I TEND TO BE SKEPTICAL WHENEVER a restaurant or food product gets rebranded or announces they are “new and improved.” More times than not, when a food establishment announces a change, their portions or their menus get smaller. Now I am not saying this happens all the time; it just seems to have happened enough for me to notice it. A restaurant I frequent came up with a new menu. It had the same colorful type of pages, but there were several items missing from it. When our meals came, the French fries that had always accompanied the entrée on the plate were instead stacked into a freestanding metal cone. As a display presentation it looked cool, but I could see there were not as many fries in it as there had been on the plate. It is not something I would complain about, especially since they did not increase the price for them. I have been to some restaurants that came out with a campaign about being better or tastier, and yet it all tasted the same, except the price for it was higher. That type of situation annoys me. I would rather they just raise the prices without trying to disguise it as some new and improved thing.      THOUGH, I AM OPEN FOR TRYING new food items, my experience has been more of a negative reaction. There was a particular brand of ice cream I always bought. One day, while shopping, I stopped at the freezer case to pick up a container of it. At first, I missed it entirely because the packaging had been changed; it looked completely different. I looked over the label that was touting a new and improved flavor and did not see anything that stood out as unusual. Later that day, when I was back at home, I helped myself to a serving from it and immediately saw fewer chocolate chips. Not only did that bother me, but the other flavors in the mix were not as pronounced. It was another example of masking the true reasons behind their “new and improved” marketing ploy. I am aware in this line of work; the company must keep their eyes on their competitors’ pricing and not price themselves out of the market. Still, what purpose does it serve to produce something not as good? I would have rather paid more money for it and still enjoy the original flavors in the product. In my opinion, it is not always a clever idea to redo something that already works well. Case in point, today’s film. I know it is supposed to be a prequel, but something was missing from it.      EVERYONE IN TOWN SEEMED TO LOVE the stranger’s chocolates, except for the members of the chocolate cartel. They were not about to let a stranger ruin their business plan. With Timothee Chalamet (Dune, Bones and All) as Willy Wonka, Hugh Grent (The Gentleman, Cloud Atlas) as Oompa-Loompa, Olivia Coleman (The Lost Daughter, Empire of Light) as Mrs. Scrubitt, Paterson Joseph (Aeon Flux, The Beach) as Slugworth and Calah Lane (The Day Shall Come, Kiddings-TV) as Noodle; this family, adventure comedy was like an assortment of Halloween candy: some scenes were good, others were not. My first reaction was about Timothee’s character; he was too mild in my opinion. There was not anything magical or special about him that made the character stand out on the big screen; unlike Hugh Grant, who I thought for the few scenes he was in was fun to watch. There was more of a cartoonish flavor to the movie as opposed to an exciting fantasy. Granted it is a prequel, but I was bored through the first half of the movie. The odd assortment of supporting characters added more “oomph” to the story. Also, except for a couple of well-known songs, the others were not memorable. I felt as disappointed as getting an apple instead of a chocolate bar for Halloween. There was an extra scene early in the credits.                           

2 ½ stars