Throughout Tim Burton's varied film career, I can only think of one movie of his that I truly disliked (that being the horrible remake of "Planet of the Apes").  I liked his "Batman" films (they weren't the best Batman movies, but they where good flicks), I think "Ed Wood" is his best, and I even enjoyed the underrated "Mars Attacks."  Now, with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," Burton has once again made a great and fairly memorable movie despite having the over-looming shadow of a 1971 family favorite to compare to.

First and foremost, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is not a remake of Mel Stuart's musical, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."  Nor is it a "re-imagining."  It is simply a movie based on Roald Dahl's novel.  And while things may be reminiscent of the '71 film, it still managed to feel surprsingly fresh and original.  Most of this, I believe, goes to Johnny Depp.

Gene Wilder pretty much made "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" the memorable classic that is it seen as.  Without Wilder, the movie would defiantly have lost much of its charm.  Luckily for a wary audience looking for something new, Depp does the smart thing in that his version of Wonka is nothing whatsoever like Wilder's.  And while there is still a bit of that creepy vibe, Depp's version is also much more childish, but also a bit more fun to be around for an hour and fourty-five minutes.

Another thing that this version has over "Willy Wonka" is that "Charlie" has much more memorable children in it.  Not to take away from the kids in the original, but this time around, both the kids and the parents now have a bit more to do.  Something that I think defiantly helps the film, especially during the factory scenes themselves.

What is surprising though, is that this not nearly as scary as I imagined it was going to be.  Instead, it's just plain bizzarre.  As a matter of fact, I would say that the '71 version (what with the tunnel scene and all) is much less suited for a younger audience then this update.  But, Burton lovers should be in Heaven during this one; this is full on Burton-mode.  He hasn't made a film this colorful since "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure."

Really, there are only a few negative parts.  The biggest problem is probably the ending, which feels a bit too overdrawn and long.  The only other problems are a few C.G.I. mishaps that look a bit hokey and unnescessary (like Viloet turning into the large blueberry).  There's also an ending scene involving the children emerging from the factory that seems a bit too un-realistic, even for this film (I realize that this movie has a magical overtone, but it goes from psuedo-reality to full-blown cartoon a bit too quickly).

When it comes down to it, I would say this one is on par with the original.  While the '71 version had slightly more memorable songs and a bit of a more mysterious Wonka character, this one has a better set of kids and some dandy eye-candy.  After "Fantastic Four," I'm glad to see that the rest of the Summer films are continuing to be very good.  Hopefully, "Four" was just a fluke in a Summer that so far has been loaded with must-see titles.  It's nice to see that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" continues this trend.

*** out of ****  

Funny, entertaining, and amazing to look at. I loved it, the only thing that I did not like was the blowing up of Violet it was too cartoony and so was (like AmericanSyCo said) was the children leaving the factory at the end.. The Oompa loompas and they're songs were well done and my favorite parts of the movie thanks to Danny Elfman's great music and Deep Roy's performance.
I'd give it 3 1/2 out of 4

I hate comparing remade big budget films filled with comptuer graphics to originals made 34 years ago. It was fun, but Tim Burton has a way of ruining his work and almost did here, specifically the endings.  At times he just tries too hard to give it a dramatic feel.  But whatever, Depp was good and the one oompa loompa did a fantastic job.

Yes, in case you didn't know, he was EVERY oompa you saw.

If Burton's BATMAN movies weren't the best... then what ones were? That's what i'd like to know.

I know you can't be talkin' about Forever and Batman & Robin... I surely no you can't be talkin' about the old Adam West and Burt Ward Batman movie... & I'd have to also hope you wouldn't be thinking BATMAN BEGINS, either... cause it wasn't very good either. It was actually pretty shitty, if not all out shitty.

As for Willy Wonka & The Chocolate factory... I thought it was decent, not Burtons best... BIG FISH is his best work this side of PEE WEES BIG ADVENTURE, that is.

Balt~

To me, Burton has four movies that are just sort of tied as his best: "Ed Wood," "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure," "Beetlejuice," and "Batman Returns."  I always thought that Tim Burton is one of those directors who, when he hits, just makes a masterpiece.  But, when he misses (which isn't that often at all), we get some mega crap like "Planet of the Apes."  And though I thoroughly enjoyed "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory," I saw it as his first film that was neither a masterpiece or a piece of crap.  It was just good, which is fine.

And, though I always get really strange looks when I say this, I have never seen "Big Fish," though I have owned it now on DVD for roughly a year.  Just haven't gotten around to it yet.  

As for best Batman film, I would actually say it's a toss up between "Returns" and "Begins," with Nolan's being just slightly better as I thought it dealt with the character alot better.  Burton was all about the villians, which is fine (I actually wish Burton would have made a proper Catwoman movie, as it didn't have to suck), but I like my Batman movies that center on the actual title character a bit more.

I disagree... and see here is why... The more I see Batman, the more I find out about him. The more he becomes typical and less impossing. The more on screen time Batman has just lowers the mystery of who or what he really is.

I think Tim Burtton did this fantastically well, if you ask me. I think Batman Begins showed us too much of a good thing. I think they almost forced us into watching Batman more than most actually wanted to.

It's like the more you see the killer in a movie "say Friday the 13th" In part 2 and 3 he was kinda scary and maybe even in 4... but after that he became common place. He wasn't scary no more. He wasn't impossing no more. We all knew what to expect from the guy and we sat and watched in mundane fashion as he did what we expected him to do...

You know why?

Cause we seen him and his routine too many times before.

I stand firm on this one... The less, the better.

Balt has a solid argument here. That's a big reason (IMHO) that Nightmare on Elm Street took the turn it did. The first movie had the mytery of "what the hell is going on here?" but after that, we know. Two made a good effort to mix this up but wsa so poorly written that its good idea just turned to muck. The Nightmare series went from horror to action/comedy because we know about the killer and the thrill is gone.