Grade: C+ … As a kid, watching Gene Wilder’s “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” truly gave me a sense of wonder. You were transported to a magical candy filled land and got to live out every kid’s childhood fantasy. What kid wouldn’t want to have a chocolate factory as a playground to discover new crazy “Wonka-fied” creations and revisit familiar tastes? The Gene Wilder movie back in 1971 was so well done, it still transports me to my childhood watching it today as a young adult. 2023’s “Wonka” is still searching for the magical “golden ticket.”
Now in 2023, fifty-two years removed from Wilder’s classic performance, audiences were presented with Timothée Chalamet’s “Wonka.” The fans of Wilder’s iconic movie will only be setting themselves up for massive disappointment if they were expecting a remake of the original movie. “Wonka” is an entirely different movie. It is darker, less colorful, and simply devoid of the magic and mystery the 1971 version touted. Having said that it is also a musical and a prequel.
In “Wonka,” Willy Wonka is still poor but he travels to a city with dreams of opening up a candy shop to a down trodden community only to run into a “chocolate cartel” that will stop at nothing to crush his dreams.
This version of “Wonka” has a serious tone to it. It was jarring compared to the fun and mostly light hearted 1971 original. “Wonka” is really about indentured slavery. Once Wonka arrives, he needs a place to stay and he stumbles upon an inn with an ironclad “gotcha” terms of service (that he foolishly does not read and signs). Wonka is suddenly indebted to Mrs. Scrubitt (Olivia Coleman gave a very good performance) for an insurmountable amount of money. He must work off the debt along with a few other patrons of the hotel that were fooled as well and trapped. Luckily for Wonka, he planned to open a candy shop that he could use as revenue to pay off Mrs. Scrubitt and to attain his freedom. For years, three already established chocolatiers do not want Wonka disrupting their chocolate business and will do whatever it takes to prevent Wonka from selling his chocolate and other candy.
In relation to Wonka’s candies, the original candies were well thought out and every “side effect” led to a funny situation with the kids that dared to eat them. In “Wonka,” the candies are used as a weapon of sorts in order to foil the “chocolate cartel” and any other person getting in Wonka’s way. It was as if the fun of the original movie was simply filtered out of “Wonka.”
Since it is a prequel, “Wonka” is mainly lacking the mischievous Oompa Loompas. Hugh Grant portrays an Oompa Loompa for maybe 10 minutes of actual screen time. It was a very forgettable performance that any actor could have pulled off. Chalamet does give a good performance of Wonka for what the role required of him. Chalamet can sing and dance pretty well but his portrayal of Wonka does not hold a candle to Wilder.
Had I not been introduced to Wilder’s Wonka as a kid before seeing Chalamet’s Wonka, I think I might have appreciated Chalamet’s Wonka more. If you are a parent looking to introduce your kid to the world of Wonka, I would recommend sticking to the 1971 classic instead and skipping this version.
This holiday season, it is always a good idea to give back. While I was at the movies a few weeks ago, I saw the Lollipop Theater Network advertise on the big screen and I thought it was a wonderful organization to donate to. Lollipop is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing current movies and entertainment to children confined to hospitals nationwide due to chronic or life-threatening illnesses. They setup a theater in hospitals for kids so they can experience all of the movie magic. If you can, please make a donation at https://lollipoptheater.org and you can bring many smiles to many wonderful kids.