movie review with spoilers all the way through!

O.k.I am not the best reviewer, nor do I have education too back up a word I say, but here goes.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

The main buzz around these here parts was that it was a movie to forgo, let it pass, or at least wait until the d.v.d. came out. "Johnny Depp is just waaaay to 'Michael Jackson' creepy to watch this time around." or "The whole thing made me sad because it wasn't a thing like the first one." "I can't go see this movie with a creeped out guy. It would betray the fondness I have for Gene Wilder." And there were a few "This movie rocks!", but mainly from people I really didn't trust as far as "movie taste" being similar to mine. But something inside of me LOVES both Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, so I plunked down the $40.00 to see it.

$40.00? Yup. When you live as far out in the toolies as Thor and I, you drive to see a flick. You pay $12.00 to get in, $87.92 for popcorn, goobers, and a soda (Go over to "TinyPineapple" and read his 'Angst in my Pants' - I can totally relate!), plus the gas money these days in California!

When we saw the movie it was about in it's second week, however the memory still lingers on. From what I understand, it is a very close interpretation to the book. A local review called it "Dark Chocolate". I have a different slant. For me, the movie was shot and directed as if a 8-10 year old boy were actually the story-teller. All the remarks ("You're mumbling and I can't heeear you!"), facial expressions (Giddy at the thought of it being "Tuesday"), sets (Pretty much the same as the first; but with a definite period it was written in "60's" look), demise of children ("Why would I want to send you to a t.v.? You don't taste good!"), etc. were just as if a little boy were in charge. Really; would any adult come up with turning an annoying little girl into a giant blueberry and have her "squeezed"? (yes, that scene was also in the first, but Gene Wilder's interpretation was more of an irritated or less than bothered gentleman.) When the mom in the picture slyly makes a sexual remark, his reply isn't that of a grown man, it's: "Eew!" with a screwed up face. 10 year old boy.

The over sized "head gear" worn by young Willie, and the demonic father forbidding candy, all seemed very familiar to a mom who had three boys herself. Lots of things were exaggerated ("maaahm! I am allergic to them and I will die if you make me eat them!"), only to be fully understood as the boys grew into manhood.

When viewed with these thoughts in mind, there isn't anything "weird" or "creepy" about Johnny Depp's performance at all. He is acting as a ten year old boy telling a story.

Things that this movie has over the original (which I LOVE) are that this story explains why Willi has the factory (and why he is "weird"), why the family is destitute, why Charlie is wise as a child. It allows Charlie's example of family and love to help bring Willi and his father back to a real relationship. In the first movie, Charlie accepts the factory and all that comes with it. In the second he turns it down in favor of living the rest of his life hand to mouth with his family in their now (thanks to Willi) destroyed and almost irreparable house. Family is the point. Family love is more important than money or fame or even a chocolate factory that can provide all the world. Without your family, why would you want those things anyway? And finally, this version of the book shows that in the end, even when you have all the luxuries -or access to them- there is no place like home.

Two thumbs way up! I liked the first, but I love the second! The minute it comes out on d.v.d. S'mee will be there to purchase it.