Recensioni di Metacritic

I enjoyed this more than either of the two earlier filmed versions, with Gene Wilder in 1971 and Johnny Depp in 2005. It supplies the chocolate-endorphins.

But it’s the shadow of despair that “Wonka” traces most clearly; the cloud of disenchantment that can hover over every inch of our waking lives when the wrong people are allowed to monopolize our dreams. This may not be Paul King’s most satisfying film, but even at a scale — or at least a budget — several times larger than that of “Paddington 2,” the purity of its imagination remains unquestionable.

King’s flair for transposing peak British TV comedy’s character to film is also apparent, thanks to a fine support haul of Peep Show and Ghosts alumni.

It may not scale the heights of his Paddington duo, but Paul King’s Wonka is a beguiling way to spend 116 minutes, perfectly anchored by Chalamet’s benevolent dandy. All together now: Oompa Loompa, doompety doo…

Wonka’s throwback charms make a striking enough impression, especially with Chalamet in the role, that the idea of another musical Wonka adventure isn't at all objectionable. If, that is, they skip the fat suit next time.

Paul King again proves himself a masterful engineer of imaginary worlds, and it’s the meticulous attention to detail that makes Wonka so captivating.

Though it has its merits, an excellent supporting cast & fun musical numbers, Wonka wobbles in its journey & storylines while remaining heartfelt.

The wreck of Wonka stings because of the clarity with which we see King’s eye for visual comedy and lavish setpiece staging, squandered on a movie where branding was always going to eclipse beauty.

Chalamet seems to be a Gene Wilder fan / But he can’t live up to the original candyman / He’s flat, and he’s grating, and he can’t sing a tune / The heartthrob is best off on the sands of Dune.

Young audiences may well be enchanted, but I’m sad to report I found the whole confection sickly sweet and hopelessly twee.