# The Sinister Movie Review: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Tim Burton's film making gets increasingly worse with each feature he pushes on the general movie viewing public. Yeah, I said it, it had to be said. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if he never decided to never sit in the directors chair again. The sad thing about all this is I really wanted to see *Charlie and the Chocolate Factory* quite badly. I was ready to forgive Burton some of his past transgressions just for a chance to see what the great Johnny Depp could do with the character of Willy Wonka. After viewing this I have come to a couple of conclusions: One, Tim Burton only knows enough about film making magic to squeak by and the man has a lot of deep-rooted psychosis that some Psychiatrist would make a bundle if they could get him in their office.

There is SOME good in this film. The children act their parts as perfect as the ones who came before them in the original, especially the kids playing Violet Beauregard, Veruca Salt and Mike Teevee. The story begins calmly and collected enough with Charlie and his family in one of the most unusual domiciles in this or any other movie. Once the golden tickets are all found and the kids make it to the Chocolate Factory, the story goes steadily downhill. It is apparent from the get go that Wonka doesn't like his "guests" and as the kids start falling by the wayside, the Oompah-Loompah's start singing easily some of the most annoying songs ever made that include the childrens names. Mike Teevee and Charlie question how could these useless midgets know what was going to happen to which particular kid in advance and Wonka replies to each thing that Teevee says with a "I can't understand you when you mumble, little boy," when it is all too apparent that the kids aren't as dumb as he thinks they are it is the other way around. There is an underlying hint of meaness to Wonka's individual dispatch of the children when he turns their desires and immaturity against them. Willy Wonka isn't a very likeable character in this like Gene Wilder was in the original, and there were many times I longed for Mr. Wilders presence in this film.

The CGI in this film was a disgrace for someone like Burton who has enough money to make it something special, but doesn't. Nothing illustrates this better than Violet's "Blueberry Transformation." If that scene doesn't leave you rolling your eyes and shaking your head in disbelief, then nothing will. I haven't wanted a movie to end this bad when I was watching it in sometime. This is bad especially when there's a Depp performance involved. Oh well, *Pirates of the Carribean II* is sure to be much better; it has to be in order to erase this black mark in J.D.'s stellar career.

I can't recommend this at all. It's good parts all deal with the times that the kids are on screen and this is saying something, since most of the time children in movies are unrealistically portrayed and tend to be a nuisance after a period of time rather than being cute and precious.

Tim Burton deserves the most panning here, lets just hope that these tykes film careers aren't irreparably damaged for their involvment with him and this mostly steaming crap fest.

Rating: 2 stars (A VERY generous rating here) out of a possible 5.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, let's look at the last time Burton put out a stinker... it was Planet of the Apes. Another remake. Burton should just leave remakes alone. Hell, Hollywood should just stop making remakes.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I still want to see it.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

As do I. Those who know me may wonder why such a big Dahl fan hasn't already rushed out to the cinema to see this. I was actually planning on seeing it in a couple of weeks with Uncle Forry. You see, he's a busy man what with ComicCon and all, and he had told me that Mr Burton is his favorite current director (as he is mine).

I must disagree with my esteemed colleage, Sinister: Tim Burton has made one bad film: "Mars Attacks", two fair ones: "Beetlejuice", and "Batman Returns", and the rest have been great! The best film of 2003 was "Big Fish", "Frankenweenie" was a fine little piece of celluloid, "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" a whole lot of fun, "Planet of the Apes" a good re-imagining, "Edward Scissorhands" one incredible work of film, "Batman" was terrific, "Sleepy Hollow" one of my favorite films ever, and the brilliant "Ed Wood" maybe my favorite film of the nineties! Spielberg only wishes he were as good a director ("Jaws" notwithstanding).

Oh, and Johnny Depp is our most talented actor working today.

That being said, I won't say Sinister is wrong in his criticism of the movie - after all, I haven't seen it yet - but time will tell. I hope you're wrong, old friend - I have been looking forward to this (and "Corpse Bride").


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

Burton's Planet of the Apes remake was a joke. Mars Attacks _was_ horrible, I personally don't think mass murder is ever funny regardless of what elements are intended to make it less serious. I didn't get Ed Wood, but I saw it, and I kind of liked the fact that it wasn't exactly upbeat (actually it was quite depressing) but I would have liked it better if it was instead a lot funnier and upbeat, I mean this is Johnny Depp playing the wackiest character in his whole career here! I do have one real nitpick about Sleepy Hollow... look at how many times they showed a decapitation like every one of them in the film was supposed to be cool or scary. They're all done the same way. But both Beetlejuice and Batman Returns were better than fair. Quite better. And this film looks very exciting. As long as the energy keeps up and it doesN'T over sugarcoat the subtlety of the darker elements of the story. Though I really don't think it should be made with the intention of being different from the first movie, to instead be closer to the book. That's just like saying the first film was bad or wrong somehow. I'm judging all films not based on the books or the fact that they're adaptations.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Well, the first film wasn't bad, in fact, I liked it a lot - but it wasn't very like the book. It's no secret that author Dahl (my second favorite writer), had an intense dislike for the first film so much so that he resisted a remake. His estate changed its mind when they learned Tim Burton would helm it.

I like Gene Wilder, and I liked his performance, but in some ways he comes across as a clown who is not entirely in full charge of his faculties and displays a disturbingly nonchalant indifference as punishments are dished out, as the book suggests. However, due to his failing to play the part as sinister, it conversely serves to make the menacing element seem even more so. Sinister's complaints that the character may be a bit too mean are perhaps unfounded, because in the book Wonka was actually much darker and more bizarre than Wilder portrayed him.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

How many pages long is this book, the original book?


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

155 pages, just about the perfect length to adapt into a screenplay.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Burton has made exactly three films that even are in the realm of great: *Batman, Sleepy Hollow, Beetlejuice* in that order. Some of the others are decent: *Ed Wood, Pee Wee's Big Adventure.* The rest leave a lot to be desired. Everyone has their opinions about what they think is great or crap and I respect that. I'm not going to go off on anyone because their opinions differ from my own. Who knows? Maybe I'm totally in the wrong about my own opinions, but as I stated before, it's not the fans I have a problem with, it's the auteurs of our society that spend i.e. waste, millions of dollars to produce dreck and overpay certain individuals to do it. In this respect, Burton has been given more leeway to do that very thing than some of his fellow directors, producers and financiers have.

*Charlie and the Chocolate Factory* illustrates this point quite admirably. Dahl's estate most likely agreed to this remake because they stood to collect some serious green from its making. The estate was well aware I'm sure, that Burton's name being associated with the project would bring in some big box office bucks. When it's all said and done, it's all about the Benjamins as opposed to whether or not a film is a work of art.

Depp is one of my favorite actors, but he seemed to simply just be there as to give the film some clout. He played the role of Willy Wonka as indifferent as any other part I've seen in quite some time. Depp could have slept the complete two hours and the result would have been the same. The people going to see it didn't really care what the movie was about (I guarantee you the results would have been quite different if they put someone like that idiot Carrot-Top in the role of Wonka) as long as Depp was shown in some way. The name Johnny Depp puts asses in theater seats.

I still stand by my convictions that Burton should give up directing and seek psychiatric help. His next movie is about necrophilia; sugar coat it anyway you like, but a living, breathing man marrying a corpse no matter how animate said dead body may be bespeaks of some weird goings-on under the Tim Burton roof (Maybe I'm the one that needs the help. That sounds exactly like my first marriage.  ) Couple that with all the weird subject matter of his films that involve kids and his connections with two actors recently busted with cache's of kiddie-porn in their possession makes one wonder since Burton himself is hardly a picture of perfect mental health and is hooked up with another bizarre individual like Helena Bonham-Carter.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

These are all coincidences. Why do you think there's something behind them? And exactly what is your new personal stake against Burton's films, you say it's now about the money... what film started you on this tangent?


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Jesus Christ! If you'll notice, there's a smilie in my post this one to be exact:  

This usually means that the person posting the goddamn thing is just posting out of his ass, joking around, making conversation, whatever. I don't get bent out of shape about about what people do in their personal or professional lives, if I truly did, I wouldn't ever leave the house because I would probably lose it if I saw someone or something do just the least little thing out of sorts. Like a comedian, I bring up points that make you go "Hmmm...never thought about it that way, but there COULD be something to it..."

I think that you just have a problem with me in general. Everytime I post something, you are riding my ass about it like I personally insulted your family or I'm having to explain every little detail about what I did post because it will be on a test later. At any rate, I'm through with trying to justify anything I post on this board to you and will not be drawn into some type of war of words. With that, I will leave this subject alone before I post something that will get me banned off here. I like and respect a lot of people on this forum to let that happen.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I should think nothing of what's in that post, but it's just not who I am. Is it really that much to ask you to think a little more sometimes? If I'm making you think a little more, I apologize. Some people just say whatever they think and 1) expect no one has anything to say to the contrary, and 2) expect a person to agree with it or else they can't also be whatever cool thing you think you are. Like smart or whatever. You might not be like that, but you certainly are acting like you are. I mean no disrespect, but grow up a little. Okay?

I don't have to say things aren't war of words here. I don't have to say anything. Sometimes a smiley isn't enough to explain what you're hinting at. I'll give you a smiley too:  Does this smiley say I have a problem with you? Really, now...


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Okay, if this is to go further it's going to be in the realm of private messaging. Any further public posts of this nature will result in corrective action.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I actually have a valid concern about what's said about Tim Burton. Not a personal stake in his life, I personally think he sure could have been a little more courteous to Sean Young. As soon as she was injured, it seemed like she was considered-out for good. The sequel rolls around and everyone's all "don't call us, we'll call you." People who react to the stunt with shock are those kind of people you just don't want in your life. So really, if I had a beef with Burton, it would reside there. I don't even care that Mars Attacks was bad, I don't feel obligated to tell the world beware, it will be the worst way to have spent your money that particular year. I mean, Practical Magic was worse. So, take a chance with Burton and even Mars Attacks. See, you stray from Burton and you're sorry for it. Anyway, point being also that I don't feel strongly about saying don't watch Mars Attacks. If I had to waste a breath panning a movie from the mid-90s, it would be Practical Magic first and not one of Burton's films.

Other than Batman Returns, I don't feel a need to defend his body of work. It speaks for itself, more than any other filmmaker I can think of. I do think that when it comes to Burton as a person, he's had some unlucky breaks regarding rumors and heresay. It's the kind of place you think about going after you hear about the Pee Wee Herman or Sean Young debacles, but the association of nutsoid is unfair. The alleged connection with sex offenders is just criminally unfair. Aside from the fact that this brings up questions of Jones's sexual orientation and whether or not Paul Ruebens will ever work again (really sad considering his lifelong dream was to be a Saturday Night Live 'prime time player'), and it being really disturbing that now people feel guilty for liking their work after they're not looked at favorably in the public eye, Tim Burton hasn't given us one reason to look at him differently or strangely.


----------



## SuFiKitten77 (Jul 19, 2005)

Zombie-F said:


> Well, let's look at the last time Burton put out a stinker... it was Planet of the Apes. Another remake. Burton should just leave remakes alone. Hell, Hollywood should just stop making remakes.


I would have to agree with you on hollywood putting out so many remakes. It has gotten out of hand, I personally am also wondering if they need to make anymore video games into movies? Some aren't to bad .. but seems Hollywood is running dry on ideas and are grasping for straws with many of there ventures. As for Charlie and the Chocolate factory, I will still see it .. I will just wait until it is out on video. I havent heard to many good things about it yet ... so we will see.​


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

SuFiKitten77 said:


> I personally am also wondering if they need to make anymore video games into movies?​


I know, Mortal Kombat is entertaining if you see it once. But the trend needs to be obliterated. Sooner the better.


----------

