Disney's A Wrinkle in Source Material Review
Disney's A Wrinkle in Time is an adaptation of (gee, I wonder what?) A Wrinkle in Time. But wait guys: this ain't your average A Wrinkle in Time for those kiddies. Nah fam, this is DISNEY'S A Wrinkle in Time. You know what that means?
IT MEANS IT'S BY DISNEY, SO YOU BEST RECOGNIZE!!
Ok, in all seriousness, Disney's A Wrinkle in Time is clearly what they want audiences to call the movie. So that's what I'm calling it.
Oh boy.
This movie unfortunately not only fails as an adaptation, but also as a standalone movie. At times, it's trying to be a carbon copy of the book. At other times, it's trying to be different. As you can see, the movie has a major identity crisis. Throughout the movie, it shows signs that it has potential to be good, but it ultimately falls flat on its face.
The book itself is pretty confusing to begin with. That is, until you start to discover what the themes mean. I'm not going to get too in depth about these themes (I recommend you try reading the book), but they are very much related to Christianity. The novel actually received a fair bit of controversy due to some interpretations of the undertones back in the day, causing it to become one of the most banned children's books of all time. Yet despite the controversy, the book has been lauded for being an immensely thought-provoking novel intended for kids. It's similar to what Lewis did with the Narnia books, or what Tolkien did with Lord of the Rings. Even if you do interpret the novel literally, you can understand the broad message that the novel is trying to convey if you understand the themes. Now, whether you are a Christian or not, you can acknowledge that these themes are essential to understanding what the novel is truly about.
But Disney was like, "NO! We can't have those (gasp) subtle Christian undertones that are necessary for the story to make any sense. We can't have that! But you know what we gotta have? DEM DOLLA BILLS Y'ALL! SO MAKE THAT MOVIE ANYWAY!". So yeah, all of that stuff is non-existent, so the film makes no sense. The best explanation that they could give in order to make sense of the crazy stuff that's happening in the movie is, "Because the universe."
I'm not even joking. I'm pretty sure Chris Pine's character, who is a astrophysicist, uses that exact explanation to let his kids know what is going on. "Because the universe."
So yeah, the plot in Disney's A Wrinkle in Time is basically the plot of A Wrinkle in Time, except without the Christian undertones that allow it to be comprehensible along with a very large chunk of novel sandwiched between Meg finding her father and the ending. Believe or not, the exclusion of this section of the book was something I thought was odd, because it is quite possibly the most emotional part of the novel. This section, which is several chapters long, mainly has to do with Meg's anger at her father for leaving Charles Wallace with the "IT" (not related in any way to the clown). Due to this, their reunion doesn't turn out quite like you'd expect, and Meg is filled with anger towards the father whom she longed to see for years. Also, her father is left torn because he failed to save Charles Wallace, possibly reminding him that he really never was in his life because he was gone since Charles was very young. However, Meg meets a kind and wise creature who she calls Aunt Beast and the kindness shown by Aunt Beast allows her to calm down, forgive her father and be prepared to go save Charles Wallace herself.
Yeah, why exactly is that not in the movie?
Okay, besides the plot, which is an incomprehensible mess, the movie isn't necessarily the worst thing ever. There is good that can be said about it. The dialogue is okay for the most part. That is until they say stuff like, "Because the universe". Or when Mindy Kaling opens her mouth and quotes stuff like Outkast, Chris Tucker, and Lin Manuel Miranda (She didn't even quote "Hey Ya!" Come on, Kelly Kapoor! If you're gonna be annoying, could you at least tell those kids to "Shake it like a Polaroid picture!"). The effects are pretty good, except when they're not. Giant Oprah and Reese Witherspoon's flying leaf Pokemon-looking thingy were truly nightmare inducing. But the settings look beautiful.
The acting? Well, most of it is fine. Chris Pine's great, but that's not surprising. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is also great in how little screen-time she gets, and she might honestly be the most underrated actresses in the business whose two biggest movies either ended up getting dumped to Netflix (The Cloverfield Paradox) or losing $80 million (this movie). Oprah is also great, but mainly when she's a NORMAL SIZE. Witherspoon's good. The girl who played Meg was good. The guy who played Calvin was okay, but he's mainly known for Pan, and one of the very few things I remember about that movie is that he was absolutely dreadful. So good job dude; you've come a long way. The kid who plays Charles Wallace is terrible. Mindy Kaling's performance quality is about as expected as Pine's; of course she's terrible! What else would you expect? Finally, I was slightly weirded out by Zach Galifi-I ain't spelling that. You see, male roles sometimes are changed so that a female can play them. I think this is absolutely fine, but some Ghostbusters fans would strongly disagree with me if you know what I mean? (too soon?) Well, in this case, the Happy Medium, an originally female character is played by Zach G. Yeah, I don't get that. Weird casting choice.
SCORE: 3/10
With its attempt to both clone and diverge from A Wrinkle in Time, the movie is simply a mess for the most part and had one too many Outkast quotes.
This movie unfortunately not only fails as an adaptation, but also as a standalone movie. At times, it's trying to be a carbon copy of the book. At other times, it's trying to be different. As you can see, the movie has a major identity crisis. Throughout the movie, it shows signs that it has potential to be good, but it ultimately falls flat on its face.
The book itself is pretty confusing to begin with. That is, until you start to discover what the themes mean. I'm not going to get too in depth about these themes (I recommend you try reading the book), but they are very much related to Christianity. The novel actually received a fair bit of controversy due to some interpretations of the undertones back in the day, causing it to become one of the most banned children's books of all time. Yet despite the controversy, the book has been lauded for being an immensely thought-provoking novel intended for kids. It's similar to what Lewis did with the Narnia books, or what Tolkien did with Lord of the Rings. Even if you do interpret the novel literally, you can understand the broad message that the novel is trying to convey if you understand the themes. Now, whether you are a Christian or not, you can acknowledge that these themes are essential to understanding what the novel is truly about.
But Disney was like, "NO! We can't have those (gasp) subtle Christian undertones that are necessary for the story to make any sense. We can't have that! But you know what we gotta have? DEM DOLLA BILLS Y'ALL! SO MAKE THAT MOVIE ANYWAY!". So yeah, all of that stuff is non-existent, so the film makes no sense. The best explanation that they could give in order to make sense of the crazy stuff that's happening in the movie is, "Because the universe."
I'm not even joking. I'm pretty sure Chris Pine's character, who is a astrophysicist, uses that exact explanation to let his kids know what is going on. "Because the universe."
So yeah, the plot in Disney's A Wrinkle in Time is basically the plot of A Wrinkle in Time, except without the Christian undertones that allow it to be comprehensible along with a very large chunk of novel sandwiched between Meg finding her father and the ending. Believe or not, the exclusion of this section of the book was something I thought was odd, because it is quite possibly the most emotional part of the novel. This section, which is several chapters long, mainly has to do with Meg's anger at her father for leaving Charles Wallace with the "IT" (not related in any way to the clown). Due to this, their reunion doesn't turn out quite like you'd expect, and Meg is filled with anger towards the father whom she longed to see for years. Also, her father is left torn because he failed to save Charles Wallace, possibly reminding him that he really never was in his life because he was gone since Charles was very young. However, Meg meets a kind and wise creature who she calls Aunt Beast and the kindness shown by Aunt Beast allows her to calm down, forgive her father and be prepared to go save Charles Wallace herself.
Yeah, why exactly is that not in the movie?
Okay, besides the plot, which is an incomprehensible mess, the movie isn't necessarily the worst thing ever. There is good that can be said about it. The dialogue is okay for the most part. That is until they say stuff like, "Because the universe". Or when Mindy Kaling opens her mouth and quotes stuff like Outkast, Chris Tucker, and Lin Manuel Miranda (She didn't even quote "Hey Ya!" Come on, Kelly Kapoor! If you're gonna be annoying, could you at least tell those kids to "Shake it like a Polaroid picture!"). The effects are pretty good, except when they're not. Giant Oprah and Reese Witherspoon's flying leaf Pokemon-looking thingy were truly nightmare inducing. But the settings look beautiful.
The acting? Well, most of it is fine. Chris Pine's great, but that's not surprising. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is also great in how little screen-time she gets, and she might honestly be the most underrated actresses in the business whose two biggest movies either ended up getting dumped to Netflix (The Cloverfield Paradox) or losing $80 million (this movie). Oprah is also great, but mainly when she's a NORMAL SIZE. Witherspoon's good. The girl who played Meg was good. The guy who played Calvin was okay, but he's mainly known for Pan, and one of the very few things I remember about that movie is that he was absolutely dreadful. So good job dude; you've come a long way. The kid who plays Charles Wallace is terrible. Mindy Kaling's performance quality is about as expected as Pine's; of course she's terrible! What else would you expect? Finally, I was slightly weirded out by Zach Galifi-I ain't spelling that. You see, male roles sometimes are changed so that a female can play them. I think this is absolutely fine, but some Ghostbusters fans would strongly disagree with me if you know what I mean? (too soon?) Well, in this case, the Happy Medium, an originally female character is played by Zach G. Yeah, I don't get that. Weird casting choice.
SCORE: 3/10
With its attempt to both clone and diverge from A Wrinkle in Time, the movie is simply a mess for the most part and had one too many Outkast quotes.
Comments
Post a Comment