Dean's World

As a kid I loved the 1971 film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. As an adult I have continued to enjoy this classic film whenever I've seen it.

But when I was a kid I was surprised to discover that the film had been based on a 1964 book by Roald Dahl, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. Although I never did read the sequel, Charlie & The Great Glass Elevator, I remember even as a kid being impressed by how much more interesting the book was than the movie. "Of course," you're thinking, "everyone says that." Well no, not really: usually people who read a book are disappointed in a movie because the changes, and what's left out, disappoint them. The movie never lives up to the vision in your head. This was different: I'd already seen the movie more than once, and liked it, and this book was simply so different it almost seemed like a different story. It was good but stranger, more exotic, and more subtly witty. Yes, it was a kid's book, but a very unique and interesting kids' book.

I still liked (and still do like) the movie starring Gene Wilder, but I never forgot how much more interesting the book seemed.

Then I heard Tim Burton was working with Danny Elfman and Johnny Depp on a new version of the movie. At first the previews looked a little too... not sure what the word is. It didn't look promising, but I withheld judgement. My view is that Tim Burton is a quirky director who sometimes turns in exceptionally good films (such as Beetlejuice), sometimes turns in films that I like but don't exactly love (Mars Attacks!), and sometimes turns in films that are exceptionally awful (Planet of the Apes).

In short, I'm ambivalent about Tim Burton. When he's good he's very good, and when he's bad he's.... oddly compelling but still bad.

I'm also not all that fond of Danny Elfman's work. Not that I'm a big listener to soundtracks, but I always notice Danny Elfman's musical scores because, frankly, they're sort of intrusive. When he does a soundtrack, the music seems to stick out, and sometimes seems labored when it should be soaring. Sometimes it's compelling but sometimes I wish the director had turned to someone a bit more skillful.

Then there's Johnny Depp: him I can't say anything bad about, honestly. He's one of the most brilliant actors working today. There's one thing you can say about Johnny Depp that you can say about only a few other actors (Robert Duvall is another who comes to mind): he's impossible to categorize, but he's always good in everything. There is no such thing as "a Johnny Depp movie." He's constantly trying something different, constantly stretching himself. This I admire.

So anyway, today with some hope and some trepidation I took Jake to see Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Honestly, I think it's Tim Burton's best work in years. And Danny Elfman's. And Depp has one again proven he's one of the most flexible and interesting actors working today.

This movie is much more faithful to Raold Dahl's original book. Indeed, although it's been many years since I read it, the movie seems to match the book almost perfectly--both in plot and in humor. I was surprised to note that even the lyrics to the songs seem to closely match what was in Dahl's book, most of which was thrown out in the 1971 movie. Indeed, the credits to the film credit Elfman for the music and Dahl for the lyrics.

If you go to see this film, the first thing to do is simply forget the first film. This is not a "remake." It's a different film, period. The music is completely different, the plot is similar but significantly different (up to and including the ending), and the entire look and feel is different.

It is, as I say, far closer to the original book. My suspicion is that Raold Dahl would be thrilled with it.

My son, who'll be 8 in October, also liked it quite a bit.

I give it four out of five stars. I'm not sure if this one will hold up as a classic like the 1971 film, but I do think it's one of Tim Burton's best films.

It was quite good, much better than I expected.

* Update * Fred Ochsenhirt has a better-written review, and liked it even more than I did, but for substantially the same reasons.