User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 459 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JoeyM.
    Jul 16, 2005
    9
    Deep Roy, as all of the Oompa Loompa, is outstanding in this, one of the most fun movies of the last year. I found Wonka and his chocolate factory to be delightfully creepy. A sense of menace (and a sense that he had planned somewhat gruesome fates for the four naughty children) hung over the chocolate factory from the factory gates open. As for the four naughty children and their creepy Deep Roy, as all of the Oompa Loompa, is outstanding in this, one of the most fun movies of the last year. I found Wonka and his chocolate factory to be delightfully creepy. A sense of menace (and a sense that he had planned somewhat gruesome fates for the four naughty children) hung over the chocolate factory from the factory gates open. As for the four naughty children and their creepy parents, they were terrific. Veruca Salt in particular was great fun. This is that rare movie that I will try and see a second time. Expand
  2. JohnnyD.
    Jul 16, 2005
    10
    I just saw this movie last night and it was the best movie I've seen in some time. Tim Burton is an amazing filmmaker.
  3. JoeS.
    Jul 16, 2005
    10
    This was an amazing reimagination of the Dahl classic. Apparently, Tim Burton hadn't seen the first movie with Gene Wilder until after he was done making the movie. So, I was initially disappointed that there were no orange Oompa Loompas singing their song. However, the new Oompas were terrific. Johnny Depp was terrific in this role and the new Charlie is great.
  4. AllegraS.
    Jul 16, 2005
    10
    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the greatest movie I ever saw! It was wildly funny.
  5. JamesP.
    Jul 16, 2005
    10
    I've seen the 1971 version easily over 100 times throughout the course of my 24 years on this earth. This T.B. remake is just as amazing as the first. It's beautiful thing.
  6. AdamS.
    Jul 16, 2005
    0
    Who cares about the book? This is a movie. A horrible, horrible movie! It doesn't even have the decency to be totally awful. We get excellent direction and a first rate actor (Depp), but bad everything else. Listen people; A great book does not always make a good movie (White Oleander, Beloved), and this should have stayed off the silver screen.
  7. Sarah
    Jul 16, 2005
    7
    Teens and adult may not like it but kids will love it. does have some fun moments and depp does a great job with his role
  8. JoshuaM.
    Jul 16, 2005
    9
    Much closer to the spirit (and letter) of the book than the saccharine 1971 film. High points: Lots of twisted humor, a truly memorable and touching performance by Freddie Highmore as Charlie, the hilarious Missi "Galaxy Quest" Pyle, mostly delightful art direction, great production numbers with the Oompa Loompas (who are far closer to the Oompa Loompas described in the book than were the Much closer to the spirit (and letter) of the book than the saccharine 1971 film. High points: Lots of twisted humor, a truly memorable and touching performance by Freddie Highmore as Charlie, the hilarious Missi "Galaxy Quest" Pyle, mostly delightful art direction, great production numbers with the Oompa Loompas (who are far closer to the Oompa Loompas described in the book than were the green-haired, orange-skinned aliens in the first film), and a chocolate river that actually looks like chocolate as opposed to the dirty water in the first film. Lows: as with the first film, why is it so difficult to find a decent actor for Augustus Gloop? Left out the book's (and first film's) sequence with the fizzy lifting drinks. Still never felt we got to know enough about Wonka, but what backstory there was felt simplistic and tacked-on. Depp certainly had the oddity, but not the capacity for merriment, of the Wonka in the book. Overall, far more satisfying than the 1971 film, but still lacking a little something. Expand
  9. Yawgmoft
    Jul 16, 2005
    2
    This movie is not dark, this movie does not follow the book, please stop posting lies... and the reason why we can "dare" to give this movie under 5? Because it was horrible, Depp sucked, and CGI candy isn't magical.
  10. Todd
    Jul 17, 2005
    10
    Great movie with a sarcastic edge.
  11. MikeD.
    Jul 17, 2005
    8
    "Seriously, kid, I can't understand you through that mumbling." Freaking hilarious. Didn't expect to like it nearly as well as I did. Its only flaw, in my mind, was its corny reunion ending with Wonka's father. Also, I would have appreciated it more if it incorporated the spy factor with Charlie's character, like it did in the original movie.
  12. ChipR.
    Jul 17, 2005
    3
    Very disappointing. I couldn't wait for it to end. Hated the "modern" Oompa Loompa sequences. This movie is nothing compared to the original. Where is Gene Wilder when we need him?
  13. RussellL-H
    Jul 17, 2005
    9
    Funny, visually creative, and REAL trained squirrels!?!?! what more could you ask for?
  14. Prattdaddy
    Jul 18, 2005
    7
    What a strange but enjoyable movie...Tim Burton did Wonka justice (Unlike Johnny Depp). Depp is a very versatile actor, however his performance as Wonka was so overdone, it was burnt to a crisp... All the other characters were spot-on, though, especially the Oompa-loompas with their revamped song styles, and all the children. Special effects were good as well, and artistically, the What a strange but enjoyable movie...Tim Burton did Wonka justice (Unlike Johnny Depp). Depp is a very versatile actor, however his performance as Wonka was so overdone, it was burnt to a crisp... All the other characters were spot-on, though, especially the Oompa-loompas with their revamped song styles, and all the children. Special effects were good as well, and artistically, the factory was superb. The only reason I am giving it only a seven, is because the whole Wonka backstory/flashback thing, and Willy's ultimate reunion with his dad, was not needed whatsoever, and drug the film down. Still, I think an improvement on the original. 7 out of 10. Expand
  15. ChadS.
    Jul 18, 2005
    8
    Willie Wonka(Johnny Depp) is so out there, perhaps the film does have an obligation to show us why the candy-maker sometimes speaks like a castrated Jack Nicholson. We need formulaic screenwriting like we need a hole in our heads, but Willie's backstory, entertaining though it may be, does wreck havoc with the story's pacing and manic tone. All that childhood trauma Willie Wonka(Johnny Depp) is so out there, perhaps the film does have an obligation to show us why the candy-maker sometimes speaks like a castrated Jack Nicholson. We need formulaic screenwriting like we need a hole in our heads, but Willie's backstory, entertaining though it may be, does wreck havoc with the story's pacing and manic tone. All that childhood trauma would've made a dynamite prologue. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" soars before we ever get to the chocolate factory. That ensemble of bedsit geriatrics are a lot of fun. The flashbacks narrated by Charlie's grandfather(David Kelley) work because it doesn't jar. The movie, as of yet, doesn't feel interrupted by narrative overkill, like when we learn about the origin of the Oompa-Loompas, which keeps us in the chocolate room for too long a period. It's fun, but unnecessary. What's fun, and works, is the production design on the squirrel room. It's rare to see such great special effects put to such humorous use. Expand
  16. chrisa
    Jul 18, 2005
    6
    This movie is like a stick of gum that loses it flaver to fast and should have been spit out about 20 min. earlyer.
  17. ZoeMc
    Jul 18, 2005
    7
    I have mixed feelings. Freddie Highmore as Charlie is heartbreakingly earnest and just magical to watch. Wish there had been more of him. Johnny Depp as Wonka is inventive and captivating. HIs character is more fully realized than in the first version of the book, although I found the flashbacks somewhat distracting and offputting. If told in a linear fashion, maybe in the opening I have mixed feelings. Freddie Highmore as Charlie is heartbreakingly earnest and just magical to watch. Wish there had been more of him. Johnny Depp as Wonka is inventive and captivating. HIs character is more fully realized than in the first version of the book, although I found the flashbacks somewhat distracting and offputting. If told in a linear fashion, maybe in the opening credits, the story would have been more compelling. The kids in the other supporting roles are quite good as well, although the fact that the Slugworth stealing secrets plot is scrapped makes what happens to each of the kids less deserved more mean-spirited than necessary. I know the oompah loompah song lyrics are from Dahl himself, so it's hard to find fault with Burton for going in that direction, but I found the songs and the oompah loompah (the ONE oompah loompah) distracting. The trick of using one man to play the oompah loompahs seems like trickery that Wonka wouldn't have approved of in the first place. All in all, this movie has enough elements to make it enjoyable, and potentially a cult classic, but it could have been a mere "classic" and its failure in reaching for "cult" makes missing the mark that much more painful. Expand
  18. kathyS.
    Jul 18, 2005
    9
    As seen on an imax screen at a midnite showing it was a pure delight. quirky, it is and i see critics are all over the place with it. which means it will probably be a cult classic.
  19. irky
    Jul 19, 2005
    7
    Good movie overall. It has it's strengths and weaknesses. I like how it follows the book more than the 1971 version. Don't like the ending of this one much. Johnny Depp did a decent job as Willy Wonka, but Gene Wilder was much, much better. I thought the Oompa Loompa songs were weak, and it really wasn't all that funny, not unlike the '71 version. I do like how we find Good movie overall. It has it's strengths and weaknesses. I like how it follows the book more than the 1971 version. Don't like the ending of this one much. Johnny Depp did a decent job as Willy Wonka, but Gene Wilder was much, much better. I thought the Oompa Loompa songs were weak, and it really wasn't all that funny, not unlike the '71 version. I do like how we find out more about Willy Wonka, and some of his personal history and whatnot. Younger kids will probably be bored at the beginning and end, but thouroughly entertained through most of the middle. I also thought Charlie Bucket was perfectly cast in this new version. Overall, good show. I would wait for the DVD however, and just rent it when it comes out. Expand
  20. WAKOJAKO
    Jul 19, 2005
    8
    Charmingly memorable but not brilliant. Best acting by squirrels EVER! Johnny Depp's unique characterization of the eccentric Wonka was amusing but never quite seemed to get off the ground. That doesn't mean I didn't like it. Maybe it's just that in the end I might have been expecting something FANTASTIC and got something just a bit less so. Or, maybe that on first Charmingly memorable but not brilliant. Best acting by squirrels EVER! Johnny Depp's unique characterization of the eccentric Wonka was amusing but never quite seemed to get off the ground. That doesn't mean I didn't like it. Maybe it's just that in the end I might have been expecting something FANTASTIC and got something just a bit less so. Or, maybe that on first viewing you can't help to compare it to the original, which I haven't seen for ages but somehow still holds a good spot in my memory... Oh, just go see it and decide for yourself. Expand
  21. m.
    Jul 19, 2005
    8
    Better than expected. Creepy funny in a Tim Burton kind of way, but not enough to make my skin crawl. Woth paying- didn't feel ripped off.
  22. PaulF.
    Jul 21, 2005
    9
    Let me first start out by saying I absolutely loved the first movie with Gene Wilder. I would have given it a perfect ten hands down. It's pretty hard to live up to that kind of legacy. Well all in all the remake came as close as reasonably expected to duplicating the feat. It did have a few flaws such as the horrible lip sychning (sp?) by the Oompa Loompas and an anti climatic Let me first start out by saying I absolutely loved the first movie with Gene Wilder. I would have given it a perfect ten hands down. It's pretty hard to live up to that kind of legacy. Well all in all the remake came as close as reasonably expected to duplicating the feat. It did have a few flaws such as the horrible lip sychning (sp?) by the Oompa Loompas and an anti climatic ending. It seemed as if the movie stopped and started a whole new short movie and then ended. This part was my least favorite part. However there were so many good parts, the puppet show, all the wonderous rooms, the dance sequences of the Oompa Loompas, and even Johnny did a better job acting then I had expected. His character's mentally off balanced nature definitely showed through. This Version of Willy Wonka was less stable and may have been attempting to go for more of a dark cult classic effect, or maybe it's just Tim Burton's style. Whatever the case I found myself laughing out loud many a time. It's definately worth seeming on the big screen. Two thumbs and two more big toes up for this one. Expand
  23. MarkB.
    Jul 20, 2005
    7
    Until its mostly superfluous last 15 minutes, this visually fattening-but-delicious, agreeably demented rethinking (after seeing both The Longest Yard and The Honeymooners less than two weeks apart from one another, I've got too much respect for this to call it a remake) of Roald Dahl's classic 1964 children's book and Mel Stuart's beloved 1971 movie version is perfect Until its mostly superfluous last 15 minutes, this visually fattening-but-delicious, agreeably demented rethinking (after seeing both The Longest Yard and The Honeymooners less than two weeks apart from one another, I've got too much respect for this to call it a remake) of Roald Dahl's classic 1964 children's book and Mel Stuart's beloved 1971 movie version is perfect any-and-all-ages summer entertainment...and an equally perfect fit for idiosyncratic genius savant Tim Burton. He's undoubtedly the loopiest mainstream director we've got, and this material plays perfectly to his strengths (limitless visual imagination, gleeful satiric touches, darkly subversive wit) while mostly skirting his limitations. Despite his attempts to tell you otherwise in his last effort, Big Fish (an uncharacteristic attempt at a sentimental family drama that came to life only during the father's typically Burtonesque tall tales and fish stories), Burton is neither especially good at nor interested in handling "heartfelt" material: the two relationships Burton depicted with the most genuine feeling in his film resume were between Edward D. Wood and Bela Lugosi and between Pee Wee Herman and his bicycle. The potentially treacly, gooey set-up stuff involving good-boy Charlie (Finding Neverland's Freddie Highmore) and his impoverished parents and other relatives is satisfyingly glossed over, and Burton hilariously lodges them in the ultimate "crooked little house"! The fun gets quickly underway with a deeply strange, unpredictable portrayal of Howard Hughes-like confectionary wunderkind Willy Wonka by Johnny Depp that's more difficult to get a handle on than many of his characters in pre-Pirates of the Caribbean indie films...which makes it even more courageous than most of those performances. (Great Gene Wilder vocal impersonation in the early scenes, too.) Lots of lovely little touches abound, including a jab at automation and unemployment that would do Michael Moore's heart proud, a squirrel-atteck scene that has quite literally never been seen before (and that nobody will ever try to repeat, even in the inevitable 2039 remake!), and Deep Roy's work as all the Oompa Loompas (does it qualify as one of the best supporting performances of the year...or 100 of the best?) Burton raises the stakes by making young Charlie's four rivals for the grand prize on Wonka's chocolate factory tour even brattier and deserving of whatever Wonka and Burton want to throw at them than they were in 1971...and then drops the ball with a postscript that, given Burton's sensibilities, was probably forced on him against his will by nervous Warner Bros. studio executives. It's fascinating to contrast the difference between what will fly in a 1971 G-rated film and a 2005 PG, but the suits responsible for the change clearly don't understand a large portion of this movie's intended audience (kids understand instinctively that fairy tales, cartoons and video games are JUST PRETEND, regardless of how grim or violent the conclusions are) and we're all the poorer for this version's ultimate cop-out. The psychobabble involving Wonka's relationship with his strict, demanding dentist dad is unnecessary and stretches out the material farther than Wonka's patented taffy, but you gotta say something for the career of Christopher Lee, who plays the father: here's the man who, in addition to his long-running stints in Hammer horror movies, has also appeared in Star Wars films, James Bond flicks AND the Lord of the Rings trilogy...to say nothing of Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes AND this! He may not be absolutely the best actor continuing to work in pictures these days, but there's no doubt that he's a prime candidate for the coolest. Expand
  24. ChelseaM.
    Jul 23, 2005
    10
    It was the best movie. It was so hillariouis. Johnny Depp was really good and did the part better than anybody else. He was perfect. He made the movie as funny as it was.
  25. SamanthaM.
    Jul 23, 2005
    10
    I loved it it was hillarious best movie johnny depp has ever done.
  26. SurelyS.
    Jul 23, 2005
    7
    The movie is somewhat a betrayal of the book. in coming off as soulless, it fails to support Dahl's over-riding appreciation of the beauty of intrinsic spirit.
  27. ArgenisP.
    Jul 24, 2005
    1
    How can they do this to such a classic. Where is the soul. The story line does not make a case for a heart warming ending. The attack of the clones all over again, dwarfs with no personality. The songs suck. Only the first one was catchy. The kids acting was good. and the chocolote river was really the star this time around. I believe, if they had today's special effects for the How can they do this to such a classic. Where is the soul. The story line does not make a case for a heart warming ending. The attack of the clones all over again, dwarfs with no personality. The songs suck. Only the first one was catchy. The kids acting was good. and the chocolote river was really the star this time around. I believe, if they had today's special effects for the first movie it will be 100 at metacritic. What can i say I hated it. Expand
  28. AlanS.
    Jul 24, 2005
    9
    How can you people diss this movie? It rocked my face off. Great acting and awesome music. Some people say the 'modern oompa loompa songs were stupid'. No they weren't, they rocked. Oh ya, take a look at the over rated old movies songs, pretty stupid if you ask me. This movie is so much better than the old one, Johnny Depp does a great job.
  29. DavidM
    Jul 25, 2005
    9
    This is a more faithful interpretation of Roald Dahl's 1964 classic story than Stuart's 1971 flick starring Gene Wilder. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was a wistful hippie with a mischievious side, Depp's take on the candyman is much more delightfully sinister. In this version Wonka is the child that was denied a childhood by his strict father (quite a welcome surprise by This is a more faithful interpretation of Roald Dahl's 1964 classic story than Stuart's 1971 flick starring Gene Wilder. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was a wistful hippie with a mischievious side, Depp's take on the candyman is much more delightfully sinister. In this version Wonka is the child that was denied a childhood by his strict father (quite a welcome surprise by Christopher Lee). He's completely uncomfortable around others yet he has a caustic and sharp wit that allows him free reign to smile and preen with saccharin insincerity, yet tell you what is really on his mind in the same moment. Depp is genuinely creepy with his pasty complexion and foppish hairdo, and parallels to the Once King of Pop are undeniable and darkly funny. In fact, the whole movie is darker. The four brats that accompany Charlie on their tour are cast in even more reprehensible molds than before, and I smiled with sadistic glee along with Wonka as one by one their failings do them in. I would rather Burton have kept their ultimate fates a mystery as Stuart did, however. Freddie Highmore, his Grandpa Joe and the rest of the Bucket clan are probably the only "good" people in this film, which unfortunately forces Charlie's saintly character into the background against the more bizzare characters, which is a shame, since the story really is supposed to be about him. Ultimately it is Charlie's good nature and love for his family that saves the day and may have even redeemed the misanthropic Wonka. The lone sour note is the transformation of the Oompa Loompas into dour pygmies rather than the mythical, impish munchkins from Stuart's film. Indian actor Deep Roy was digitally multiplied over a hundred times to create the horde of Oompa Loompas, and it's mind-numbingly obvious (though oddly apropos to an industrial factory work force). "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is another strange but eerily enjoyable Burton film and Depp does a perfect job not only filling Gene Wilder's shoes but returning the character to its roots. Expand
  30. KatherineB.
    Jul 27, 2005
    1
    I'm a huge fan of the original Willy Wonka, but I can honestly say that's not a factor in my score. This was the first movie I've ever gone to where I've actually wanted to get up and leave. The beginning of the movie seemed promising enough. The Bucket family is wonderful; Freddie Highmore is so talented and, well, adorable. Grandpa Joe is endearing and Grandma I'm a huge fan of the original Willy Wonka, but I can honestly say that's not a factor in my score. This was the first movie I've ever gone to where I've actually wanted to get up and leave. The beginning of the movie seemed promising enough. The Bucket family is wonderful; Freddie Highmore is so talented and, well, adorable. Grandpa Joe is endearing and Grandma Georgina is hilarious. Helena Bonham Carter is is good as Mrs. Bucket. The beginning of the movie--meaning the part prior to entering the factory--is somewhat drawn out, but still very enjoyable. The aesthetics are wonderful; the design of the Bucket family home is creative and well executed. The most amusing part of the movie is when the children and their escorts first arrive at the factory and are greeted by a somewhat perverse spectacle of dolls. Think of the Duloc greeting in Shrek. Surprisingly, the movie actually goes dowhill after the guests enter the factory. Parts of the factory come across as too pristine and almost sterile. The candy room is attractive, but lacks the level of fantasy that's expected by most viewers. Augustus Gloop, Violet Beauregard, Mike TeeVee, and Veruca Salt are played by four relatively unknown young actors. They are all relatively successful at creating their own quirky, irritating characters. Violet Beauregard and the competitive Mrs. Beauregard are probably the most entertaining of the four pairs. Johnny Depp is one of the biggest disappointments of this movie. The character of Willy Wonka is supposed to be a somewhat sinister, twisted, and internally unfulfilled character, but Depp's performance is unable to emote the complexity of the troubled Willy Wonka. Willy Wonka comes across as shallow; every single one of his lines is emotionless and monotonous. The Oompa Loompas are disappointing. None of the fault lies in the actor, who seems to do his part well. The songs, however, are overproduced and basically indiscernable. The fact that the film follows the book more closely is nice, since the story is in fact quite different than the one told in the original movie. This movie will most likely bore anyone over the age of 10. The visual and aural elements are only enough to entertain the youngest of viewers. Expand
  31. NickR
    Jul 29, 2005
    9
    This movie is great, one of the best of the summer (hell, the year)! To me it's better than those shlockfests Cinderella Man and Crash. If you don't like this movie, there's something wrong with you and I have the deepest sorrow for you. You may have become a media drone, comparing Depp to Jackson. You'd never say that if the 'trial' hadn't took place This movie is great, one of the best of the summer (hell, the year)! To me it's better than those shlockfests Cinderella Man and Crash. If you don't like this movie, there's something wrong with you and I have the deepest sorrow for you. You may have become a media drone, comparing Depp to Jackson. You'd never say that if the 'trial' hadn't took place this year. Or, you don't want to admit that the original had a fantastic Gene Wilder, and that's it... the songs, children, and direction all stank in the original. Maybe, perhaps, your inner child died? Did it render you emotionless and cold. Are you a cynic/snob, who hates movies like this? This is a great film, I'm sure Dahl would be happy. Please, don't whine about the "Of course you ___" moment, they had to flush out Wonka's childhood. And to Katherine B, your review doesn't warrant a 1... seems more like a 5 or 6 review. **Please, everyone, a 1 means "scum" not "wasn't too good." Likewise, a 10 doesn't mean "pretty good" it means "masterpiece." Think about your score.** Expand
  32. TimD.
    Jul 30, 2005
    2
    Let me take a stab at the reason a lot of people really hated this film...there was really no emotion to it. Nothing was really very funny or shocking or exciting. You knew what was going to happen. No surprises. The theatre was full of kids and it was just eerily quiet. This movie had no soul.
  33. RachelD.
    Aug 15, 2005
    9
    A typical modern kids-10-and-older movie would star the sticky-sweet, peroxide-dipped Hilary Duff, whose acting skills need to be not brushed up on, but sweeped. It would also be 80 minutes long - just long enough until the dragged-along moms and dads suffocate of stupidity. But not "Charlie". This movie is full of whimsical delight, frivolous fun, and ACTUALLY teaches a lesson. The A typical modern kids-10-and-older movie would star the sticky-sweet, peroxide-dipped Hilary Duff, whose acting skills need to be not brushed up on, but sweeped. It would also be 80 minutes long - just long enough until the dragged-along moms and dads suffocate of stupidity. But not "Charlie". This movie is full of whimsical delight, frivolous fun, and ACTUALLY teaches a lesson. The camerawork is beautiful, and the music perfectly fits the creepy-but-magical theme that the movie centers around. The only reason I took off a star? With his pale skin, dark high-shouldered coat, and excruciatingly feminine voice, Johnny Depp is one Michael Jackson-like Willy Wonka. But don't let that stop you. This movie is a visual delight that will entertain everyone. Expand
  34. TylerD.
    Aug 15, 2005
    10
    A truly magical movie. I loved it.
  35. HollyM.
    Aug 22, 2005
    2
    Even my 12-year-old daughter disliked this nasty and montonous film, though she loved the Roald Dahl book. Why Depp chose to play Wonka as vacuous, mean-spirited, and decidedly creepy is a mystery. The racist overtones of the brown galley-slaves rowing the big white people were hard to ignore. Only the warm and quirky scenes in the Buckets' cottage--and especially the wonderful Even my 12-year-old daughter disliked this nasty and montonous film, though she loved the Roald Dahl book. Why Depp chose to play Wonka as vacuous, mean-spirited, and decidedly creepy is a mystery. The racist overtones of the brown galley-slaves rowing the big white people were hard to ignore. Only the warm and quirky scenes in the Buckets' cottage--and especially the wonderful Freddie Highmore--kept me from assigning the movie a '0.' Expand
  36. LaurenA
    Aug 4, 2005
    3
    The saving grace to this film was simple the story line itself. The Gene Wilder version was simply better, for lack of more eloquent wording. Depp's performance seemed distant, and lacked the sheer love that Wilder brought to the screen. Furthermore, the Oompa Loompas, or should I say Oompa Loompa, was quite possibly the fall out for this film, the idea to digitally recreate scores The saving grace to this film was simple the story line itself. The Gene Wilder version was simply better, for lack of more eloquent wording. Depp's performance seemed distant, and lacked the sheer love that Wilder brought to the screen. Furthermore, the Oompa Loompas, or should I say Oompa Loompa, was quite possibly the fall out for this film, the idea to digitally recreate scores of other wordly creatures was a huge flop for this film. Burton, as expected brought a dark edge to this film that wasn't completely called for. How can you turn something so fantastic and imagination-filled into something completely and eerily sinister. It just seems as though a lot of the talent of the child actors and actresses was wasted, especially when they found Freddie Highmore, who could quite possibly be the perfect Child star for Charlie. Expand
  37. Tim
    Aug 4, 2005
    6
    Good movie prob wont see it again sum it up in one sentence. too demented for kids too retarded for adults. but its tim burton what did you expect.
  38. DeannaM.
    Aug 4, 2005
    9
    Everything about this movie was great, except possible the Oompa Loompa songs. The rest of the music on this film was awesome, I espescially like the Willy Wonka song.
  39. Sam
    Aug 5, 2005
    10
    As odd as it is hearing this from a 12 year old kid that loves violence, crude humor, and sex scenes, I loved this movie. I thought it was the 3rd best film of the summer (First Batman and 2nd, gulp, War of the Worlds, 3rd This and 4th Star Wars) and it's humorous, flawless, and weird. A Must-see.
  40. EmilyD.
    Aug 8, 2005
    2
    Creepier than the Michael Jackson trial. It had none of the original charm and magic of the original, it just became much like an acid trip. The random musical numbers brought by the oompa loompas were painful, and Johnny Depp's incarnation of Willy Wonka was so pedophilic it could give even parents nightmares.
  41. Sebastien
    Sep 28, 2005
    5
    I first didn't want to see that movie cos' of the story (It come from a book for kids I read it when i was young), but I saw Tim Burton's name written with it so i decided to go with friends anyway... The result is that you may clearly recognize a Tim Burton's movie by the landscape features and the ambient but Tim Burton seems to have been really restrained to the I first didn't want to see that movie cos' of the story (It come from a book for kids I read it when i was young), but I saw Tim Burton's name written with it so i decided to go with friends anyway... The result is that you may clearly recognize a Tim Burton's movie by the landscape features and the ambient but Tim Burton seems to have been really restrained to the story without making it getting really "burtonian". Even Johnny Depp hardly get to make it a good movie... Entertaining yes but not that good. Expand
  42. Micria
    Jan 12, 2006
    7
    This was am O.K. video, Johney Depp is hott!
  43. Richard
    Jan 20, 2006
    2
    Very disapointing movie. Depp's performance was good. But the mood of the movie was very dark. For the target audience, Kids it think, some of the content was questionable and I am pretty liberal. We had to turn this one off and send the kids to bed.
  44. RichieT
    Oct 29, 2006
    0
    Burton's worst since Big Fish.
  45. R.Dalvi
    Mar 26, 2006
    9
    Good movie. Delicious, chocolaty and sweet-at-heart. Depp rocks. Very imaginative.
  46. Myles#13
    Sep 8, 2006
    8
    Although it's not as good as the original, this film is surprisingly good! It's quite funny, yet still maintains that good ol' Burton mood to it... unfortunately, people don't understand the guy's style. Oh and in case you're wondering... Depp IS imitating Michael Jackson and is really witty in doing so... that little laugh makes me crack up!
  47. guy!
    Jul 14, 2007
    0
    Our chocolate is now bitter thanks to this movie. It was so bad, I couldn't bear the first 30 minutes. Glad I had the option of turning it off on TV rather than sitting through it in the theater with my little brother. Seriously, why did we try to remake this movie? the old one was 10x better. In this one, the acting was terrible, they cut out vital parts, and worst of all, they Our chocolate is now bitter thanks to this movie. It was so bad, I couldn't bear the first 30 minutes. Glad I had the option of turning it off on TV rather than sitting through it in the theater with my little brother. Seriously, why did we try to remake this movie? the old one was 10x better. In this one, the acting was terrible, they cut out vital parts, and worst of all, they wasted J.D. WHY DID THEY WASTE J.D.?!?!?! I mean look at him, what did they do to his face?! Enough said. By all means, avoid this movie. Expand
  48. roberti.
    Jul 4, 2007
    6
    Semi-sweet, with over-the-top imaginative scenes worthy of the Wizard, yet with bitter overtones of a jaded era. Who is Depp portraying here? He paints a misanthropic, mincing portrait of ambiguous origin. As social satire, and as dreamscape, we let go and sluice down the chocolate raceways, on edge and ready to bolt if need be. What does this film say about us?
  49. MissyA.
    Jan 8, 2009
    10
    This movie was great, funny and entertaining. I love the BOOK "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" since I was young. I've watched the "Willy Wonka" movie a million times and I always thought something was missing...Now, finally Tim Burton has done the BOOK justice. I think most people need to relax. People are going crazy because they think it is a remake when in fact it is a This movie was great, funny and entertaining. I love the BOOK "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" since I was young. I've watched the "Willy Wonka" movie a million times and I always thought something was missing...Now, finally Tim Burton has done the BOOK justice. I think most people need to relax. People are going crazy because they think it is a remake when in fact it is a re-adaption of the BOOK. Tim captured the true spirit of Roald Dahl's genius. And Depp did a wonderful job in capturing the true spirit of Willy Wonka from the BOOK. Collapse
  50. joe
    Jul 29, 2009
    0
    Just awful. Depp was the worst he's ever been. It was very hard to sit through the whole thing. Don't watch it.
  51. MikeG.
    Nov 12, 2005
    9
    With a lot of pressure to live up to, Burton's version of "Charlie" stakes out its own ground and soars on its own merits. This isn't the hippy-trippy early 70s colorful world of Willy Wonka, but instead a postmodern dark version of the tale, and probably far closer to what Dahl initially intended. The film works, entertaining as well as leaving you a little unsettled.
  52. lalapoloza
    Nov 13, 2005
    10
    Pros: Stunnningly original, great acting done by Depp, dark humor. Cons: Some things from the original were taken out. Overview: One of the best most orignila comedies in years. Gets us thinking, where would the world be without Tim Burton.
  53. BlakeT.
    Nov 13, 2005
    2
    If you have always wanted to see Jack Sparrow try to do Willy Wonka, this is the movie for you. Otherwise, you'd be better off spending you money at the dentist.
  54. EricS.
    Nov 14, 2005
    3
    Not a very good rendetion. too off base from the orginal. too Tim burtonEY for this show.
  55. DanH.
    Nov 17, 2005
    5
    Enchanting until the singing starts....Depp brilliant again.
  56. LineaK.
    Oct 14, 2005
    10
    It was soooooooo funny! Depp adds a whole new twist to the story.
  57. ScottJ
    Nov 9, 2005
    9
    Hey geniuses, the ones bashing the film as a "remake of a classic," or as one person put it, gave it a "new name" and "tried to make it a little darker," here's a newsflash: this was originally a BOOK. The name isn't new, it's the original title of the book, the 'classic' Diz-nee film changed the title, and actually made Dahl's story sappy and LESS dark. Hey geniuses, the ones bashing the film as a "remake of a classic," or as one person put it, gave it a "new name" and "tried to make it a little darker," here's a newsflash: this was originally a BOOK. The name isn't new, it's the original title of the book, the 'classic' Diz-nee film changed the title, and actually made Dahl's story sappy and LESS dark. Burton's film isn't perfect, but he comes close to getting it right while the Diz-nee film got most of it wrong. The new music ain't great, but it's a lot better than the syrupy show-tunes wedged into the Diz-nee film. Expand
  58. ktriplex
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    This movie is so awesome, all of the actors in it did a much better job in this one than in the first. when i saw this movie i new from the start that it would be much better than the first. i didn't yoosto be a Depp fan but now i am!!
  59. PamelaA.
    Dec 22, 2005
    1
    Well what can I say? This movie left a sour taste in my mouth!! Is that Michael Jackson or Johnny Depp playing Willy Wonka? The movie was DARK and depressing and the colorization was totally FAKE and looked cheap. The movie was NOT funny AT ALL. The Oompa Loompas SUCKED and the songs were terrible. The ENTIRE time I watched this despicable film I got the same feeling you get when someone Well what can I say? This movie left a sour taste in my mouth!! Is that Michael Jackson or Johnny Depp playing Willy Wonka? The movie was DARK and depressing and the colorization was totally FAKE and looked cheap. The movie was NOT funny AT ALL. The Oompa Loompas SUCKED and the songs were terrible. The ENTIRE time I watched this despicable film I got the same feeling you get when someone scratches their fingernails across a chalk board. This movie is the BIGGEST disappointment of the year to say the very least. I give Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a big thumbs down. Stick with the original with Gene Wilder as Mr Wonka. However, I will recommend Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for anyone who suffers from insomnia as this movie is guaranteed to put you right to sleep that is if it doesn't bore you to death first! Expand
  60. MelissaM.
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    What a horrible remake! . They took no time to develop the characters and it lacked the imagination of the original. Dep came off as shallow and psychotic, whereas Gene Wilder was brilliant, executing a wonderful blend of eccentricity and character. Do not waste your time on this horrible, horrible remake. And how did this movie get such high reviews? Makes you wonder if the industry doesn
  61. MarcelaD.
    Dec 3, 2005
    9
    Was a good movie. The actors were well chosen. It certainly got me laughing. I think it was better and funnier than the old one.
  62. LukeL
    Oct 25, 2005
    6
    "What do you get with a bad Oopma-Loopa....a lot of bad singing, Oopma Loompa dipity doo Burton's new Oompa-Loompa is just a fool." A 10+ movie if Burton would have stuck to the old Oopma-Loopma theme.
  63. KurtM.
    Dec 7, 2005
    1
    This movie is so lame and cheesey. Depp is in fact kind of Michael Jackson like in this film. Rent the original.
  64. MisterBeasley
    Jul 15, 2005
    2
    This dull rehash of all Mr. Burton's themes and Mr. Elfman's cg score is made all the worse with Mr. Depp doing Cher channeling Mister Rogers. eeccchhh...thank god for F. Highmore who eclipses everyone else even when he's silent. geeee can't wait for the mess of Corpse Bride. no more Burton movies EVER!
  65. CraigW.
    Jul 15, 2005
    3
    Horrid. I really wanted to like this film but... I was looking forward to a close adaptation based on the book, but the filmmakers made a huge mistake that destroyed it: Willy Wonka is played as an emotionally crippled cross between Pee-wee Herman and Michael Jackson. The story includes a made up background for Willy to explain his neurosis. In the end Charlie actually helps Willy Wonka Horrid. I really wanted to like this film but... I was looking forward to a close adaptation based on the book, but the filmmakers made a huge mistake that destroyed it: Willy Wonka is played as an emotionally crippled cross between Pee-wee Herman and Michael Jackson. The story includes a made up background for Willy to explain his neurosis. In the end Charlie actually helps Willy Wonka to see his problems and face up to them. (gag!!!) Is there a more corny plot twist that could have been made by the worst of the Hollywood hacks? The sets, costumes, and special effects are everything you would expect from a Tim Burton movie. The film deserves some credit for this. The 1972 Gene Wilder version did much more with less. The magical sense of limitless imagination of the book is captured much better in the earlier movie. I think the irony here is that is the 1972 film did not have the budget or special effects capabilities of this new movie. Maybe because of constraints, the filmmakers had to be creative. The essence of Willy Wonka is creative inventiveness. This new version replaces this essence with a sense of artistic suffering and self importance. Expand
  66. [Anonymous]
    Jul 15, 2005
    10
    Who the hell are you people to rate it with a 5 or below. Great acting, funny scenes, beautiful designs, Tim Burton, I salute you, this is probably his best movie yet. It mad me happy even though it was dark.
  67. VictorB.
    Jul 15, 2005
    0
    Candy may not have to have a point, but movies do. I hated this movie and I loathe the original. Depp is the only mildy bright spot in this mess. My personal opinion though, I never liked WIlly Wonka. I would've rather do my math homework than watch that when I was a kid. This was different but still stupid, inane and pointless. A waste of money, film and time!
  68. ReboV.
    Jul 15, 2005
    10
    Start by putting the 1971 version out of your head. This is not even attempting to recreate that film but instead simply take the book and relate that to film. The imagery is bizarre and yet astounding. Johnny Depp is naturally the star of the show, choosing a performance of a man who has isolated himself so long that he is a bundle of contained neuroses, setting him well apart from Gene Start by putting the 1971 version out of your head. This is not even attempting to recreate that film but instead simply take the book and relate that to film. The imagery is bizarre and yet astounding. Johnny Depp is naturally the star of the show, choosing a performance of a man who has isolated himself so long that he is a bundle of contained neuroses, setting him well apart from Gene Wilder's interpretation. I loved the crazed twist on the Oompa Loompa songs (especially their farewell to Mike Teevee), and immediately came to enjoy this interpretation of them (which is much closer to Dahl's original Pygmies). Oh, and wonderfully, darkly twisted as only Tim Burton can. It does lose a bit of steam in the middle, but the overall effort makes it well worth it, especially if you read the book as much as I did as a child. Expand
  69. BrettK.
    Jul 15, 2005
    0
    15 minutes into this movie my eyes glazed over and I went into a zombie like trance through the rest of it. I can't remember the last time I've been so indifferent towards a movie. I'm pretty sure it's the worst movie I've ever paid to go see in theatres. It was weird (somehow in a boring way), unentertaining, and a little bit of annoying. The original was pretty 15 minutes into this movie my eyes glazed over and I went into a zombie like trance through the rest of it. I can't remember the last time I've been so indifferent towards a movie. I'm pretty sure it's the worst movie I've ever paid to go see in theatres. It was weird (somehow in a boring way), unentertaining, and a little bit of annoying. The original was pretty bad and this isn't much of an improvement. Expand
  70. OliverJ.
    Jul 15, 2005
    1
    Roald Dahl doesn't deserve to be portrayed as an idiotic and obnoxious storyteller. He was better than that. Thank you Tim Burton for reminding me how great the original story is.
  71. AustinA.
    Jul 16, 2005
    8
    Hysterical.
  72. MichelleK.
    Jul 16, 2005
    10
    Burton and Depp have created a visually beautiful film and a fascinating eccentric character much closer to the book's Willy Wonka. Don't listen to the media--this Willy is not Michael Jackson.
  73. BikeBoy
    Jul 16, 2005
    8
    A lot more interesting than I'd have believed. If you like Burton's movies, then you'll like this one. If you find him strange, this will be no different. Depp was OK, but Highmore is enjoyable to watch. My children (8 and 6) really liked it.
  74. MattA.
    Jul 17, 2005
    10
    Excellent work by Tim Burton again. The movie was funny, and very creative. I would love to see it again.... Also... Danny elfman's score was dead on with what happened on screen. A pleasure to watch and to hear.
  75. SteveK.
    Jul 17, 2005
    8
    Magical. Depp's versatility is on grand display. Slightly strange in true Tim Burton fashion, but, in the end, charming and heartwarming.
  76. NealW.
    Jul 17, 2005
    3
    Johnny Depp is too creepy for words. I'd rather watch The 700 Club.
  77. JakeL
    Jul 17, 2005
    9
    I agree, this is the best movie of the summer, better than Batman Begins and Cinderella Man. Depp isn't creepy so much as hilariously flaky, and this is BETTER than the original Diz-nee movie - it leaves out the added sappiness of that one and remains more faithful to Dahl's dark humor. The BEST movie Burton's made in a long time.
  78. EdwardE.
    Jul 18, 2005
    10
    Absosmurfly brilliant!
  79. JoshR.
    Jul 18, 2005
    10
    Much better than any other comedy or family film released this year. As for 'ruining' the 'original,' that's a crock. This is BETTER, and they keep everything good about the book and thankfully got rid of the lame stuff that was in the 'original.' As for the new songs, they aren't classic but at least the musical numbers are funny. The music from Much better than any other comedy or family film released this year. As for 'ruining' the 'original,' that's a crock. This is BETTER, and they keep everything good about the book and thankfully got rid of the lame stuff that was in the 'original.' As for the new songs, they aren't classic but at least the musical numbers are funny. The music from the 'original' is vastly overrated. "Candy Man" is NOT a good song, no matter who sings it. Expand
  80. JustinC.
    Jul 19, 2005
    8
    I only have one thing to say: Johnny Depp is a good Willy Wonka but is by no means greater than Gene Wilder.
  81. erinw.
    Jul 19, 2005
    9
    I give it a 9 because the movie was well thought out. But i think that thye forgot some very crushal things in the movie. Like the umpa lumpa song. But then again they did base it a lot more on the book. With out Johnny Depp (Willy Wonka) and Freddie (Charlie Baker) the movie would not have held together like it did. Those actors are soem of the best to me out there.
  82. H.B.
    Jul 22, 2005
    9
    Very amusing, clever & creative interpretation of the book. Laughed a lot and enjoyed it. The singing umpalumpa's were a suprise treat.
  83. ScottW.
    Jul 23, 2005
    10
    Can't believe they managed to pull this off despite the shadow cast by Gene Wilder's amazing performance. Tim Burton did through his direction, and the movie accomplished through the storyline, the delicious blend of cute and creepy that Wilder delivered, and Johnny Depp added a totally different dimension of the bizarre to make this remake a real treat. You will have fun.
  84. MWhite
    Jul 25, 2005
    10
    So incredibly entertaining. Yah, Depp wasn't his best, but the song were awesome, acting was superb, and the visuals were pure Burton.
  85. FredJ.
    Jul 25, 2005
    10
    Really great. much better than I was expecting.
  86. SH
    Jul 29, 2005
    2
    My love for the original film was mostly due to Gene WIlder's brilliant performance as the whip-smart, rude, and slightly sad yet hopeful Willy Wonka. I was also a huge fan of the orginal book (and all of Dahl's work for that matter). WIlder was faithful to the book's Wonka. Depp, on the other hand, was simply trying to hard. He looked confused half the time, and had My love for the original film was mostly due to Gene WIlder's brilliant performance as the whip-smart, rude, and slightly sad yet hopeful Willy Wonka. I was also a huge fan of the orginal book (and all of Dahl's work for that matter). WIlder was faithful to the book's Wonka. Depp, on the other hand, was simply trying to hard. He looked confused half the time, and had serious father issues. The Willy Wonka of lore is practically infallible (which, while not necessarily realistic, is very enjoyable to watch). Burton and Depp's Wonka had me thinking too much about his past. But WIlly Wonka is one of those characters whose past doesn't matter... he is what he is and that's all that he is. Expand
  87. GeneH.
    Jul 29, 2005
    2
    Definitely a disappointment, given how much I like Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and the Willy Wonka story. The Gene Wilder version is far superior. Depp comes across here as shallow and meaningless - Freddie Highmore easily out-acts him - and the musical numbers for the most part fall flat. What a shame.
  88. Amy
    Aug 12, 2005
    10
    I thought this movie was absolutly awsome! It was darker then the original but I enjoyed it. I don't think you can really compare the two as, well first of all the original was a musical.. this one wasn't. I loved how the oompa loompa ended up being the narrator. I think Johnny Depp did an awsome job as Willy... his facial expressions and laugh were great! For all of you who I thought this movie was absolutly awsome! It was darker then the original but I enjoyed it. I don't think you can really compare the two as, well first of all the original was a musical.. this one wasn't. I loved how the oompa loompa ended up being the narrator. I think Johnny Depp did an awsome job as Willy... his facial expressions and laugh were great! For all of you who hated it... relax a bit.... I mean really both movie's are excellent... they are different and I think thats one of the reasons they have different titles... its all from a different perspective. I don't see how you couldn't fin it the least bit entertaining.... I mean not even when he walked into the glass elevator... really? Just view them as separate movies... greatness in separate ways. Expand
  89. KenG
    Aug 25, 2005
    2
    The story always had a mean-spirited element to it, but Depp's creepy, and charmless performance, magnifies the mean-spirit feel even more, so the movie comes off as nothing but mean-spirited, with a little drabness thrown in. There is no humor, charm, or sense of wonder, or magic to counter-balance the mean-spiritness, as there was in the Gene Wilder orignal.
  90. JoshM.
    Aug 29, 2005
    10
    I thought it was wonderfully done. One of the best performances by Johnny Depp I've seen. It's beautifully filmed. Worth seeing for sure. I've seen it twice.
  91. Lucy-AnnSmith
    Sep 19, 2005
    10
    Very entertaining and full of comedy. The energy and special effects are amazing.
  92. ElizabethC
    Dec 20, 2006
    10
    In my opinion, any movie with Johnny Depp is awesome. Great Remake.... better than the original. I saw it in theatre's twice!
  93. LouisH.
    May 15, 2007
    1
    This movie was a freak-show on screen!!! It's movies like this that influence little kids to be like present-day Micheal Jackson when they grow up. It ruined J.D's reputation; I mean what did they do to him in this movie???! He is now king Dor-quad!
  94. AshtonL
    Jun 29, 2007
    8
    This movie is actually like the book. Not a remake of any kind. Freddy Highmore is adorable and Johnny Depp is... different in this family tale.
  95. RichardC
    Jul 24, 2007
    0
    Worst movie ever!!! First off Depp's acting sucked and I mean truly sucked. It was almost like watching a grown man imitate a little boy, but in a perverted way. This is a remake of Willy Wonka, if not it would have been named something else like Willy Wonka 2 or something. Plus you can not beat the original movie, because the performances were classic and subtle. Please Please do Worst movie ever!!! First off Depp's acting sucked and I mean truly sucked. It was almost like watching a grown man imitate a little boy, but in a perverted way. This is a remake of Willy Wonka, if not it would have been named something else like Willy Wonka 2 or something. Plus you can not beat the original movie, because the performances were classic and subtle. Please Please do not waste your time watching this garbage. I would say it is worst then Epic Movie. Those of you who thought it is cute, it is not. The only good thing about this movie is the scenery and special effects. Please don't encourage these Hollywood idiots to remake these movies, instead let's try to make something original that is good. Original pieces are almost always better then remakes. Expand
  96. Jess
    Aug 18, 2007
    8
    how many of you know that when Roald Dahl saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory before it was released literally walked out and called it a piece of trash??? I researched it because I too was a fan of the movie, and after reading the book totally understood why. This is one of the reasons why I love Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Mr. Bucket gets to LIVE in this one!! The oompa how many of you know that when Roald Dahl saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory before it was released literally walked out and called it a piece of trash??? I researched it because I too was a fan of the movie, and after reading the book totally understood why. This is one of the reasons why I love Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Mr. Bucket gets to LIVE in this one!! The oompa loompa songs actually have Mr. Dahl's lyrics in them(I love Mike TeeVee's song!)!! Willy Wonka was described as looking like a little devil...Johnny wasn't given the pointy beard, but he did his acting how he though ROALD would like it! I also love how they included the castle made of chocolate, that was my favorite Grampa Joe story. For those of you talking about how much Johnny sounded more like Michael Jackson, I will agree...he does, but as I told my mother, there is a difference: Wonka doesn't LIKE children, where as Mr. Jackson...well, you know. I give this movie an 8 because there are some stupid flashbacks thrown into the mix and it seemed too short, but all in all it's a GREAT movie, and the kids(they were kinda scared of "the girl turning into a blue berry") and adults I know love it as well. Expand
  97. GinaL.
    Jan 18, 2009
    8
    I thought that this movie was okay. it wasnt GREAT. but it wasnt HORRIBLE. it was OKAY. the book has great detail, but the movie skipped many many parts.
  98. CaptanS.
    Nov 26, 2005
    4
    One of the least inspiring movies of the last few years. Uncolorful, not charming and definitely not funny. Johnny Depp has to be one of the worst picks for this character, but honestly, why mess with "Willy Wonka" to begin with? Gene Wilder was amazing in the roll, charming and funny, but this ain't "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", mores the pity! Lifeless, uninspiring and One of the least inspiring movies of the last few years. Uncolorful, not charming and definitely not funny. Johnny Depp has to be one of the worst picks for this character, but honestly, why mess with "Willy Wonka" to begin with? Gene Wilder was amazing in the roll, charming and funny, but this ain't "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", mores the pity! Lifeless, uninspiring and bland! I give this one a 4 for the effects, but there's not much else to be excited about. Do yourselves a favor, go buy the original and let this one die a slow death. This review'll save 2 hrs. of your life that you will never get back! Expand
  99. Eric
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    I've tried twice to get through this movie. How in the world did so many critics score this a 100? It is absolutely abyssmal. Depp is completely wrong for the Wonka part, the Oompa Loompas are terrible, the songs are lousy, and the humor is nonexistent. I'm glad I only rented the DVD - if I'd actually paid $8 in a theater to see it, I'd have to consider filing a I've tried twice to get through this movie. How in the world did so many critics score this a 100? It is absolutely abyssmal. Depp is completely wrong for the Wonka part, the Oompa Loompas are terrible, the songs are lousy, and the humor is nonexistent. I'm glad I only rented the DVD - if I'd actually paid $8 in a theater to see it, I'd have to consider filing a lawsuit against the theater and/or the filmmaker for both my $8 and pain & suffering. Expand
  100. CRL
    Aug 27, 2011
    7
    Deviating from Roald Dahl's lighthearted children's story, Tim Burton decided instead to use Johnny Depp to the fullest extent in a darkly comedic look at a classic. Their new imagining of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is suitably wacky for a collaboration between the two of them. It's also a movie that never ceases to entertain everyone from its familiar beginning to itsDeviating from Roald Dahl's lighthearted children's story, Tim Burton decided instead to use Johnny Depp to the fullest extent in a darkly comedic look at a classic. Their new imagining of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is suitably wacky for a collaboration between the two of them. It's also a movie that never ceases to entertain everyone from its familiar beginning to its somewhat-kooky ending. Expand
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Here's a film about kids and for kids that has not lost touch with what it is like to actually be a kid.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    Entertaining and fabulously imaginative in many ways, this second bigscreen rendition of the late author's modest morality tale on the wages of unbridled excess sports excesses of its own.
  3. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    60
    This is rather a thin tale, not much thickened by Burton's direction or Depp's playing. There's a distance, a detachment to this film. It lacks passion.