Stephen Speicher

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Rate this movie   25 votes

  1. 1. Rate this movie

    • 10
      2
    • 9
      8
    • 8
      7
    • 7
      4
    • 6
      0
    • 5
      0
    • 4
      2
    • 3
      1
    • 2
      0
    • 1
      0
    • 0
      1

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

53 posts in this topic

Just because an 8 year old that is physically weak of stature and wretchedly poor gets walked on by some people, does not mean he is submissive or meek, it just means he is an 8 year old that is physically weak of stature and wretchedly poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***YARGH, SOME SPOILERS AHEAD MATEY!***

How on earth can you claim young Charlie had no ambition?  Every time he got his hands on money he dashed off to buy a chocolate bar for a ridiculously, ridiculously, small chance of him winning the golden ticket.  Or what about the chocolate factory replica he painstakingly built from defective toothpaste caps?  Not to mention, we see him shining shoes at the end of the movie, clearly a sign of some form of ambition.

1. Since when is buying the equivalent of a lottery ticket considered "ambition". Compare what Charlie did with what Mike Teavee did. Mike broke the code of the whole industrial distribution plan and confidently stated that he only had "to buy one bar" (as opposed to the English girl's dad who bought tens of thousands). And notice also how Charlie benefits from luck. This was another annoying cliche. Having big dreams does not make one ambitious.

2. Charlie's replica chocolate factory showed that he was just a regular kid. Again Mike and Veruca are portrayed as driven and brilliant. Charlie is playing with the equivalent of legos. He is ordinary compared to his competitors and yet the film associates him with virtue. An accident? I think not.

3. Shining shoes is honest work. And Charlie was an honest, decent, hard working kid. I'm not denying that. But he was an ordinary honest, decent kid. He did not symbolize ambition, intelligence or pride. He stood for humility and decency which in the proper contexts are good things to be sure. But they are not exceptional. If you were Willy Wonka, who would you have hired out of the five? I would have hired Mike Teavee in a second. He may have annoyed the hell out of me but he was brilliant. Comparatively Charlie had little to offer.

I see that there are a few people in this thread that have embraced this movie and made it very near and dear to their soul. So be it. Relish it as much as you wish. But understand that many others do not see the great life affirming values that you have projected into this movie. As has become apparent, many see the film as ordinary at best.

And that's my last bit of commentary on Charlie and his Chocolate factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest not worrying about the philosophies of hollywood. Aside from them I found the movie simply delectable. I thought that Johnny Depp was the only thing that held the movie together(and extremely well at that), and without him it would have just been mmm...blah... His attitude was clearly conveyed in his face and his conversations-I'm watching you and I'm pretending I'm caring but I'm really thinking about something different and trying to smile and nod at the appropriate places. It was amazing! Yes, I noticed that the two Americans were the crazy ambition driven person and the rather crazy smart person that choose to do nothing with it but play video games. But that aside, it was wonderous. I particularly liked(SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERWATCHOUTFORSPOILER) the squirrels and how it reminded me of watching The Birds(Alfred Hitchcock).

I saw the movie twice and plan on buying it when it comes out. Just like what I did with The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Which may explain why I loved this movie... I just thought that Johnny Depp was awesome. Just sheerly awesome. And how his acts vary! It's amazing. From "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to "Finding Neverland" and back to "Pirates of the Carribean(another great movie)" and around again with Charlie. I hate to say that it's superior to the original, it's like comparing an apple and an orange(which I like oranges more by the way). I found myself dissapointed in the Oompa Loompas though. One man being replicated and shrunk wasn't near as good as a bunch of short people of varying size and in a size that seemed real. I think I liked the old songs better, but then again I understood them better too. If you want to argue the philosophical meaning in the moviee I would look to these songs because I think they contained it all. But alas, I couldn't understand all of it so I can't debate it with you.

(ANOTHERSPOILER!)

Everything you see in this room is edible, the trees are edible, the grass is edible, even I'm edible. But children, that is called cannibalism and is frowned upon in most societies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites