloved story and already made movie. I mean the 1970's version, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" is increidble and is loved by children and adults all around the world. However, "Charlie and the Chocolate" with it's bad acting, scenery, and writing, makes Roald Dahl's book look absolutely dreadful. Gene Wilder was perfect as Willy Wonka and Johnny Depp was horrible.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 3, 2005)

Haven't seen it. Have no intention of seeing it. Therefore, I voted for Elgee's cats.

PS Steve Martin can be funny, but he is no Peter Sellers. I don't have very high hopes.


----------



## Tar-Elendil13 (Aug 3, 2005)

I loved Johnny Depp! He was so much better than Gene Wilder. I think he perfectly portrayed the eccentricities and impoliteness of the "man who has everything" type role. The Oompa Loompa singing was much better too. That last one was so annoying.

TE13


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 4, 2005)

Now the oompa music I found totally annoying in BOTH the first and second movie. I like the style of the first movie's music. It just makes more sense and you can understand what they are saying. 
I like the words to the second set of music because they are the original from the book and they are a lot funner. 
But the music from the second! UK! You had to know what they were saying to understand what they were saying. If I hadn't have read the books I wouldn't have understand.

Depp was very annoying to me. Wilder was too "nice" in the part, too normal. Depp was just freaky and he really grew old after the first fifteen minutes.


----------



## Rosalee LuAnn (Aug 16, 2005)

I have not yet seen it, but my whole family went to see it when I was at a friends birthday party. When I asked about it, my mom said, (basically) "It was great, except for Johnny Depp! His character was so awful! I so dislike how he portrayed Willy Wonka!" (my mom being one of those people that won't say the word 'hate')

After that, my desire to see it has gone from 'mildly interested' to 'absolutely no desire at all'.

But should I?


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 16, 2005)

If someone offers a free ticket to you, keep in mind theaters are usually air-conditioned and it has been a hot summer . . .


----------

