Disappointing adaptation of Dahl's classic

Rating: 5/10 (31 March 2006)

As a movie per se, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is commendable, replete with the quintessential Burtonesque visual richness and imagery, as well as Danny Elfman's music. As an adaptation of the book, it was lacklustre; this is my personal opinion - others may not have minded the distortion of the original novel in the film - but I was sorely disappointed with this Burton-Elfman collaboration, which was nowhere as good as Nightmare Before Christmas, or even Corpse Bride.
The side plot of Wonka's family background is never in the original book, and adding it to the movie seems to have little relevance, apart from explaining Wonka's eccentricity and lack of self-esteem, and for greater effect in the family reunion ending of the film. It detracted from the main storyline and that reel time could've been better spent on more stunning vistas of Wonka's amazing factory.
Johnny Depp was, intentionally or not, a hideous travesty of the Wonka we all loved as kids. Willy Wonka is enigmatic, dotty, yes, but he is also intelligent and funny! He is NOT the blundering, stuttering effeminate and neurotic man in the movie. Moreover, his Oompa Loompas were hideous; I mean, ugh, those garish leather suits and oily slicked hair. They weren't lovely and funny as the book suggests - laughs from the antics of the Oompa Loompas were few and forced. I was hoping that Burton would capture the scene of happy Oompa Loompa families as depicted in the novel too. The songs were creative, but amidst the cacophony, they were barely decipherable and that's a shame. The music, whilst commendable, was pedestrian in some parts and definitely not Elfman's best (such as those in Nightmare).
These were my major bugbears, but they detracted so much from the movie that I didn't really enjoy it as much as I'd have liked to. Again, how much you enjoy this movie will depend on whether or not you have read the original classic (but you must have already, right? How can you not have read Dahl!) and how much of a purist you are.