Wonka

johnny_ultimate

Surprisingly fun and charming! I say surprisingly, but really I shouldn't have doubted Paul King. It's not exactly the all-timer that Paddington 2 is, but it's so packed with charm, odd flourishes and genuine good humour that it's fun to get swept up in it all. The story barely hangs together at times, the pacing is odd, and some of the callbacks are a tad forced... but again it's the infectious energy of the thing that carries the day. Even the songs are mostly good. It's a fundamentally cynical project - I mean, a 'Wonka prequel' cries corporate-mandated effort. But not unlike Barbie, this shows that when you have a thoughtful, imaginative director behind it all, something that comes from a bad place can ultimately emerge as something that earns that smile on your face.

If I had one broad criticism, it's that it largely lacks the darker edge of Dahl's work and many of the best adaptations of his work (including the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Wes Anderson's recent efforts). That extends to Chalamet's performance - he does a solid job, but there's a lack of the sinister energy that made Wilder's take so memorable. It's hard to see this character growing into that character. But taken on its own terms, this is a sweet, winning family musical that very much overdelivers on a thankless task.

kerplun k

I think that’s an unfair criticism. This is a young Wonka. The darkness in the film comes from external characters.

Younger people tend to be less cynical and more blindly optimistic, and to achieve his goal of starting up a chocolate factory, he’d absolutely need that infectious, blind optimism.

I could totally see that being chipped away with over time, and see this character transform into GWs character.

From Wonkas perspective, there’s no room for darkness, cynicism, doubt at this time, and this film is all the better for it.

pixelburp

I read a review that suggested the problem was Chalamet was just too cool to be wonka; that there needed to be a certain oddball energy to the actor ala Wilder of yore. Not a darkness but a sense of slightly untempered, manic mystery. Like a Doctor Who of the Peter Capaldi flavour; magnetic but perhaps a bit dangerous.

johnny_ultimate

To me there’s nothing really in the film to suggest that wild, crazed edge that we see in the later film. In this Wonka is subjected to forced imprisonment, corporate sabotage, murder attempts (plural) and other cruelties, and other than a bit of plot mandated ‘knock him down to get him back up again’ none of it really impacts his childlike exuberance. He’s still the jolly, endlessly optimistic and pure soul he was at the start - even more so, arguably.

Which isn’t a problem in and of itself - I think the film is quite delightful on the whole, and I’ve no problem with a different spin on the character. The minor problem arises when the film overtly places itself as a prequel to the original film (including several familiar songs) so there’s a dissonance there that certainly stood out for me. But a modest criticism for a film I very much enjoyed.

Patser

Seen it with family yesterday, and found it really enjoyable. Very 'Paddington' charming - unsurprising given director, cast, writers etc - but all just pure panto fun.

Yes, I agree with above, as a prequel, if you grew up with Gene Wilder version, it just doesn't gel at all - Chalamet's pure, instant friend making Wonka in a very European quirky town, somehow becomes a reclusive, distrustful factory owner in a depressed Northern English town with no-one but whispering Oompa Loompas as company (no sauve cocktail making chatterbox Hugh Grants)...

But if you can forget about that link, and just go with it, it's fun

griffin100

Saw it tonight - I’d give it a 6 / 10.

It seemed lazy to me if that makes sense, the plot was basic and didn’t really hold my or my kids (12 and 15) attention.

Visually it’s excellent, it does look and feel like a Paddington movie but doesn’t quite have the same quality of storyline or draw you in like a Paddington.

My older son who went to see it with his GF described it as pointless. In as much as every film is pointless I’d agree with that as a description.

That said I did enjoy Hugh Grant’s Oompa Loompa.

The Golden Miller

Thought they'd get more into the background of how the factory came about and the world of the oompa loompas, thought that would of been what the film was built around. They touched on it, but the intrigue for me has always how, what we see in the original film/book, all came about.

Disappointed in that sense. Chalamet is the spit of Gene Wilder though, which I assume they were going for. Was alright, missed a trick in many ways though!

jj880

Saw it today with my son. Really enjoyed it.

I never got the Chalamet hype with his eyes half closed brooding and pouting.

Thought he was great in this though. By the time it got round to the song I think everyone waits for watching this I didn't want it to end. Great family musical.

feelings

Jaysus. That was a hard watch. Very poor attempt.

Agent Coulson

It won't be a movie that will be remembered for generations to come for me.

Reminded me a lot of the Mary Poppins Returns it was grand for what it was but not a patch on the original movies and the leads just didn't have the same edge or charisma at the original characters.

The songs were also not catchy at all until the original movies song arrived.

I also just don't get the buzz around Chalamet he just feels like he would be better suited on the Kardashians or a show like that instead of lead in a major film.

Deep Thought

Watched it last night..

enjoyed it, was a nice way to pass a couple of hours.

kerplun k

Whatever ‘it’ is, Timothy Crèmebrûlée has it.

seblen

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie.

salmocab

Watched last night, enjoyed it. Some of the songs were a bit naff but it was a decent watch