Wonka film, disappointing!

[cheeseisthebest]

Just been to see the new Wonka film. Interested in others views if anyone's seen it yet? I know it only came out today!

I was really disappointed with it. Songs were dreadful, Timothy Chalamet can't sing, the little girl was annoying. Hugh Grant was great but not in it enough.
Massive plot holes and stupid storyline.
I expected more cos I loved Mary Poppins returns and both Paddington films and think it's same director?

I didn't enjoy it either, too saccharine (no pun intended) and the storyline just didn't gel . Loved the Paddington films though.

Perhaps I compared it too much to the original with Gene Wilder. It didn't have a patch on that.

I loved the Mary Poppins with Emily Blunt, did Lin Manuel Miranda write the songs for it? Much, much better songs.

Just seen this with my (grown up) dd. I really liked it. I didn't think Timothy Chalomee's singing was amazing but defintely passable and he really suited the part of a young ambitious good-hearted Wilky Wonka. Most of the songs were good enough. Cheesy plot, but that goes with the territory.

Me and the kids loved it! I liked the sphinx cat licking the chocolate and then growing fur and the giraffe best. I thought it was quite dark and sad in places tbh - there was a lot more setbacks than I was expecting.

I took DD 10 and we weren't sure what to expect but both really enjoyed it! It made me like Timothee Chamalet

I'm also not sure why it's being compared to the other films as this is Wonka before all of that. This is a different story.

Exactly.

Was so looking forward to watching this but also really disappointed yesterday when we got round to going.

Totally saccharine. Completely different to Roald Dahl where there's a always a bit of darkness.

No wit at all (unlike the Roald Dahl Charlie & the Choc factory). Sweets that can...make you fly? Totally unfunny /unoriginal. Could have been written by a six year old. Sweets that taste like various alcohol - less funny version of the Dahl chewing gum that tastes like a whole meal.

So derivative and unoriginal. Unlike Paddington (1 and 2) which I thought were charming and genuinely original.

All style (CGI), although I quite liked the overall look (what is with the 1930s being the period of choice - see Fantastic Beasts) and no substance.

Timothee Chalamet's Wonka was so...obvious. The Dahl version has an edge. So disappointed Chalamet's version was so, well, nice. And one-dimensional.

Best bits were Hugh Grant, and the shoe shiner boy right at the start cos he's in my DD's year group at school and she's been in a school play with him! You can also see him at the National Theatre in the Witches at the moment!

I thought the laundry room slavery was quite dark? And the fact that the thing that people love (chocolate) is the thing that allows them to be addicted and manipulated.

If anything it made me wonder what possible event had happened later on to Wonka to turn him into the later version.

Just watched it, yes it was very un-Dahl like. Clearly made for a much younger audience as its very bright and cheery (that works for Paddington, not this). Knew beforehand this was the complaint, and the reviews were spot on. The film is decent (especially so if you ignore the book) but deviates too much from the source material (even though it's a new origin story that Dahl didn't write about).

The only resemblance to Wonka was he had the same name and owned a chocolate factory. He wasn't eccentric in the slightest. Don't know if Chalamet was miscast or it was just the writing, but the character he played wasn't Wonka.

Comparing the three films, Gene Wilder nailed that character, Depp gave it a good go, while Chalamet (at the behest of the writers in all likelihood) played him more Paddington than Dahl.