The reason many people badmouth this movie
It's either because they won't stop comparing it to the original, or just because it's the cool thing to do.
With that said, I am not of of those people.
No, it's because it's a bad movie. It's not the "cool" thing to do, considering it was a box office success and got relatively good critic reviews. But the audiences didn't care for it as much, and it has no lasting legacy. The only people that remember it or care about it enough to post here are those who dislike it. It's one of Johnny's worst performances, it began the era of everyone getting sick and tired of Johnny and Tim Burton collaborations, they tarnished the story by putting in Wonka's Daddy and making Wonka the central character (which Roald Dahl would have DESPISED), and it was just plain forgettable and generic. It also bothered me how everyone involved in production seemed to be trained to say they disliked the 1971 film and it had no bearing on theirs at all (if you watch AnnaSophia/Freddie interviews you can tell these kids were trained to say that). What an insult.
_____
The WiFi password is "Mother"
It was a box office success, but the audience didn't like it? Ooooookay. And even Roald Dahl despised the '71 version, which is why The Glass Elevator was never made.
As for this one, I find it just as entertaining as the first (I was 12 when the first on came out and I just finished watching the '05 version.). With the exception of Christopher Lee's part, this was almost an exact copy of the first one. Seeing that they're based on the same book, that should be expected, but there are times I swear they use the exact same line as the '71 version, so I really don't know how you could say one is better than the other. I did like the humor that was in this one, too. I especially like the Puppet Hospital and Burn Center.
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
It was a box office success, but the audience didn't like it? Ooooookay.
It's not uncommon for movies to be financially successful and yet don't receive great feedback from audiences, just look at Spider-Man 3 (2007), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008), and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) for examples.
The main reason why critics were favorable towards this film back in 2005 was because the majority of them were on the Johnny Depp bandwagon, he was all the rage due to his Pirates of the Caribbean fame and could do almost no wrong at the time. But over time, reception has been much less positive, bordering on negative. If you look on Rotten Tomatoes, the critics' score currently sits at 82% "Certified Fresh", however the reviews were back from 2005 when the film was fresh and new, the audience' score (which is more contemporary with today) sits only at 51%.
And even Roald Dahl despised the '71 version
He despised every theatrical adaptation of his work made during his lifetime if it deviated even slightly from it's source. Heck, he was so unhappy with The Witches (1990) that he stood outside a London theater with a megaphone encouraging people to not see the film. If he was alive to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), I doubt his 89 year old self would think it was any better than the '71 film, only this time he'd be complaining about Daddy dentist issues instead of Slugworth. share
I imagine Dahl would have had his problems with this version as well. But I would also imagine he'd have at least a little more courtesy since this film didn't come with baggage of Seltzer re-writing his screenplay.
I'd say his reaction would start with "Thank you for keeping ______, but I'm mad you did this ________"
box office success only means a bigger advertising budget was used, it's called Marketing. It has little to do with people liking the film.
share