BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

John Savage Good god how is this film given a rating above 6...It is beyond terrible.Are people really this tasteless?The musical acts sound like they've been pushed through a sound synthesizer by someone who hasn't got a clue what they're doing. The original musicals were pretty good, sung with appreciation and talent. Can't say the same here.Depp's performance, as bizarre as it is, is rather woeful. Reminds me too much of a Michael Jackson imitation and that's not what you want to be thinking about watching this film.The overall plot more or less follows the original in some ways, but really there's nothing to be gained from it. It wasn't ambitious enough, although the imagery was nice and splendid, it was sadly backed up by shoddy writing and direction.

Darryl Jason It's taken me 13 years to properly sit down & watch this remake. Having not really been a fan of Johnny Depp over the years, I have to say that this film really doesn't suit him. I don't think he was right for the role at all. But then again, who else would be perfect other than the original Gene Wilder. I've given this one a chance now & finally watched it (right now in 2018) & I just can't get over how bizarre Depp plays the role: creepy, wooden, sarcastically annoying to the children in the film. His laugh is horrendous & his head-bopping to the Oompa Loompas songs & dances. It's like he's at a concert & he's enjoying it more than the children. The child actors - I don't recognise one single one & can't say I've seen any of them in anything else. Since this movie was made in 2005 I don't think this film has given them any recognition since we're now in 2018 & you never see or hear of any of them. Whereas the 1971 classic is still there in people's hearts (including mine). The original movie with Gene Wilder still holds conventions around the world where the original actors (Peter Ostrum, Julie Dawn Cole) attend for photo signings but I have to say; just what recognition can one give this 2005 remake. The children in this film also show no excitement - no emotion - no laughs or thrills considering they're in a chocolate factory. There's just no engagement & I have to agree with one of the other reviewers on here; watch for the scene when they're in the river boat tearing down at fast speed: the children make no noise of excitement, no screams, no joys. Nothing. I think the most impressive part of the movie is with the squirrels. I'll give this one credit cause it actually quite impressed me the effects of it. & I think it's trying to show you that squirrels can be quite scary (imagine approaching one yourself & it pouncing on you for attack!)Can't say I think much of the Oompa Loompas. Never really thought much of Deep Roy (who plays the duplicated Oompa Loompas). I met him once at a convention here in the UK & the guy looked miserable as sin, he looked like he didn't want to be there. Most probably because there was nobody at his table wanting an autograph. I tried to say hello but he just barely said one word back. I'm not gonna say I dislike this movie nor did I enjoy it. I've just got no feeling to want to watch it again. But the original 1971 is always a classic and when it comes to a good egg, I'll be cracking open the dvd to the original anytime!

SimplyHaitian I usually wouldn't write a review for a movie that already has so many but I have decided to come forward and defend this one, particularly since a lot of the negative reviewers sound like they have descended into hysterics. I really don't understand what all the caterwauling is about. You would have thought that Tim Burton produced a film advocating Satanism for children or something. It's really not that serious and people need to get a grip. To be clear I have seen both the original older rendition and this one and I HAVE ENJOYED BOTH. It's a DIFFERENT movie and I find the acting therein SUPERB. I have watched this film many times and the jokes, facial expression and banter never get old. The cast did an outstanding job. I find myself laughing EACH and EVERY time I watch this. As far parental advisories I watch this with my children all the time. (Admittedly there about perhaps TWO scenes that may be very briefly disturbing.) And I am big on parental guidance when it comes to movies and I am quick to protect my little ones and quick to protest, yes PROTEST, when Hollyweird gets out of line. But I really don't see what the fuss is about. (But of course, it is clearly for each parent to decide.) For those who insist on comparing this film to the original and posting your protestations online please calm down. Know that you are doing the public a diservice with your hysterics. Please step aside and allow others to view this film for its own merits. For those who have an open mind go forth and enjoy this. You won't be disappointed!

Dude62 Very well done; well-acted, well-directed, and well arranged for the silver screen. Watching this made feel like I'm re-reading that beautiful book from my childhood. There are only two things that bugs me; one of them is very subjective; when I've read the book back in the days, I've always dreamt the the insides of the chocolate factory would have a blue sky so it would have a much more brighter atmosphere from the dark and cold city thus it would create a great contrast. The second thing that bugged me is much more objective but it's far less important when compared; the narrator appears at the beginning of the movie, establishing things just like in the book, then... he's gone. And then the appears out of nowhere. It feels a little disjointed. Burton took the source material, respected it more than any other comic or novel based production and achieved something bigger than lots of other comic or novel based movie. Well done.