Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew?: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"

For ironic timing, you can't beat "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Just as the Lord of Neverland Manor, Michael Jackson, disappears from view following his acquital, we get another pasty-faced recluse with a weird fixation on kids. I surely wasn't the only one thinking of the parallel while watching the trailers for "Charlie," and when Willy Wonka can't bring himself to utter the word "parents" in the movie ... well, it's hard not to get the willies.

That's one hurdle when it comes to this movie, but it fortunately doesn't kill the film altogether. I'll admit to "Charlie" being low on my priority list -- hey, I paid to see "The Island," remember? -- but it also was about the only thing the missus and I could agree on this weekend. For some reason, she wasn't as intrigued by Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke. Go figure.

Besides, most of the "Charlie" reviews were good, right? Um, yeah, but I'm afraid that all the praise doesn't matter when the movie falls short of the original. That's what I came away thinking, and I'm not sure it's just because I've seen the Gene Wilder version a hundred times.

Our story hasn't changed much since 1971, and there really is no harm in updating it more than 30 years later. To his credit, Tim Burton adds a few nice touches, such as more background on Wonka's factory and the man himself. No question this movie has more depth and exposition than "Wonka," and I was less bored leading up to the factory tour; with the original, there's absolutely no shame in skipping ahead to the part when Wilder-as-Wonka limps to the front gate and does his famous somersault -- one of my alltime favorite movie scenes.

Unfortunately, the tradeoff comes in the performances. First, there are the kids. No question that Freddie Highmore is an infinitely superior Charlie, and that his maturity compared with Wonka's childlike behavior is nicely portrayed. But the other kids ... not so much. True, no one expects any of these brats to be little De Niros -- the roles don't call for it. Still, if they're going to be one-dimensional nightmares, maybe they should have been even more out there.

And then there's Johnny Depp ("The Astronaut's Wife"), Tim Burton's muse and the man who would be Wonka. I've heralded Depp's acting chops before, and he has a nice go at this role. But I never really bought the whole "closet case one minute, menace the other" bit. I don't know ... maybe I just can't get Wilder out of my mind. In any case, I really liked his whole "friendly at first, smart-ass for the duration" schtick. ("We have so much time and so little to do. Wait, strike that, reverse it.") Depp went in another direction, which I respect. I'm just not sure he sold it, even with the context of Wonka's life. Like I said, maybe it's just me.

This also doesn't detract from the enjoyable parts of "Charlie," foremost among them the Oompa Loompas, all played by the same 4' 4" guy named Deep Roy. (And you're not alone if that screamed "porn name" to you.) The musical numbers -- scored by Danny Elfman, who along with Burton and Depp form such a tight trio I assume the're on a bowling team -- are catchy enough, and Ol' Deep seems to having fun as various Oompa Loompas. Oh, and if he looks familiar, maybe it was because he played the little pet of Princess Aura in "Flash Gordon." That's right, 25 years ago, baby. And here you thought I was flying blind on a rocket cycle ...