Wonka Review: Timothée Chalamet concocts a delightfully infectious confection
In a whimsy-driven musical, a young chocolatier sets his sights on success in a city governed by morally bankrupt authorities
Film Reviews Wonka
The point of co-writer/director Paul King’s musically oriented origin story Wonka isn’t to answer the question of how a budding candy maker became the mercurial, withdrawn weirdo we met in the pages of Roald Dahl’s book Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and on screen in both 1971’s Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory and 2006’s Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. Rather, it’s to tell a character-enriching backstory capturing a time when Willy Wonka’s initial big dreams changed the world for the better. That’s a smart path considering the former narrative track, seeing a beloved Willy Wonka morph into a world-weary, workaholic recluse, would be a flat-out bummer.
In King and company’s capable hands, the care package delivered is a soul-warming cup of cocoa. Sweet yet never saccharine, cute yet never cloying, their hyper-stylized portrait of an iconic literary and cinematic figure is not only powered by the pure imagination that inspires the songs’ spectacle, but it’s also filled with audacious flourishes of charm, whimsy and poignancy. The filmmakers’ lofty aims yield much reward as the picture’s heart-filled and, at times, radical sentiments feel genuine.
Wannabe chocolatier Willy Wonka (Timothée Chalamet) has arrived in a wintery London with very little money, but a Mary Poppins-esque hat full of innovative ideas and other career-improving accoutrements. Shortly thereafter, he becomes destitute, seeking warm shelter at a local laundry run by Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) and Bleacher (Tom Davis), two Les Misérables-esque grifters who con unwitting targets into legally binding, grueling labor contracts. Making his mark in town proves difficult when Wonka’s shifty competitors—Slugworth (Paterson Joseph), Prodnose (Matt Lucas) and Fickelgruber (Mathew Baynton)—try to run him out of business. They’re a part of an underground, underhanded chocolate cartel syphoning off chocolate and storing it to bribe officials.
Now a prisoner of misfortune stuck in a workhouse basement with accountant Abacus (Jim Carter), cringe-comedian Larry (Rich Fulcher), plumber Piper (Natasha Rothwell), phone operator Lottie (Rakhee Thakrar) and orphan Noodle (Calah Lane), Willy’s spirits are low. He’s also indebted to a rather pestery orange Oompa Loompa (Hugh Grant), whose stolen cocoa beans led to the little bespoke-suited man’s exile. But all hope isn’t lost. With the gang’s combined efforts, Willy is able to skirt corrupt authorities, like the Chief of Police (Keegan-Michael Key) and Father Julius (Rowan Atkinson), and continue his business on the sly. However, the nefarious cartel’s reign has a stranglehold over the city and Willy’s dreams are in danger of being permanently dashed.
King and co-writer Simon Farnaby, who also cameos as a lovelorn zoo security guard, subtly pad the picture with fairly rebellious (at least for family fare) anti-slave labor and anti-establishment ideals. Its anti-corporate messaging is delivered with a tinge of irony given that it’s released by a studio conglomerate. Themes surrounding community betterment and enhancement from the eyes of an immigrant feel like a familiar extension of their Paddington films without being reductive or derivative. Everything refurbished is given a new glean, from overt nods to the ’71 adaptation, threading in phrases and songs, to more covert callbacks in character construction (specifically the Chief’s gluttony manifesting in a growing waistline much like Augustus Gloop and Violet Beauregarde).
Chung-hoon Chung’s cinematography is scrumdiddlyumptious, coming alive in musical numbers like the bombastic Broadway-bound “You’ve Never Had Chocolate Like This,” the transportive “A World of Our Own” and the colorful “Sweet Tooth.” Though perhaps not as instantaneously catchy as the original’s tunes, Neil Hannon’s compositions are connective, propelling character drive to the fore—Chalamet and Lane’s waltz-y duet “For A Moment” being a prime example. Nathan Crowley’s production design is sprawling and spellbinding, enhanced by VFX magicians augmenting its immersive qualities. Lindy Hemming’s costume designs are tangibly textured with evocative detailing, like the Chief’s uniform mimicking Violet’s blue belted suit and Wonka’s worn-down chocolate colored hat and velvety violet coat recalling Wilder’s Wonka garb.
That said, there is a slightly bitter aftertaste. Wonka’s supporters, outside of Noodle, are undercooked. There’s a passing mention of how they were all conned, but not how each of them found themselves in the hovel. We’re to assume Larry’s divorce and Abacus’ unemployment caused monetary hardship, but there are no dots to connect with Piper and Lottie. Wonka himself is characterized as a rube, his illiteracy notwithstanding, blind to obvious dangers—like getting smacked in the face with a frying pan or battered by a constable’s club. There’s not even a hint that Wonka is, or is at least becoming, the smartest, savviest and most sarcastic wit in the room.
When any narrative stress fractures occur, Chalamet makes up for them with his ebullient charisma and undeniable charm. His magical emcee isn’t too far off from Gene Wilder’s as glimpsed in his physicality and vocal intonations, but his performance has its own unique sway and ease. The foppish mop Grant once sported in the ’90s, now resting on Chalamet’s head, feels a little like a passing of the torch, even though this isn’t a rom-com, but a romanticized portrayal nonetheless. Between his droll delivery and hilariously acerbic attitude, Grant makes a full meal out of his sparse screen time, singing, dancing and goofing on the titular character.
Still, the film’s wholesome sensibilities go down smoothly, satisfying our discriminating palates. It’s an amuse bouche to a nostalgic meal Dahl and Wilder once crafted. And while King and Chalamet don’t necessarily break that mold, their collaboration leaves a lovely imprint.
Wonka opens in theaters nationwide on December 15
58 Comments
Wow! Nothing about this film makes me interested in wanting to see it based on this review.
Is this going to be like Barbie where we get 3 fawning articles a week? Nothing about this looks good. Precious in all the worst ways.
People liked Barbie on release and were hyped for it beforehand.No one cares about this, its for people to plop their stupid kids in front of.
If we keep clicking and commenting, then yes.
ah yes, the vast woke conspiracy to give Wonka good reviews.
King’s involvement makes me want to see this. Anyone who made Paddington 2 is clearly not messing around (and King really knows how to use Grant).
Even if the movie itself isn’t bad, and nothing in the trailer leads me to believe that, it just feels as pointless and unnecessary as that 101 Dalmatians prequel. Delving into a life we didn’t need more detail into, and are better off knowing less
All movies are pointless.
The point of the movies is that there’s always another point, and another
one, and another one, and so on, and so forth. The points become dots.
The dots become a line. The line is part of a bigger circle. The circle
of life.
And that’s how we get the RDCU: the Roald Dahl Cinematic Universe. At the end of this film, Mr. Fox turns up at the factory and asks Willy if he’s heard of the Giant Peach Initiative.
Or the dots become a glorious pattern that I simply must have to fashion into a coat! Now go, fetch me those Dalmatians!
Except for the educational ones about our changing bodies.
Actually, just caught the ad for this on TV and I got majorvibes from it.
And the ones showing gruesome car crashes as a result of alcohol or inattentiveness. Which are also about bodies undergoing changes, I suppose.
I totally forgot that classic Simpsons did a parody of those as well!
I’ve managed to get three Troy McClure references in here. I don’t know what that means for this film.
It means that you remember him from such films as P is for Psycho and The President’s Neck is Missing.
You know, Troy was one of the first to speak out against horseplay.(I fucking love that P Is For Psycho! joke – its brilliant, old school Simpsons that’s somehow incredibly smart and incredibly daft at the same time. You have to think about it, and then realise how simple a joke it actually was.)
True, and as we all know, people don’t do that kind of thing with fish.And yes, seriously, Troy McClure’s film titles were almost certainly some of the purest expressions of the sheer genius that went into classic Simpsons. Just such perfect distillations of a kind of straight-to-late-night-cable D-level filmmaking reserved for washed-up Hollywood losers that you’ve almost certainly never wittingly seen any examples of yet can somehow instantly recognise.
“As I said to Dolores Montenegro in Calling All Quakers: have it YOUR way, baby!”I love “Dolores Montenegro” – such a believably weird D-list actress name, one you think that, hey, she might’ve been successful if she took her agent’s advice and changed it to “Diana Mason” or something. Apparently, Doug McClure (one half of Troy’s namesake) loved it, and his kids loved. Doug was a big
That movie becomes depressing when you’re old. Your body is still ever changing, but not in the fun ways.
It should go without saying the point of movies is to be interesting and/or entertaining.
Evidently these are things humans need to live. Hardly pointless.
Movies may be what got a lot of people through the Great Depression
Warner Bros got praised for not giving in to fantasy back then, and instead focusing more on social realism, like I Am A Fugitive From A Georgia Chain Gang.And now they’re run by Zaslav.
I just did a quick look-up. I don’t see any ‘fantasy’ but there sure were a lot of horror films (quite fantastical!): Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, King Kong, Freaks. It also looks like a few Disney cartoons were popular. I’m sure there’s a thesis or two out there explaning the relevance of Horror movies to the Depression Era. But the more I think about it the relationship seems fairly obvious.
Ah, nah, sorry, that’s my poor choice of words. I should’ve said “escapism”, not fantasy. Lotta other studios were doing big-budget, period dramas that were escapism. Balls. Mansions. The steel magnate’s daughter falling for the railway magnate’s son even though she’d been set up with the shipping magnate’s nephew.
“Join hands with me and we’ll walk into the sea.” –A Olson
True but Paul King managed to make two amazingly fun movies about Paddington Bear, so I’m game to see whatever he does
Plus basically everything else Simon Farnaby has ever been involved in.
I was hoping this would explain how he turned into the guy that teaches kids valuable life lessons through traps made by elaborate and overly complicated means, but are ultimately thematically appropriate for the individual. You know, like a Jigsaw prequel.
Although I tend to be a grouch I think folks could use a little fantasy and whimsy, especially if it magically f*cks with the corporatocracy
But who’s to say that everything anyone creates has to be “necessary”?
My initial thought was to wonder what young Bob Dylan is doing talking to an Oompa Loompa, but then I thought what isn’t young Bob Dylan doing talking to an Oompa Loompa.
Oompa Loompa Doopedy DectricYour songwriting suffers when you go electric
“Wow, tiny man, look at your skin! You got all tangled up in orange! You inspired me to write a song- wait. Shit. Nothing rhyme with orange.”
(the visual is the Loompas removing handles from gas pumps)
https://ew.com/movies/timothee-chalamet-will-sing-in-bob-dylan-biopic-director-james-mangold-says/
I really don’t want to believe this is good, but then again, this is the guy who directed the Paddington movies, correct? Got to be something there, at least.
Honestly, the one thing that makes me think this might actually be good is that I remember when everyone was convinced that Paddington was going to be terrible based on just the trailer and a few promo shots, only for that to end up being elevated to “beloved classic with even better sequel” status once everyone actually saw it. I can’t say for certain whether this will be the case, but the parallels are there.
My thoughts exactly. You make the Paddington movies and I will see whatever else you make even if I think “Why this?”
If they can thread a very narrow needle and be both their own magical thing but with just enough Wilder vibe, I might be persuaded to see it. But the original was practically my third (and most involved) parent growing up, so I’m more precious about it than any other film. I would judge a Schindler prequel less harshly than I will this.
Yet more proof that Hollywood is completely out of new ideas. The best they can PRAY for is a sad, pale shadow of the original. This dreck won’t even be THAT good…
JFC please read a book or listen to a podcast or something. Hollywood has NEVER been about original ideas. They were cribbing from plays and books since before talkies.
When Neil Hannon, of The Divine Comedy, has written the songs for a movie, then the headline should be “Movie has songs by Neil Hannon, therefore go see it. Also, some stuff about chocolate.”
There’s been huge deficit between how bad everyone on the internet decided this would be months ago, and the ridiculous amount of talent involved especially behind the scenes. It’s baffling how little goodwill this thing has been allowed, given the people involved in making it.
oh cmon, ‘wonka prequel starring timothee chalamat’ is asking for it. it’s not my fault it’s easy to make fun of.
I mean, I’m on record saying that the pedigree of the people making it is enough to give me a chance on this very thread, but this isn’t totally just the internet being mean to a random target: “a prequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is already a hard sell to begin with, Timothee Chalamet didn’t exactly help, and those trailers have been pure treacle*. They’ve brought a fairly generous heaping on themselves on this one.*Though gotta admit, I am a bit of a sucker for the music they used in the first trailer. I’m a bit of a soft-sell for a “wow things are getting uplifting” musical cue.
Saw it last night. The simple test, and what they should have put on every poster, is: if you liked Paddington 2, you’ll like Wonka.
It doesn’t quite come together for the highs of Paddington 2 but it definitely has the same vibes and magic
Wonka
isn’t to answer the question of how a budding candy maker became the
mercurial, withdrawn weirdo we met in the pages of Roald Dahl’s book Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Damn. I was really hoping to see how a young Wonka was irrevocably scarred when his parents were mercilessly gunned down by a head of broccoli.
I don’t like the story but this looks ok. It’s nice to here a Yank sound like Yank in London.
But will this new one include the crucial backstory about Pops Wonka being a dentist? Well, will it!?
“…seeing a beloved Willy Wonka morph into a world-weary, workaholic recluse, would be a flat-out bummer.”Or! It would’ve been incredibly interesting – especially if done well by the director of the Paddington moviesInstead we got a ‘nice’ movie musical – which is Fine, but not necessarily compelling
I’d gladly go see a movie that’s just Wonka constructing the boat ride and mumbling “Goddamn fucking kids are gonna goddamn learn…” every few minutes.
I’m glad to hear this is pretty good. I’m looking forward to seeing it.
Hey, is this the same Courtney Howard from Wilton New Hampshire?