Charlie and the Chocolate Factory review 

The news that Tim Burton would be directing a new version of Roald Dahl's popular novel about a young boy's eventful visit to an amazing chocolate factory with an enigmatic owner was met with much enthusiasm across the board.

The most memorable aspect of Burton's films have always been their imaginative visuals, and Dahl's story presented a seemingly perfect opportunity for the director to indulge his creative whims and conjure a wealth of awesome images.

But when the trailer debuted, many of the images on display did not seem as "out there" as one might have expected. Most of the sets looked like slightly more expensive versions of those seen in the 1971 version of the film. Where were the mind-blowing visuals this serendipitous pairing of director and material promised?

But this reviewer kept the faith - no one should ever judge a film by its trailer and this was Burton after all. If anyone could make this film great, it would be the man behind such lush visual feasts as Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish.

Which is why it's disappointing to report that while the finished product makes for a pleasantly diverting viewing experience, it primarily represents a creative opportunity not fully exploited.

There are lush images all throughout the film, and a degree of visual wit and panache above most Hollywood product, but the problem is they haven't made enough of an effort to go beyond the look of the first film. The primary set pieces all pretty much play out the same as in the 1971 version, and in some instances, less imaginatively.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of pleasures on offer - it's just that a director of Burton's stature should really have gone a little further than he does here.

As much as Burton seemed like a perfect fit as the director of a new version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the casting of Burton's muse Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka felt similarly ideal.

But while Depp has an interesting look in the film, his execution of the character feels haphazard and not fully thought out. It's as if he serves whatever type of kookiness each separate scene calls for, without developing any sort of tangible consistency. But Depp is nevertheless captivating and at various times evokes Edward Scissorhands' blank-faced bemusement; Ed Wood's indomitable enthusiasm and the impatient petulance of a ten-year-old boy.

The film's attempt to broaden the emotional scope of Wonka by creating a trite psychological back story for him is fun to watch play out, but ultimately feels like a cynical attempt to make the audience relate to a character that arguably would've worked better the less we knew about him.

The character of Wonka in this film does not like children one little bit, which is a mistake. The key to getting behind him as a character is that he clearly is a child at heart, and thus feels a kinship with his five young visitors. It doesn't need to be pronounced, and you can even have Wonka be ambiguously threatening at times, but you should be able to sense that he is ultimately on the children's side. Not the case here.

The five children in the film are all well cast and put in amusing performances - the stand out being Jordan Fry as Mike Teavee, the character most removed from his 1971 incarnation. As Charlie, Freddie Highmore is suitably endearing (although you do kinda wanna throttle him at times), and David Kelly makes for nicely Burton-esque Grandpa Joe.

The parents of the other kids all look great, but barely get the chance to register with only a couple of lines each - some more interaction between them would've been nice.

One area where the film makes great creative strides is in how it presents the Oompa Loompas. The already diminutive (4'4") actor Deep Roy was shrunken digitally and replicated numerous times to portray every single Oompa Loompa. He gets most of the laughs in the film, and the musical numbers (performed by Burton's long term composer Danny Elfman) are actually quite fun, each possessing a dynamic and different tone.

And as much as many of the sets feel too familiar (the garden/chocolate waterfall was a real lost opportunity), there are some other fantastic visuals on display. The exteriors of the factory and the surrounding town are classic Burton gothic pop and the execution of the great glass elevator (barely an afterthought in 1971) is undeniably cool.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a pleasant film going experience - it's very stylised, very colourful and at times quite funny. But it doesn't evoke enough of a sense of wonder to truly inspire, or do enough to tap into the devlish kids-against-the-world quality that informed Dahl's written work.

It is, however, worth seeing, and the criticisms presented here shouldn't affect the younger audience members' enjoyment of the film. It's easy to forget that they are most likely the film's target audience, but let's also not forget how in the past Burton has done a much better job of catering to both young and old.

File under interesting misfire.

Moderately recommended.

Dominic Corry

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is in cinemas now.