Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
After years of hearing about how much better the 1971 adaptation is than the 2005 version, I decided to give it a watch. Although I did have the 2005 version on DVD as a kid and enjoyed it well enough, I was fully open to the idea that the 1971 version was superior. After watching it though—which then made me want to go back and watch the 2005 adaptation again as an adult—I am FULLY and unapologetically in the corner of Tim Burton's version.
The main reason people argue that the Tim Burton version is better is because it is more faithful to the book. But I agree with the 1971 crowd in that just because something is more faithful to the source material does not necessarily mean it is automatically a better movie. I think The Amazing Spider-Man series is more faithful to the comic books than the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series, but I think the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series are better movies overall. But in Burton’s case, fidelity does serve the film because it allows the original book's excellent tone and themes to shine where the 1971 version did its own thing.
First of all, the 1971 version is not a terrible movie. I am actually a fan of Gene Wilder, and I think he is enjoyable to watch despite some of the bizarre writing choices. This may be the most disagreeable take I have, but the 1971 Willy Wonka came off as creepy to me—and not in a 'Tim Burton, spooky Halloween' way, in an 'overly-touchy, check-his-hard-drive' sort of way. I know that may sound harsh, and I really try to avoid seeing things that are supposed to be innocent in that way, but he repeatedly caresses and pets the kids—that, combined with his moral inconsistency as a character, made me slightly uncomfortable, if I'm completely honest—and if it weren't Gene Wilder, I think it would have been way worse. I thought Johnny Depp's Wonka was much more endearing and enjoyable to watch. He better conveys a brilliant recluse who has the imagination (and social skills) of a child. He has motivation, and even emotional damage. He’s broken by a dentist-father obsessed with control, who built his candy empire not just to spite him but to reclaim the childhood he thought he was deprived of. I found him much more interesting as a character than Gene Wilder's Wonka.
It's not just Wonka that's more interesting in the 2005 version—I’d argue all the kids, Charlie's family members, and even the townspeople are more interesting to watch. Charlie is meek and humble, and that has made him principled at a young age—wise in the places where Wonka is not. I enjoyed that dynamic. Grandpa Joe is also not a jackass in the 2005 version—he's kind and childlike in good ways. Even Charlie's paternal grandfather, who is grouchy and stubborn, had redeeming qualities. There is so much more care put into the characters and what role they play in the story—what utility they have in conveying the message of the story.
Some of the songs in the 1971 adaptation are exceptional, and many fall flat in my opinion. In the 2005 version, Danny Elfman absolutely nails the tone of the movie. The opening sequence is a masterclass in setting the tone with score (and visuals). It's mysterious, moody, mechanical, industrial. It makes me feel like I'm about to see something special and otherworldly. Not to mention, each of the kids gets their own unique songs this time—and they're bangers—not just the same "Oompa Loompa doopity doo" song over and over again.
Finally, without being unfair to the period it was made, the sets in the 1971 version are just bad. They look cheap and fake, like a middle-school play. The set direction in the 2005 version is very impressive, even without the comparison to the 1971 version. The sets look real, like they have weight to them. Despite some admittedly dated CGI which I can look past, the entire movie is a surprisingly enjoyable visual spectacle—the kind I'd pay extra money to see in IMAX.
The writing, the score, the set direction, the acting, the tone are all just better, IMHO
The main reason people argue that the Tim Burton version is better is because it is more faithful to the book. But I agree with the 1971 crowd in that just because something is more faithful to the source material does not necessarily mean it is automatically a better movie. I think The Amazing Spider-Man series is more faithful to the comic books than the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series, but I think the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series are better movies overall. But in Burton’s case, fidelity does serve the film because it allows the original book's excellent tone and themes to shine where the 1971 version did its own thing.
First of all, the 1971 version is not a terrible movie. I am actually a fan of Gene Wilder, and I think he is enjoyable to watch despite some of the bizarre writing choices. This may be the most disagreeable take I have, but the 1971 Willy Wonka came off as creepy to me—and not in a 'Tim Burton, spooky Halloween' way, in an 'overly-touchy, check-his-hard-drive' sort of way. I know that may sound harsh, and I really try to avoid seeing things that are supposed to be innocent in that way, but he repeatedly caresses and pets the kids—that, combined with his moral inconsistency as a character, made me slightly uncomfortable, if I'm completely honest—and if it weren't Gene Wilder, I think it would have been way worse. I thought Johnny Depp's Wonka was much more endearing and enjoyable to watch. He better conveys a brilliant recluse who has the imagination (and social skills) of a child. He has motivation, and even emotional damage. He’s broken by a dentist-father obsessed with control, who built his candy empire not just to spite him but to reclaim the childhood he thought he was deprived of. I found him much more interesting as a character than Gene Wilder's Wonka.
It's not just Wonka that's more interesting in the 2005 version—I’d argue all the kids, Charlie's family members, and even the townspeople are more interesting to watch. Charlie is meek and humble, and that has made him principled at a young age—wise in the places where Wonka is not. I enjoyed that dynamic. Grandpa Joe is also not a jackass in the 2005 version—he's kind and childlike in good ways. Even Charlie's paternal grandfather, who is grouchy and stubborn, had redeeming qualities. There is so much more care put into the characters and what role they play in the story—what utility they have in conveying the message of the story.
Some of the songs in the 1971 adaptation are exceptional, and many fall flat in my opinion. In the 2005 version, Danny Elfman absolutely nails the tone of the movie. The opening sequence is a masterclass in setting the tone with score (and visuals). It's mysterious, moody, mechanical, industrial. It makes me feel like I'm about to see something special and otherworldly. Not to mention, each of the kids gets their own unique songs this time—and they're bangers—not just the same "Oompa Loompa doopity doo" song over and over again.
Finally, without being unfair to the period it was made, the sets in the 1971 version are just bad. They look cheap and fake, like a middle-school play. The set direction in the 2005 version is very impressive, even without the comparison to the 1971 version. The sets look real, like they have weight to them. Despite some admittedly dated CGI which I can look past, the entire movie is a surprisingly enjoyable visual spectacle—the kind I'd pay extra money to see in IMAX.
The writing, the score, the set direction, the acting, the tone are all just better, IMHO
Mini Review: After revisiting both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptations, I’m fully in the 2005 camp. It has stronger character development, richer visuals, a hauntingly perfect score, and a more compelling Wonka with actual depth. The 1971 version feels dated, morally inconsistent, and even unsettling at times. Tim Burton’s take, while darker, is more emotionally resonant and true to the story’s themes—making it the better film, not just the more faithful one.
Watch the Trailer