Paul King, the director behind the enchanting Paddington films entered the fold to direct a prequel to Gene Wilder's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Unfortunately, this outing is overproduced and overdone. And just like chocolate; some things are best had in moderation. Roald Dahl's work in recent times has regrettably been tampered with to remove language related to race, gender, weight, and mental health that today's readers might deem offensive. This film feels like a continuation of that craven desire to be inoffensive. The result is a slightly safe and garden variety end-product which isn't much of a tribute to Dahl, if it even wanted to be.
For me, all things Willy Wonka should be almost like an experiential hallucination; self-contained, a bit mysterious, and open to interpretation, without the need for any elaborate backstory spelling things out. Wonka should be an experience, not a storyboard. He ought be unpredictable, a one-off. In the book he is innovative, flamboyant, stubborn, arrogant, and authoritarian. We saw the innovative and the flamboyant, but none of the rest. Or how those latter qualities might have taken, or were taking, shape. Timothee Chalamet's portrayal, for all its innocent charms and trinkets, simply did not have the comedic and deliciously unpredictable edge of either Wilder or Depp's Wonkas; the dimensionality just wasn't there. That "edge" would have bounced off the sassiness of the stubborn Oompa Loompa perfectly, helping the audience to see how Wonka wins them over (besides just a paltry supposed bribe of chocolate tasting). Here, it's Hugh Grant outsmarting, outshining, and outwitting a bumbling wide-smiling, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Wonka in most of the scenes they share. The musical genre of this film wasn't a bad call, given the iconic hit of Wilder's "Pure Imagination," why not try out a musical style? The original songs here could have a little more oomph, though, lyrically and musically. The trio of main villains were excellently cast, with Matt Lucas, Paterson Joseph (stealing the show), and Mathew Baynton. All three were a treat to see on-screen.
Overall this film is relatively unchallenging for children compared to Wilder's 1971 work under the original source material, or Tim Burton's satirical 2005 outing. Imagining Willy Wonka as sweet, cloying and one-toned as he's shown here with Chalamet doesn't quite hit the sweet spot.
6.8/10.
For me, all things Willy Wonka should be almost like an experiential hallucination; self-contained, a bit mysterious, and open to interpretation, without the need for any elaborate backstory spelling things out. Wonka should be an experience, not a storyboard. He ought be unpredictable, a one-off. In the book he is innovative, flamboyant, stubborn, arrogant, and authoritarian. We saw the innovative and the flamboyant, but none of the rest. Or how those latter qualities might have taken, or were taking, shape. Timothee Chalamet's portrayal, for all its innocent charms and trinkets, simply did not have the comedic and deliciously unpredictable edge of either Wilder or Depp's Wonkas; the dimensionality just wasn't there. That "edge" would have bounced off the sassiness of the stubborn Oompa Loompa perfectly, helping the audience to see how Wonka wins them over (besides just a paltry supposed bribe of chocolate tasting). Here, it's Hugh Grant outsmarting, outshining, and outwitting a bumbling wide-smiling, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Wonka in most of the scenes they share. The musical genre of this film wasn't a bad call, given the iconic hit of Wilder's "Pure Imagination," why not try out a musical style? The original songs here could have a little more oomph, though, lyrically and musically. The trio of main villains were excellently cast, with Matt Lucas, Paterson Joseph (stealing the show), and Mathew Baynton. All three were a treat to see on-screen.
Overall this film is relatively unchallenging for children compared to Wilder's 1971 work under the original source material, or Tim Burton's satirical 2005 outing. Imagining Willy Wonka as sweet, cloying and one-toned as he's shown here with Chalamet doesn't quite hit the sweet spot.
6.8/10.