Not a remake - stands on it's own

Rating: 9/10 (18 July 2005)

As a young boy growing up in the 1980's I got to see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (WWATF). Of course I fell immediately in love with the movie. I can remember begging my parents to rent it from the video store so I could watch it again and again. Then imagine my surprise that I learned there was a book out by the same name! I checked the book out of our local library and was amazed at how different the stories were. I was about 12 when I read the book, and loved every minute of the book. I then checked out the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. I was even more amazed at how bizarre that book was. I learned to appreciate the two separate entities (the book and the movie) as works that stood on their own. It never entered my mind to think of one as being dependant on the other.
Last year when I saw the trailers for Charlie and The Chocolate Factory (CATCF) I was shocked at the outcry from the public. The ruining of Gene Wilder's performance seemed to be the motivating force for these comments. I could not understand, and still don't understand why people see this movie as a remake of the previous movie. It isn't a remake of the 1971 WWATCF - it's a remake of the BOOK. That being said, I am not going to compare this version to the book, I'm going to compare it to Â– itself and the 1971 movie.
My reasoning behind this is simple. The only movie to get to about 90% accuracy on the book was the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Each movie is over 2 hours in length and there are three of them. That's a lot of material. Of course a LOT of the material that was in the books was left out, otherwise you'd be watching each movie for over 6 hours at least! Our society is not a book society. Therefore I'm reviewing this movie with and eye to the 1971 version.
****SPOILERS AND REVIEW DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!**** One can't help to compare this film to the other, but the comparisons add to the fact that this movie is a stand-alone. It does not follow the book exactly, but closer than the original film.
I gave this movie and initial 10 on my rating. Then I thought about it, and dropped it to a 9. I'll explain why later.
This movie, in my own opinion, is a much better visualization than the 1971 movie. Lets face it, WWATCF was great for it's day, and I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the vision of the director. This one was visually more interesting. The house that Charlie and his family live in was very - well - pathetic. We, as normal people, all realize that any building in reality would be condemned and that you would get very sick eating nothing but cabbage soup every day. But the deplorable house, with snow outside the gaping hole in the roof next to where Charlie sleeps, is just pathetic enough. Not enough for them to be living under a bridge, but JUST above that position.
The chocolate factory exterior was much grander and more desolate in it's grays. The interior is much more whimsical. You could see the scope of the size of the factory from the entrance. My thought was "wow - a lot of people must have worked here." Grandpa Joe was played admirably as the tottering old man of the family who wishes he could just once get another look at the place he worked.
My only - and ONLY gripe with the movie - the reason it got a 9 was the acting by the parents and the children. When the children were in danger of demise - the parents looked shocked - but not very scared. More along the lines of "I can't believe my child was this stupid." Case in point - Mr. Salt. When his daughter is being ravaged by wild trained squirrels - and he just watches. Any parent worth his salt (pun intended) would have been over that two and a half foot barrier in a second to rescue his child! The ONLY kid who seemed scared and concerned about his own fate was Augustus. The pathetic "HELP" as he disappears from sight in the chocolate machine actually made me concerned.
None of the other children - even Charlie seemed overtly concerned that these kids could be DEAD! Wonka - (Johnny Depp). I can't say enough about Mr. Wonka. He was just as reclusive, anti-social, whimsical, and real as I could have wanted. He had no idea how to act around children. He had no idea how to act around adults. Talk about eccentric! There were a few moments after some of his comments when everything got quiet - and you could feel the tension. No one knew how to react. Just has it should have been. To steal a line from Dr. Evil "Ooooh - this is awkward." THAT is what Wonka is to me. He plays the socially inept genius that LOVES candy perfectly.
One can't help to compare this film to the other, but the comparisons add to the fact that this movie is a stand-alone. It does not follow the book exactly, but closer than the original film.
Overall I loved this film, and will be seeing it again in the theatres.