.

As a Willy Wonka prequel this seems most linked to the 1971 Gene Wilder movie as it shares some of the music and the Oompa Loompa here has the same orange skin and green quaffed and french bobbed hair as in the iconic design from that film. Yet lead actor Timothée Chalemet looks and dresses more like Johnny Depp, who played Dahl’s famous chocolatier in Tim Burton’s adaptation. I wouldn’t worry though as actually the film doesn’t really fit with either Chocolate Factory film. They’ve taken the idea of a slightly enigmatic sweet maker with a cane and a frock coat and pretty much jettisoned everything else. Certainly it is impossible to imagine how the charming dreamer at the heart of this story equates to the disillusioned, reclusive sociopath who is unmoved by, if not directly responsible for, extreme child endangerment that we know and love from before. In that sense this movie is a bit like Cruella, where you can’t really see how the person can get from here to there. At least she had a dark streak though. This is like expecting us to accept Ronald McDonald turning into Pennywise.

There isn’t really a lot of Roald Dahl here either. I think they’ve attempted to capture some of the famous author’s style with some parentless children and the inclusion of a grotesque pair of surrogate care givers (oh, and a giraffe) but again the comparison falls short. Dahl famously disliked the 1970’s version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because he thought they diluted his work but I think he’d have been less worried by this simply as he’d barely have recognised his influence on it at all.

There’s one more element with the expectation around this film that we need to get past as well. This is definitely a case of a successful British director being given the opportunity to work with big Hollywood budgets for the first time and often this can lead to exciting new movies with fresh approaches. See Paul Greengrass, Christopher Nolan, Edgar Wright, Amma Asante and Lynne Ramsay for previous examples of this. The thing is here though, that Paul King’s last two movies were Paddington and Paddington 2 so he has already given us a couple of the greatest films ever made. Wonka does not have the charm of those, although it does share certain sensibilities. It also showcases a lot of small screen UK talent, like they did. Personally I hope this is the start of a glittering cinematic career for Phil Wang.

Now all of that is dealt with, put it out of your mind though. Taken on its own merits Wonka is a sweet and engaging tale of hope and ambition. It has a series of delightful turns from a selection of actors across almost the full gamut of the English speaking film industry from A to let’s say T (no one here is quite Z list), starting with Chalemet and Olivia Colman at one end, down to Rufus Jones and Tom Davis at the other. Still, every one of them is perfectly cast, with the possible exception of Matt Lucas whose performance, for some reason, never quite lands. Hugh Grant is particularly good in what is undoubtedly a small part and his post heartthrob career really is getting more and more interesting. Seriously, three decades ago who’d have dreamt he’d become one of the UK’s best character actors?

The set design is also perfect, the camera shots inspired and the song and dance set pieces, for this is a full on original screen musical, tremendous fun.

If pushed I don’t think I’d say the world does need another Willy Wonka movie, least of all an origin story prequel. There is plenty of room for a delightful, slightly old fashioned, quirky and magical new family film though, especially at this time of the year, and that is what Wonka is.

.

The Ripley Factor:

There are plenty of positive female characters throughout this film but is particularly nice to see that Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby have taken away the driving motivation of the oppressive father from Burton’s movie and replaced it with one inspired by a loving mother. Yep, that’s the (golden) ticket.