Pay no attention to that man under the top hat...

Rating: 7/10 (31 July 2016)

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" has always been one of my favorite readings this is how I started my review of the 1971 version, the one with Gene Wilder, and I feel like an obligation to say it again for the 2005 adaptation. I don't know if I'm the book's biggest fan, probably not, but as a kid who loved chocolate, great story with great characters, I devoured every chapter of "Charlie" as if they were made of cream-nut milk chocolate. So I think I can judge both movies' adaptations with all fairness, giving each one the credit it deserved.
I'm not one of these movie purists who consider the 1971 version the better one on the sole basis that it is the first adaptation or dismiss the 2005 version because Johnny Depp's embodiment of Willy Wonka was leaning a bit too close to the psychopathic side and didn't have that zest of enchantment conveyed by ringmaster Gene Wilder. It is true though, whether it was intentional or not, Depp seemed to have channeled another similarly pale-faced figure of Pop Culture and the fact that he was concerned about children made it all the more creepy. But I think there is good and 'less good' material from each movie and Tim Burton, at least, had the merit to introduce the book to a new generation of little Mike-Teavees, baiting them with a wizardry that had nothing to envy on Willy Wonka's.
The 1971 film was spectacular by the era's standards but there was nothing that could match the sophistication and artistry of the 2000's, when CGI was mastered enough not to be overused. Indeed, CGI only served for scenes that couldn't do without some electronic help, but the rest of the visuals are made of scale-model, meticulously designed set, and even real rivers of chocolate. I saw the film for the first time, I wasn't sure that I would love the characters or the story as much as I love the book, but I knew Tim Burton would push the envelope and delight our eyes. And he did, from the recreation of the Chocolate Factory to the creative impersonation of the Oompas Loompas with diminutive actor Deep Roy and even the contrasts between the first act set in town and all in gray and white with the bright colors of Wonka Land, had some "Wizard of Oz" vibes except for the Wizard, himself.
So, for all its triumphant technology, there's one department where the film didn't live up people's expectation, and it's in the portrayal of Willy Wonka. Granted Wonka is not just the flashy guy with the top hat and the purple redingote, Roald Dahl painted him as a rather dark and mysterious character and the merit of Gene Wilder is that he played your typical cheerful master of ceremony, but that was only a cover and step by step, he unveiled some darker and more sarcastic sides of his personality sarcastic (didn't even inspire one of the most popular Internet memes?). Johnny Depp laid his cards too early and never felt like the kind of fellow who could 'understand' children, not in a creepy way anyway, he struck as a sadistic, sociopath man trying so hard to smile and cheer up his guests. Depp is a fine actor, he played his Wonka very well, but I don't think it was the right angle for the movie, especially when the other characters played their part perfectly.
Indeed, I'm not sure I remember any other actors from the 1971 film, except Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson and the blonde-faced Charlie looked weird, but the real star was Wilder, to the point the film was titled after his character. For its own good, the 2005 movie didn't focus too much on Wonka, and one of the many delights was to enjoy the performances of the kids who played the bad ones. The gluttonous Augustus Gloop, Mike teavee with his mean-looking eyes, and the two girls (Julia Winter and AnnaSophia Robb) were perfect Viloet Beauregarde and Veruca Salt, mannerisms, costume design and attitudes with their parents. As for Charlie who's not the most colorful character but rather the pillar and quiet strength of the story, Fredddie Highmore is Charlie like I imagined him. David Kelly also plays an unforgettable Grandpa Joe, I only wish the film didn't overlook some interesting scenes, like their laughing reaction when they don't find the golden ticket, the scene was cut rather abruptly.
It's very unsettling that the one role that should've been pivotal to the film's success was the worse, but like Ebert says; the film works despite Depp. A chocolate factory is supposed to be the place any child would love to go, but they'd think twice if they saw that weird dark stranger with the creepy smile. I'm surprised Tim Burton didn't try to adjust Depp's performance because there's something in Burton's work that make him the cinematic heir of Dahl. Both are men who preserved their childhood vision and knew children enough not to patronize them with cute or overly preachy material. They were men of thrills, of adventures and mystery, but there was a heart in their story. And "Charlie", more than chocolate, is a beautiful story about family and Burton magnificently recreated the loving atmosphere of the Bucket's nest, perhaps the richest family in town if you count love as wealth.
And there's a statement about family in the little artistic license he takes by venturing into the backstory of Wonka and his Oedipal issues with his dentist of a father (played by Christopher Lee). But while it was a good idea on the paper, Depp's performance was too unpleasant to make us care for it once the tour was over. So it all comes down to the 1971 having Willy Wonka and 2005 the magic of the book and the casting. Which one I prefer? Well, like I said in the 1971 review the book, naturally.