The Twits (Netflix)

As far as children's authors go, Roald Dahl is extremely problematic. And not just due to the racism in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. Dahl has a subgenre of books that are short, feature stupid and horrible characters, and are mean and sour as hell. The Twits fell into that cruel and ugly category, and there is really nothing to recommend about the book.

I think the stuff The Twits did was something Dahl designed to be humorous, but as a kid I don't remember much kid-lit, much less Dahl himself, ever making me laugh. Some of the Bunnicula series is funny. I laughed at a joke in Freaky Friday. And The Best Christmas Pageant Ever passes for funny. But Dahl? No, I got he was essentially telling jokes about horrible things happening to horrible people, but none of it was ever funny. And worse, he never had any editors to tell him it wasn't funny. There is literally nothing good about The Twits book.

In fairness, there is little to recommend in the adaptation itself either. It dumb and stupid, but I don't actually believe the book is as poorly written as this (although it's been awhile and I could be wrong). The premise is horrible so they added a couple of "cute" on the surface, but in reality, CREEPY-looking uncanny valley kids to the mix for kiddie appeal. And the end of the girl showing the Twits mercy was the antithesis of the whole rotten ending to that rotten book. But the reason Dahl's books like The Twits and George's Marvelous Medicine are so short is simply because there is nothing to them except cruelty and horribleness. They are the Author unleashing his worst impulses, and his editors and school librarians refusing to say, "Has anybody ever pointed out this is messed up shit for kids to read?" In hindsight The Giving Tree has been given a LOT of (wholly deserved) shit. I feel like a lot of Dahl's stuff deserves the same sort of negative reappraisal for the same reason of being utterly immoral and teaching a bad lesson to kids.

You know one of the reasons Harry Potter is SO fucking mean, and why J.K. Rowling is so fucking mean? She's clearly channeling Dahl in making horrible, poorly-written characters horrible because she isn't talented enough to write a bunch of interesting ones. And I'm trying to think of a character Dahl has written that I really responded to. The closest I can come to that is Matilda, and that was pretty much the last major book he wrote. When it came to most of his output over his entire career, as entertaining and creative as much of it was, the characters themselves were always paper-thin and boring.

But Matt, what about Willy Wonka? Well, I've read both Charlie books, and Wonka as seen there is a is a pure, evil sociopath. Maybe he's a great character in the same way Hannibal Lecter or Patrick Bateman are. But if you are talking about a character in a book for kids, that's not a brag. Gene Wilder, and later Timothy Chalemet completely misrepresented that character to movie audiences, which I think was probably for the best. Not remotely a fan of Book Wonka.

The movie is loud, dumb, and unfunny. I thought the stress hairballs were cute, but the animation as mentioned before, is very uncanny valley.

I thought the Twits running for Mayor was interesting because I do believe that is the film taking a political stand there. The girl turns to her friend and says, "Adults are dumb, but I doubt they'd ever elect a Twit." And if the town screams of betrayal during the Twits' confession isn't largely based on the Leopards Eating Faces Party Meme, I'd be shocked. Do you know what I've learned is wrong with that Meme over the years? Those sobbing people would not even mention leopards after the fact. This is clearly that damned Joe Biden's fault. Back when the Meme started we all foolishly believed human beings could actually learn from touching the hot stove. Remember how adorably stupid we all were? My naivete and belief in the utter goodness of humanity embarrasses me in hindsight. Talk about missed calls.

Also Gene Roddenberry was an idiot. .

A lot of people often question upon seeing a bad movie, "Why was this made?" I dislike that question. I don't think there needs to be a reason for making a piece of art, even bad art. It just comes naturally. The thing is, I don't feel that about this movie. Netflix had a license deal for Roald Dahl's books, so they must simply be crapping through the catalog, even the lousy stuff. And we get this. I honestly believe the reason this film was made was because not using the entire catalog they spent a fortune on was not in Netflix's financial best interest. That's not art. It's commerce. I absolutely detest actors, and even filmmakers, describing their art as "product", but if that's why the film was actually made, isn't that what it actually is?

No, I don't believe any movie NEEDS to be made, and insisting the crappy ones are unnecessary are missing the point. But as far as The Twits go, I feel like I only watched that to fulfill contractual obligations. And it's maybe not the first movie I'd seen do that, but back in the day I wasn't self-aware enough to recognize it. I do now, and it's kind of tacky. 1 1/2 stars.