There's some malevolence in the chocolatier cabal that tries to freeze Wonka out and in the laundress played by Olivia Colman, but not much that counts as social satire. The best you get here is the sentiment that big companies tend to water down and homogenous their product—which... uh.... is pretty rich.
I'm finding some of the press coverage (not this review) of WONKA kind of...wonky...in that it emphasizes Chalamet's youth. This isn't just a prequel - this is the story of YOUNG Willy Wonka when he was YOUNG and not OLD like those old fuddy-duddy Willy Wonkas we've had before, but instead YOUNG and HIP and COOL and YOUNG.
Chalamet's 28, Wilder was 38, Depp was 42. I'm old enough that these all seem roughly the same age ("kids"), and that when I was young enough to be into kids' movies, they'd have also all seemed roughly the same age ("old men"). Now, obviously 38 in Gene Wilder times was a different kettle of fish from 28 in Timothee Chalamet times. Obviously Chalamet's got a baby face and Depp was a bit wizened for his age, but, I don't know. It's very Mattel-and-Mars-Bar-Quick-Energy-Chocobot-Hour for me.
What age does one have to be to see very little difference between 42 and 28? I need to write this down in a notebook and check in with it in presumably 100 years.
Wilder's Wonka is really a hell of a performance, isn't it? It's been ages since I read the book so I don't remember how 'like the book' his portrayal is, but he certainly nails the in-general Dahl vibe of being weirdly menacing and having Big Emotions that manifest in strange ways.
When we first see Wonka, how he seems very frail, and then falls and does the somersault to his feet was Wilder's idea, after that you couldn't trust anything he said or did.
Real "the vibe has curdled" stuff outta Wilder. Like, he's trying to create a sense of 'anything is possible!' but it's more like "yikes, anything is possible with this weirdo".
Is De Niro half of Godfather II only prequel in movie history that has ever worked?
And me will speculate that reason it worked — apart from astonishing assemblage of talent making it work — is that prequel really only interesting proposition if it can answer question that audiences of first movie legitimately dying to know. "What was Darth Vader like as little kid" not really question burning in audiences' mind after Luke blows up Death Star. But "how exactly does one become head of mafia family" endlessly interesting.
Maybe if this movie would have worked if, instead of asking banal question "How does one become successful chocolatier," it actually delved into "how does one become beloved candy maker who despises children?" Me not saying that automatically good movie, but there might be something there.
I don't know if the culture is fully 'there' yet, but I think Fire Walk With Me is a prequel (to Twin Peaks) that very much works. That said, it more or less does what you're suggesting - not answering "how" (which we already know) but answering more like "what was it like?".
I also love Prometheus but it sure does seem like plenty of people hate it because *checks notes* for the first time in an Alien movie, people make bad choices
Bad choices that are there purely for plot reasons, not bad choices that flawed humans would make. Earth's best biologist reaching out to pet an alien snake? Charlize Theron only able to move in one direction?
They aren't flawed in a realistic way, the plot needs things to happen so they have people do dumb stuff to make it happen. Dallas overriding Ripley to break quarantine was a flaw, but you can understand why a person would do it.
If anything I think it's the other way around - the quarantine thing is a (relatively) thought thru choice, while the other things you mention are totally probably unthought actions. I just can't get over how folks criticize this kind of plotting when every day you can look at national news and find some instance of some theoretically smart person making a choice that from the backseat looks like a bad one. Bad choices are the easiest thing to suspend disbelief over - they're always plausible in every way.
Yes, this is exactly my reaction to the saccharine sweetness of the Wonka commercials. The darkness was what made the Gene Wilder Wonka movie great! His Wonka is a controlling lunatic who probably murders a bunch of children and maybe some of their parents too. Sure, he presents himself as a magical genie, here to grant all your wishes, but of course you can't trust that facade. We need the Scorsese version, of an up-and-comer getting corrupted and giving in to his darker impulses.
There was some distance between these experiences for me, though no distance in the experience of writing about them. As another critic friend of mine often says, "I enjoy all the meats of our cultural stew."
"Kirkland-brand Wes Anderson" does it for me. Hard to say whether I'd have a worse time trying to watch "Wonka" or "Histoire(s) du Cinema," judging from your write-ups this week. Two visions of my personal cinematic hell(s).
Is Chalamet Gen Z's 'mysteriously hot' guy, where in 20 years people will look back and say "uh, we thought he was hot?", a la Jon Cryer or Christian Slater maybe Peter Fonda?
I watched THE ZONE OF INTEREST last night and was struck by the same moment you describe in your first paragraph. There’s also the scene where one of his boys is playing with something in his bed that turns out to be gold teeth and fillings. No need to explain where those came from.
So many moments like that--I had to take some deep breaths afterwards. I know it's bad form to reveal (pun not intended) our picks but it's hard to see anything topping ZONE OF INTEREST for me this year (although honestly I still think OPPENHEIMER should still win Best Picture--something about ZONE OF INTEREST competing against something like BARBIE (which I still liked) does not sit right with me
Is it too late for me to change my best 5? Because without a question, not a question, Zone of Interest now sits at #1.
The best manipulation, as we all know, is self manipulation, and that's exactly what Glazer does with this movie. It's almost Lovecraftian, what he's doing here (the irony, of course, since HP was one hell of a racist himself!) -- never letting us see what so many Holocaust movies have shown. When Hedwig bemoans the transfer from their idyllic home, I actually found myself bemoaning with her. Her life is so beautiful and perfect there. I wouldn't want to move, either! And then, of course, I snap back to the reality of the situation and I find myself horrified at my empathy.
Has any filmmaker done so much with so little? The slivers of conversation say so much. Like when we find out Hedwig's mom cleaned the house of the woman who's probably already dead in the camp next door. The only time we hear anything overtly horrible, it's when Hedwig lashes out at her servant girl after her mom departments -- and again, I thought of how unintelligent Hedwig is, and how that threat is akin to a five year old's tantrum. So callous, so immature, so very human.
Best film of 2023. A monumental achievement. I know it's cliche to say a movie is unforgettable, but this one -- yeah. Wow.
Thanks so much for the link -- just read it. Such an interesting take -- absolutely, a very valid point, especially in the way it's shot with Rudolf just a tiny person in a vast space. You know, for a movie about the holocaust, I just realized -- his vomiting is the only scene of human suffering we get. I mean we get the mom looking worried and guilty, and the daughter who can't sleep -- but the only true physical suffering we see is this.
And thinking back to that scene, I don't remember Rudolf actually looking like he was suffering at all? It was a curious non-reaction, not quite surprise, either -- just...nothing. And then, when it's over, he wipes his mouth and just walks down.
I'm of the "body rejecting the horrors his mind accepts" theorists. There's no meaning in his throwing up; it just occurs. Just like all the thousands of murders that are happening -- "continuously," as the old architect partner makes sure to interject -- that's all very normal. Nothing to see here.
There's some malevolence in the chocolatier cabal that tries to freeze Wonka out and in the laundress played by Olivia Colman, but not much that counts as social satire. The best you get here is the sentiment that big companies tend to water down and homogenous their product—which... uh.... is pretty rich.
I'm finding some of the press coverage (not this review) of WONKA kind of...wonky...in that it emphasizes Chalamet's youth. This isn't just a prequel - this is the story of YOUNG Willy Wonka when he was YOUNG and not OLD like those old fuddy-duddy Willy Wonkas we've had before, but instead YOUNG and HIP and COOL and YOUNG.
Chalamet's 28, Wilder was 38, Depp was 42. I'm old enough that these all seem roughly the same age ("kids"), and that when I was young enough to be into kids' movies, they'd have also all seemed roughly the same age ("old men"). Now, obviously 38 in Gene Wilder times was a different kettle of fish from 28 in Timothee Chalamet times. Obviously Chalamet's got a baby face and Depp was a bit wizened for his age, but, I don't know. It's very Mattel-and-Mars-Bar-Quick-Energy-Chocobot-Hour for me.
What age does one have to be to see very little difference between 42 and 28? I need to write this down in a notebook and check in with it in presumably 100 years.
Wilder's Wonka is really a hell of a performance, isn't it? It's been ages since I read the book so I don't remember how 'like the book' his portrayal is, but he certainly nails the in-general Dahl vibe of being weirdly menacing and having Big Emotions that manifest in strange ways.
When we first see Wonka, how he seems very frail, and then falls and does the somersault to his feet was Wilder's idea, after that you couldn't trust anything he said or did.
Real "the vibe has curdled" stuff outta Wilder. Like, he's trying to create a sense of 'anything is possible!' but it's more like "yikes, anything is possible with this weirdo".
Is De Niro half of Godfather II only prequel in movie history that has ever worked?
And me will speculate that reason it worked — apart from astonishing assemblage of talent making it work — is that prequel really only interesting proposition if it can answer question that audiences of first movie legitimately dying to know. "What was Darth Vader like as little kid" not really question burning in audiences' mind after Luke blows up Death Star. But "how exactly does one become head of mafia family" endlessly interesting.
Maybe if this movie would have worked if, instead of asking banal question "How does one become successful chocolatier," it actually delved into "how does one become beloved candy maker who despises children?" Me not saying that automatically good movie, but there might be something there.
I don't know if the culture is fully 'there' yet, but I think Fire Walk With Me is a prequel (to Twin Peaks) that very much works. That said, it more or less does what you're suggesting - not answering "how" (which we already know) but answering more like "what was it like?".
Not a movie but Better Call Saul perhaps is the best version of a prequel I've ever seen
Justice for Prometheus!
I also love Prometheus but it sure does seem like plenty of people hate it because *checks notes* for the first time in an Alien movie, people make bad choices
Bad choices that are there purely for plot reasons, not bad choices that flawed humans would make. Earth's best biologist reaching out to pet an alien snake? Charlize Theron only able to move in one direction?
So like, these humans aren't flawed? I think you just proved my point.
They aren't flawed in a realistic way, the plot needs things to happen so they have people do dumb stuff to make it happen. Dallas overriding Ripley to break quarantine was a flaw, but you can understand why a person would do it.
If anything I think it's the other way around - the quarantine thing is a (relatively) thought thru choice, while the other things you mention are totally probably unthought actions. I just can't get over how folks criticize this kind of plotting when every day you can look at national news and find some instance of some theoretically smart person making a choice that from the backseat looks like a bad one. Bad choices are the easiest thing to suspend disbelief over - they're always plausible in every way.
Yes, this is exactly my reaction to the saccharine sweetness of the Wonka commercials. The darkness was what made the Gene Wilder Wonka movie great! His Wonka is a controlling lunatic who probably murders a bunch of children and maybe some of their parents too. Sure, he presents himself as a magical genie, here to grant all your wishes, but of course you can't trust that facade. We need the Scorsese version, of an up-and-comer getting corrupted and giving in to his darker impulses.
And that come straight from Roald Dahl, beloved children's book author who hated children, but hated adults even more.
Does Rogue One count if it's not a "how character x got to be y?"
Or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? Is there enough character development to count?
I cannot imagine watching both of these movies in the same year, let alone the same weekend.
There was some distance between these experiences for me, though no distance in the experience of writing about them. As another critic friend of mine often says, "I enjoy all the meats of our cultural stew."
Going to see the bear in the little car, eh?
“Wonka counts as the sort of qualified success that attends modern blockbusters that don’t completely shit the bed.”
Quote of the year right there!
"Kirkland-brand Wes Anderson" does it for me. Hard to say whether I'd have a worse time trying to watch "Wonka" or "Histoire(s) du Cinema," judging from your write-ups this week. Two visions of my personal cinematic hell(s).
As accurate as that tag is for King's style, I feel bad saying it about the Paddington movies. They had genuine charm.
I do believe there is a timeline where Anderson made Paddington after Life Aquatic instead of doubling down on his thing
Is Chalamet Gen Z's 'mysteriously hot' guy, where in 20 years people will look back and say "uh, we thought he was hot?", a la Jon Cryer or Christian Slater maybe Peter Fonda?
Neil Hannon is one of my favorite songwriters ever and he and Talbot are great together so it’s a bummer to hear their songs can’t lift Wonka up :/
Agreed. I've performed Talbot's Path of Miracles, and it's a phenomenal piece of music.
I watched THE ZONE OF INTEREST last night and was struck by the same moment you describe in your first paragraph. There’s also the scene where one of his boys is playing with something in his bed that turns out to be gold teeth and fillings. No need to explain where those came from.
So many moments like that--I had to take some deep breaths afterwards. I know it's bad form to reveal (pun not intended) our picks but it's hard to see anything topping ZONE OF INTEREST for me this year (although honestly I still think OPPENHEIMER should still win Best Picture--something about ZONE OF INTEREST competing against something like BARBIE (which I still liked) does not sit right with me
Is it too late for me to change my best 5? Because without a question, not a question, Zone of Interest now sits at #1.
The best manipulation, as we all know, is self manipulation, and that's exactly what Glazer does with this movie. It's almost Lovecraftian, what he's doing here (the irony, of course, since HP was one hell of a racist himself!) -- never letting us see what so many Holocaust movies have shown. When Hedwig bemoans the transfer from their idyllic home, I actually found myself bemoaning with her. Her life is so beautiful and perfect there. I wouldn't want to move, either! And then, of course, I snap back to the reality of the situation and I find myself horrified at my empathy.
Has any filmmaker done so much with so little? The slivers of conversation say so much. Like when we find out Hedwig's mom cleaned the house of the woman who's probably already dead in the camp next door. The only time we hear anything overtly horrible, it's when Hedwig lashes out at her servant girl after her mom departments -- and again, I thought of how unintelligent Hedwig is, and how that threat is akin to a five year old's tantrum. So callous, so immature, so very human.
Best film of 2023. A monumental achievement. I know it's cliche to say a movie is unforgettable, but this one -- yeah. Wow.
One of us! One of us!
Did you happen to see A.A. Dowd's piece about the end of the film in Vulture this week? It's a good one: https://www.vulture.com/article/the-zone-of-interests-vomit-inducing-ending-explained.html
Thanks so much for the link -- just read it. Such an interesting take -- absolutely, a very valid point, especially in the way it's shot with Rudolf just a tiny person in a vast space. You know, for a movie about the holocaust, I just realized -- his vomiting is the only scene of human suffering we get. I mean we get the mom looking worried and guilty, and the daughter who can't sleep -- but the only true physical suffering we see is this.
And thinking back to that scene, I don't remember Rudolf actually looking like he was suffering at all? It was a curious non-reaction, not quite surprise, either -- just...nothing. And then, when it's over, he wipes his mouth and just walks down.
I'm of the "body rejecting the horrors his mind accepts" theorists. There's no meaning in his throwing up; it just occurs. Just like all the thousands of murders that are happening -- "continuously," as the old architect partner makes sure to interject -- that's all very normal. Nothing to see here.