Sugar is great, but sometimes you need that dash of spice in the mixture.
Dahl signed on to direct a screenplay but never delivered a completed one by the time production started.
Dahl publicly disowned the movie and ranted about it for decades.
Still, there is much inWilly Wonka and the Chocolate Factorythat feels appropriately Dahl-esque.
What the 71 film does best is its portrayal of Wonka.
In other words, perfectly fitting for a secretive chocolate factory king with a questionable agenda.
Moreover, he didnt think enough emphasis was put on Charlie since its his story more than Wonkas.
He often expressed desire for another adaptation.
Indeed, in many ways, it nails the source material.
It was a surprise to literally nobody that Burtons adaptation is stunning to look at.
The factory is equal parts sumptuous (that chocolate river!)
and sinister, making it look like part of Gotham City from the earliest Batman films.
To be immersed in Burtons world is to be thoroughly in Dahls scope.
But where Burton stumbles is with Wonka himself.
Yet in terms of sheer aesthetic delight, Burton cant help but come out on top.
What could be more appropriately Dahl-esque than that?
Why No Roald Dahl Adaptation Fully Embodies His Work
Dahl adaptations struggle with his tone.
The entire plot ofGeorges Marvelous Medicinehinges on the physical agony of an old woman.
Both movies are the Wonka Show, for better or worse.
They both falter in near-identical ways when it comes to both the Oompa Loompas and Augustus Gloop.
Burton in particular shoots him gorging on chocolate (in a chocolate factory!)
as though hes a monster inThe Evil Dead.
