Brilliant, if a couple of shortcomings

Rating: 8/10 (29 July 2005)

I loved this film. I was beaming nearly all the way through. I thought Johnny Depp gave an absolutely fantastic performance as Willy Wonka, and I also thought that the way his character had been written was brilliant. Roald Dahl's Wonka IS eccentric, he DOES make fun of the children, he DOES take pleasure from seeing the "bad nuts" come to their various sticky ends. Although Gene Wilder's version is cute and heartwarming, Johnny Depp's has much more character, depth and, in my mind, excitement. While Gene Wilder's Wonka seems to be presenting the factory to the children in a paternal, slightly patronising, children's-storyteller type way, Johnny Depp's hadn't quite left childhood (e.g. "You're really weird!" *nasal giggle*) and for this reason seemed to be experiencing the factory all over again through the children. It might be said that his "That's called cannibalism" remark could be seen as patronising, but I don't think so - it just shows that he's going off into his own little world. The only thing I prefer from the Gene Wilder movie is the Oompa-Loompa songs; techno Oompa-Loompas? They might fit with Tim Burton's fantasy but they sure as hell don't fit with mine.
I also thought the look of it was beautiful. The chocolate landscape was exquisite, the machines exciting, the use of colour sensational (although the greys and browns that were used in the scenes with Charlie's poor family were a little bit clichÃ©d).
Having said all that, I did have a couple of major problems with it. For example, Freddie Highmore is English. So are all the actors playing his family. So was the man at the sweet counter, and the people offering to buy Charlie's golden ticket. Yet: Charlie didn't stop talking about "candy bars". Neither did his family. And they paid their money in DOLLARS. I don't have any problem with setting the film in America, if that's what they were trying to do. But in that case, I'm sure there are plenty of other competent American actors that could have played their parts. If that wasn't the case, and it was set in England, then WHY were they talking about candy and paying in dollars? And if I'm wrong and it wasn't set in either place, then they shouldn't have put in place-specific things like dollars without making the film place-specific.
The other (main) problem I had with the film was Willy Wonka's background. Willy Wonka stands alone. He is an enigma. That is part of his charm and intrigue. By making him a seemingly troubled soul with hangups about his parents, you make him much more human than he is supposed to be, and add a dimension to him that is totally unnecessary and doesn't fit with either what Roald Dahl wrote or what Willy Wonka is supposed to be like. It also adds to the problem of the reconciliation scene, which is utterly pathetic and even more unnecessary than the back-story.
That said, I thought the film was brilliant, I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone. And if anyone knows whether the film is place-specific, I'd like it if someone told me!
8/10