Wonka

Memories of Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka performance come to mind and whereas his 1971 version was magical and witty, this 2023 version of Wonka is a bit underwhelming to be honest...

The bad: the songs just dont excite me. They just dont. They are not terrible, but quite average. The songs in the 1971 version of Willy Wonka were superb. I can still remember them to this very day!

More bad: there is a lack of magic and surprise. The story just doesnt take me on a trip like the original did. Sorry, that I keep comparing this one to the original. Perhaps I shouldnt?

Not any good then? This movie will surely please the young kids who ofcourse are the target audience for this movie. It's a nice fantasy musical movie for sure, with a bunch of TERRIFIC English actors, who lift this movie up. Timothee Chalamet did an allright job as well.

Nothing to really dislike about it, but nothing to get really excited about it either unfortunately, for me as a grownup fan of the original Willy Wonka with Gene Wilder.

This movie seemed to have it all. All of the actors played parts well and Timothee Chalamet is certainly fun to watch. The bits with the Oompah Loompa, played by Hugh Grant, should have been expanded. The sets, costumes and special effects were amazing. The music was from the original Wonka movie so that was nice. The story was almost completely new which I hoped to be nice too. Not so much. The spark I was looking for in the new story was missing for me, even though the actors and director were clearly giving it their best shot at it. I think the writing was the culprit. I was a bit bored in parts. If the writers were looking to get laughs, I don't recall breaking a smile more than once or twice and I think it was something that Rowan Atkinson was doing as the Priest. I did not hear anyone laugh in the theater the whole time. Most of the jokes I think we were supposed to laugh at were pretty lame. I will not be recommending this movie to any adult or child I know. I don't see it appealing to any age unless they are big fans of someone appearing in the film.

The beginning of the movie was promising, but then it became quite ridiculous and silly.

None of the songs in the movie were to my liking, with the exception of the opening song which was passable.

The acting was great, and Timothée Chalamet gave a very good performance.

I wouldn't say that I hated the movie, but it didn't do much for me either.

I think it would appeal to children more than adults.

I think the movie would have been better if more effort had been put into the screenplay and story.

I was so happy to see Charlotte Ritchie in the movie, even if it was just for a short time .

Listen, I liked this movie. It was good, I just wished it gave me more. Felt like there was some underutilizing of potential, so it felt s little hollow for me.

It didn't tug on my heart strings or emotions ever, but it made it chuckle and Timothee was great as Wonka. A lot of unecessary singing. I can fully get into a good musical if the songs are good and properly placed and spread out, but I can't stand it when they sing songs just to sing, when they could just... talk. Some of the songs the movie weren't really catchy or even good, and felt pointless.

Positives: great casting, funny, beautiful sets and costumes. Could watch it at home just to watch a cozy movie (if you're into musicals), but not worth seeing in the theaters like I did.

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.