The worst adaptation of a book, ever!

Rating: 1/10 (18 September 2006)

Firstly i resent what some of the other reviewers have said about people who don't like this movie; that the only reason we don't like it because we can't get over the 1970's film. Well i thought the original movie was OK but would have liked it to be darker, and therefore more like the book which i loved. I came to this film expecting to love it but instead i was extremely angry because...
A lot of Wonka's lines are completely out of character, there purely for cheap laughs. you'll notice them when he says something the contradicts his actions/motivations- something stupid that ISN'T IN THE BOOK.
of the clichÃ© ending with Wonka's father and the back-story relating to this (also NOT IN THE BOOK). Which raises the the point of why Wonka would want Charlie not live or have contact with his family anymore (perhapse Charlie should have asked if Wonka also has the same policy on social services!). In the book Wonka has no problem with Charlie's family living in the factory and so provides the emotional resolution to Charlie's early life of poverty and want, even though he will clearly have weird dark adventures as a result of this (as it should be).
This film wasn't any darker than the original it just made less sense due to poor writing. The book was dark because the character of Wonka is dark; he finds it FUNNY when nasty things happen to nasty kids (a reaction most people wouldn't have; i.e. no empathy), he's done lots of dangerous previously unheard of things, he reacts and thinks like no one else (his reactions are actually similar to those of someone with a psychopathic personality disorder) not to mention that he is essentially auditioning these children (which is dark in itself). If Burton wanted this film to be darker than the 1970's one he should have emphasised Wonka's actual character not made up new stuff that doesn't make any sense!
Although there were a lot of things i didn't like about this film it is the poor handling of Wonka's character that annoyed me the most because it made the whole feel of the film different from that of the book. It is this LACK OF FAITHFULNESS to the book and not the re-inclusion of (1)dad working in a toothpaste factory (2)the squirrel room instead of the geese room that i think is important (although i would have liked to have seen the squirrel scene if it had been well executed). I also don't think you can claim faithfulness if you've added a badly written back-story to a main character who is supposed to be enigmatic! If Roald Dahl didn't explain him what gives these people the right to????
THIS FILM ISN'T Faithful TO THE BOOK
Make no mistake; Roald Dahl would have Hated this vapid sludge and if you want to watch rubbish, then you wont go wrong with this.