Image courtesy of Melissa Hillier's Flickr page - A Wrinkle in Time: https://www.flickr.com/photos/77423179@N02/35891666751/in/photolist-WFCb5x-LLnLPq-NwELxM-PzSyTx-PL32ca-PzSz7t-C1M2N1-Bvozr5-xU7dV5-CiksY3-CkBD7z-LGDLi3-NwELv2-PxhWMy-dEB6JB-pKkg5C-G9AwYy-4gGLnP-3iL8Du-dVKCZJ-6Dh6FN-6Dh6Bd-6DcXSM-ay1jR8-bqNjDM-5toubz-nz6KPK-8JVK1k-66TYMP-dhCxUD-5tsSsG-5tsSzj-cZLrn9-4ce1a2-PL321P-PL326i-PL32hk-RejTjH-vV6jFm-wrKrE7-Lc1K5d-wrKrdL-PL31X2-C1MeGS-CqAW4h-C1MbPN-CsUrje-LYxo2s-GeXwv3-M9m7aH
Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Okay, so, I remember this book from when I was a kid, and have read it a couple of times now as an adult. Once on my own, just for old time's sake, and recently, I just finished reading it with my son as a book project. We finished it just in time to go and see it in the movies.
The book is great, and gets better each time that I read it. It really is an imaginative book, at times reminding me of Greek mythology (I still remember getting that impression from the cover of the softcover edition by Laurel-Leaf Fantasy), while at other times, it reminded me a bit of George Orwell's 1984, particularly the idea of Camazotz. At one point, when they are speaking to the seated man, it almost reminded me of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, particularly the scene when Luke and the Emperor are going back and forth about the merits, or rather lack thereof, of the Dark Side of the Force.
Now, there were some good things in this movie. Storm Reid was very good as Meg, the main hero of the movie, if you will. She allows the emotional scenes to pack a punch, and makes you feel something. Also, there were some very cool parts that underscored the wisdom to be found in L'Engle's original work. Generally speaking, it is a positive, upbeat movie, and many kids can hopefully take inspiration in it.
However, even with some of these positives, it feels like there are negatives. I think that Christ Stuckman, the reviewer of movies that I have used before here (for Star Wars movies), got it right in one respect, that there was no surprise when some strange things happen. I do not want to get into details here, because I do not want to act as spoiler for anyone who wants to see the movie but has not yet done so. However, this obviously is a movie with some startling special effects for a reason, and there seems to be a general almost indifference of these magical things unfolding before the children's eyes, which frankly does detract from the movie. Also, while there are some pearls of wisdom within the movie, it comes out jumbled and almost incoherent, not sticking to the original work, and that was a disappointment. So, there are some gems, but it feels like they are scattered a bit, and that they are not as much what the movie is about, as the special effects. There, too, I think that Stuckman makes a point in suggesting that these special effects are not as good as the producers of this movie seem to think that they are.
That said, therein lay some of the problem, because the movie was a little too upbeat. The book version of Camazotz was a very dark and foreboding place, while in the movie version, it really did not feel all that dark or scary. Also, the creature that carries the children on it's back, and which reminds Meg in the book a little of a centaur, only prettier, is just a little too pretty in this movie. It is clearly CGI and very unrealistic, and resembles more a floating lead or salad than anything that might remind Meg, or anyone else, really, of a prettier version of a centaur. That seemed like a very Disney kind of interpretation of the creatures, and not an improvement, at that. It was just a little too cute, and the emphasis on trying to make the creature a wonder and a beauty to me took away from the seriousness of the message of the original book. Frankly, that creature bothered me quite a bit. I enjoyed the book version, and it made my imagination sore, hearkening back to images of Greek mythology, except even adding some to it. The creature in this movie was an elaborate CGI cartoon kind of a creature, almost like a silent Jar Jar Binks. It did nothing to enhance the viewing pleasure at all, and frankly, took away from the seriousness of the movie. It was just one of several things that kind of did that for me.
I heard one person on the radio, a movie critic, claiming that this was fine with her, because it was a kid's movie. But I disagree. L'Engle's book was not actually meant just for children, but somewhere in between kids, young adults, and even, to some degree, adults themselves. Again, it is not simply a happy children's book, but has dark themes within it, and this movie changed too much, to make it almost unrecognizable at times.
Frankly, it felt so jumbled, that the coherence of the novel, strange and unique as it was (and admittedly, many of the first reviewers of the book seemed to feel somewhat the same about the book), is lost here in the film. Some of the acting was decent, and there were some cool scenes, and positive messages. But overall, I have to say that while hoping the movie worked, as much for my son as for anything else, it just never seemed to fully take off. I never was lost or completely absorbed in the film, and there were just too many twists and turns that seemed like obvious opportunities to add in some CGI special effects, to make this movie as enjoyable and moving as it could have been. That makes this movie a missed opportunity, in my book.
Now, there were some good things in this movie. Storm Reid was very good as Meg, the main hero of the movie, if you will. She allows the emotional scenes to pack a punch, and makes you feel something. Also, there were some very cool parts that underscored the wisdom to be found in L'Engle's original work. Generally speaking, it is a positive, upbeat movie, and many kids can hopefully take inspiration in it.
However, even with some of these positives, it feels like there are negatives. I think that Christ Stuckman, the reviewer of movies that I have used before here (for Star Wars movies), got it right in one respect, that there was no surprise when some strange things happen. I do not want to get into details here, because I do not want to act as spoiler for anyone who wants to see the movie but has not yet done so. However, this obviously is a movie with some startling special effects for a reason, and there seems to be a general almost indifference of these magical things unfolding before the children's eyes, which frankly does detract from the movie. Also, while there are some pearls of wisdom within the movie, it comes out jumbled and almost incoherent, not sticking to the original work, and that was a disappointment. So, there are some gems, but it feels like they are scattered a bit, and that they are not as much what the movie is about, as the special effects. There, too, I think that Stuckman makes a point in suggesting that these special effects are not as good as the producers of this movie seem to think that they are.
That said, therein lay some of the problem, because the movie was a little too upbeat. The book version of Camazotz was a very dark and foreboding place, while in the movie version, it really did not feel all that dark or scary. Also, the creature that carries the children on it's back, and which reminds Meg in the book a little of a centaur, only prettier, is just a little too pretty in this movie. It is clearly CGI and very unrealistic, and resembles more a floating lead or salad than anything that might remind Meg, or anyone else, really, of a prettier version of a centaur. That seemed like a very Disney kind of interpretation of the creatures, and not an improvement, at that. It was just a little too cute, and the emphasis on trying to make the creature a wonder and a beauty to me took away from the seriousness of the message of the original book. Frankly, that creature bothered me quite a bit. I enjoyed the book version, and it made my imagination sore, hearkening back to images of Greek mythology, except even adding some to it. The creature in this movie was an elaborate CGI cartoon kind of a creature, almost like a silent Jar Jar Binks. It did nothing to enhance the viewing pleasure at all, and frankly, took away from the seriousness of the movie. It was just one of several things that kind of did that for me.
I heard one person on the radio, a movie critic, claiming that this was fine with her, because it was a kid's movie. But I disagree. L'Engle's book was not actually meant just for children, but somewhere in between kids, young adults, and even, to some degree, adults themselves. Again, it is not simply a happy children's book, but has dark themes within it, and this movie changed too much, to make it almost unrecognizable at times.
Frankly, it felt so jumbled, that the coherence of the novel, strange and unique as it was (and admittedly, many of the first reviewers of the book seemed to feel somewhat the same about the book), is lost here in the film. Some of the acting was decent, and there were some cool scenes, and positive messages. But overall, I have to say that while hoping the movie worked, as much for my son as for anything else, it just never seemed to fully take off. I never was lost or completely absorbed in the film, and there were just too many twists and turns that seemed like obvious opportunities to add in some CGI special effects, to make this movie as enjoyable and moving as it could have been. That makes this movie a missed opportunity, in my book.
No comments:
Post a Comment