Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.06 AVERAGE
4.06 AVERAGE
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
I may have read this in grad school for my library degree, but I may not. I saw the original movie so many times as a kid, and I saw the Johnny Depp version when it came out, and both movies are amazingly faithful to the book in a lot of ways. So I may never have read it at all and yet still found it so familiar.
This story is full of the best kind of nonsense, not to mention the chocolate. (I would like some right now, please.) My favorite passage (p. 86 in chapter 18):
"How can you whip cream without whips? Whipped cream isn't whipped cream at all unless it's been whipped with whips. Just as a poached egg isn't a poached egg unless it's been stolen from the woods in the dead of night!"
This story is full of the best kind of nonsense, not to mention the chocolate. (I would like some right now, please.) My favorite passage (p. 86 in chapter 18):
"How can you whip cream without whips? Whipped cream isn't whipped cream at all unless it's been whipped with whips. Just as a poached egg isn't a poached egg unless it's been stolen from the woods in the dead of night!"
Quirky fun. Kept waiting for the line, You loose, good-day sir! Not in the book. Charlie wins!
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
It's hard to review/rate this as a book on its own because I am so familiar with the movies. I imagine coming across this imaginative world for the first time would be a fascinating and fantastic experience.
I read it because my youngest is obsessed with both the "old movie" from 1971 and the "new movie" from 2005 and I was curious about which is more accurate. It turns out both are mostly true to the book and both deviate from it but in different ways. For example, there's no Slugworth as a menacing character, there are a lot more parents involved, Charlie and his grandpa don't drink Fizzy Lifting Drinks (which, really, is a dumb addition as Charlie would probably meet a fate like the other children if he did that) and there's no backstory about Wonka's dentist father. The boat is bright pink and made of candy, the Oompa Loompas are slightly more accurate in the 2005 version, which also includes most of the original lyrics of their songs, but in the 1971 version we get to explore more of Wonka's factory, which they don't really do in the book - they just rush past rooms labeled Lickable Wallpaper- but it's cool to see, and Wonka immediately invites Charlie's family to join him at the factory.
Now, the big question for me, whose performance most closely matches Wonka's character and spirit: Gene Wilder's or Johnny Depp's? Wilder's is much closer, but he's still a little more inscrutable (the goofy little poems he recites), whimsical and indifferent or even mean (yelling at Charlie at the end). But he certainly captures the sparkle in Wonka's eyes.
Johnny Depp channels a Michael Jackson-style child prodigy (as my husband characterizes it, which is accurate IMO). He's super socially awkward, affects a weird, high-pitched voice and is very childlike. This is all Depp/Burton's creation. The stupid haircut (actually Wonka has a goatee in the book), the weird teeth and the gray pallor are all in service of a Wonka that's not based in the book.
The book's Wonka is much more straightforward. He's an eccentric, high-energy (he's always running through factory), goofy, almost manic guy who is much more sincere than I expected. To be honest though, playing him this straight might be boring.
So it was fun to read this through the lens of comparing the movies and ultimately deciding that each film has its own merits, the original has the benefit of looking and feeling real, rather than computer-generated, just having the wonderful Gene Wilder in it and also...not being a Tim Burton vehicle - I just don't think his dark style is quite right for this quirky tale.
I read it because my youngest is obsessed with both the "old movie" from 1971 and the "new movie" from 2005 and I was curious about which is more accurate. It turns out both are mostly true to the book and both deviate from it but in different ways. For example, there's no Slugworth as a menacing character, there are a lot more parents involved, Charlie and his grandpa don't drink Fizzy Lifting Drinks (which, really, is a dumb addition as Charlie would probably meet a fate like the other children if he did that) and there's no backstory about Wonka's dentist father. The boat is bright pink and made of candy, the Oompa Loompas are slightly more accurate in the 2005 version, which also includes most of the original lyrics of their songs, but in the 1971 version we get to explore more of Wonka's factory, which they don't really do in the book - they just rush past rooms labeled Lickable Wallpaper- but it's cool to see, and Wonka immediately invites Charlie's family to join him at the factory.
Now, the big question for me, whose performance most closely matches Wonka's character and spirit: Gene Wilder's or Johnny Depp's? Wilder's is much closer, but he's still a little more inscrutable (the goofy little poems he recites), whimsical and indifferent or even mean (yelling at Charlie at the end). But he certainly captures the sparkle in Wonka's eyes.
Johnny Depp channels a Michael Jackson-style child prodigy (as my husband characterizes it, which is accurate IMO). He's super socially awkward, affects a weird, high-pitched voice and is very childlike. This is all Depp/Burton's creation. The stupid haircut (actually Wonka has a goatee in the book), the weird teeth and the gray pallor are all in service of a Wonka that's not based in the book.
The book's Wonka is much more straightforward. He's an eccentric, high-energy (he's always running through factory), goofy, almost manic guy who is much more sincere than I expected. To be honest though, playing him this straight might be boring.
So it was fun to read this through the lens of comparing the movies and ultimately deciding that each film has its own merits, the original has the benefit of looking and feeling real, rather than computer-generated, just having the wonderful Gene Wilder in it and also...not being a Tim Burton vehicle - I just don't think his dark style is quite right for this quirky tale.
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I loved reading this book with my 4 year old son even more than I did reading it when I was a kid. He gave it five stars and his favorite part was the bit with Veruca Salt and the squirrels.