Although a moralizing strand, this extravagant fever of Tim Burton, adapted from Roald Dahl’s bestseller, melts fun.
by
Adapted from the bestseller of the British writer Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolaterie (2005), from Tim Burton, is faithful to his title: he holds more of the melting candy than pepper candy. We will not spoil the pleasure of young spectators, to which this film is particularly intended. Two protagonists dominate the case: Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore), exemplary offshore of a very modest but infinitely welded and loving family, and Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp), Richissime Chocolate Magnat, Inventor of Genie and Eccentric Notoire, Prey at the loneliness of the one who has never tasted the joys of the American family.
The generous child and the egotist industrialist each have something that the other ignores and are made to meet. However, years ago Willy Wonka closed his factory, where he saw reclusive, because of the gross imitations of his competitors. It will come back to five children to discover the origin of this mystery, after the announcement by the boss of the chocolate of the exceptional reopening of the doors of his factory to the happy beneficiaries of the five “sesames” in end introduced among the millions of tablets Wonka distributed around the world.
Sadness good child
The discovery of the elected officials then the tests that their reserve Willy Wonka in the intent of designating his successor will occupy the essentials of the film and allow Tim Burton to exercise his spirit of satire and his taste of fairy extravagance. In fact, the rivals of the little Charlie, who miraculously found in the street a ticket thanks to which he buys one of the winning tablets, are not stitched from the Hannetons. Augustus Gloop? A obese also ugly than naughty. VERUCA SALT? An irritating British Pimbêche. Purple Beauregarde? A small obsessive trophy in the spirit “made in USA”. Mike Teavee? Insupportable bug carved for contests.
Since then, the visit can begin, revealing one of the main interests of the film: the way, relatively cruel, of which each small monster will be eliminated from the contest even because of the dominant feature which bases its caricature. The gluttony for Gloop, pride for salt, stupidity for Beauregard, arrogance for teaveae.
This Burtonian charge against the King Child, crowned by Hollywood, would be pleasant if the sadism (good child) was justified by moralism that ends up stirring the film. Issued from this background that is difficult to forget, the other virtue of this visit takes more completely admiration. It is the invention of a world delivered to the pure creative fantasy of the filmmaker, which evolves his characters in a fantastic confectionery scenery where each element is the dimension of the real fantasmagior gourmet of childhood.