Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Why dangerous? because if we call this a movie, what must we call other movies?

Compared to the 1971 Gene Wilder version, this one beats it on visuals. And on music, if you like dance/pop music as the oompa loompa songs. The plot is also more true to the original source than the 1971 version. However, this one is inferior to Gene Wilders in every other way.The films biggest weaknesses is WIlly Wonka. Something about Johnny Depps performance is off from start to finish. He tries to behave in a weird, eccentric way, but unlike Gene Wilder he fails to add any charm to the character. He comes across as a rude and socially inept character. His whole performance seems forced, an amazing contrast to how natural Depp is playing Jack Sparrow. Someone else should have been cast as Willy Wonka.Charlie is also a problem here, he's a perfect saint like character, a Gary Stu. The charlie in the 1971 version was a good kid but he wasn't perfect. That makes him easier to relate to than the charlie in this version, who would never break any rules and altruistically puts everyone else before himself. Too goody two shoes, ugh. Veruca salts actor also comes across as forced. She's a spoilt brat but she never shouts or loses her temper, in contrast to the 1971 Veruca. This one just says everything in the same, monosyllabic tone. The other golden ticket winners come across more naturally as bad kids, as they should do. This film has some positive aspects, it looks impressive, the chocolate room in particular looks gorgeous, the ever lasting gobstoppers actually look like gobstoppers and it uses squirrels instead of geese. Violet turning into a blueberry is pretty hilarious. Unfortunately the film doesn't have enough hilarious moments. It plays very much as a "box ticking" film, it follows the source material competently but doesn't have much pure imagination of it's own. As someone who grew up reading Dahls books, i expected a bit more.

It's taken me 13 years to properly sit down & watch this remake. Having not really been a fan of Johnny Depp over the years, I have to say that this film really doesn't suit him. I don't think he was right for the role at all. But then again, who else would be perfect other than the original Gene Wilder. I've given this one a chance now & finally watched it (right now in 2018) & I just can't get over how bizarre Depp plays the role: creepy, wooden, sarcastically annoying to the children in the film. His laugh is horrendous & his head-bopping to the Oompa Loompas songs & dances. It's like he's at a concert & he's enjoying it more than the children. The child actors - I don't recognise one single one & can't say I've seen any of them in anything else. Since this movie was made in 2005 I don't think this film has given them any recognition since we're now in 2018 & you never see or hear of any of them. Whereas the 1971 classic is still there in people's hearts (including mine). The original movie with Gene Wilder still holds conventions around the world where the original actors (Peter Ostrum, Julie Dawn Cole) attend for photo signings but I have to say; just what recognition can one give this 2005 remake. The children in this film also show no excitement - no emotion - no laughs or thrills considering they're in a chocolate factory. There's just no engagement & I have to agree with one of the other reviewers on here; watch for the scene when they're in the river boat tearing down at fast speed: the children make no noise of excitement, no screams, no joys. Nothing. I think the most impressive part of the movie is with the squirrels. I'll give this one credit cause it actually quite impressed me the effects of it. & I think it's trying to show you that squirrels can be quite scary (imagine approaching one yourself & it pouncing on you for attack!)Can't say I think much of the Oompa Loompas. Never really thought much of Deep Roy (who plays the duplicated Oompa Loompas). I met him once at a convention here in the UK & the guy looked miserable as sin, he looked like he didn't want to be there. Most probably because there was nobody at his table wanting an autograph. I tried to say hello but he just barely said one word back. I'm not gonna say I dislike this movie nor did I enjoy it. I've just got no feeling to want to watch it again. But the original 1971 is always a classic and when it comes to a good egg, I'll be cracking open the dvd to the original anytime!

Charlie nails both the themes and spirit of the original story in a way that the previous version simply didn't manage. The book is, at its heart, a warning about materialistic excess and greed, using the Western world's slavering desire to consume chocolate as a cautionary tale of how modern society makes us lose sight of the most important things in life.Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a very respectable film that does have its issues such as the lack of a darker tone and a mostly very annoying soundtrack, but the characterization and storytelling are both excellent here, the flashback structure is well handled, the humor is great and the visual effects are expectedly terrific. May be someone like it, while other one don't. Hope you can enjoy this movie. ---Yidioo