Review of A Wrinkle in Time 2018 Full Movie: This film is going to fumble and should not deserve any recognition. The original novel is better than what is already being presented. It's one big cliche, the acting seems dry, the only performance I can possibly say that will be GOOD is Chris Pine's, that's it. Casting just for the sake of diversity or being politically correct does not make a film, Disney.
The effects also, they do not look good. It's cliche, the characters seem dull and uninteresting (what's with the costume design???), visually it's a mix between being bland and generic to actually good, but not convincing enough for me to watch, and Disney has taken a bit of a toll with their live action films (besides Cinderella and Jungle Book, those were actually good and qualified to deserve praise).
instead of making a new version that most people seem to hate, Disney could have simply moved this version to the big screen. It isn't perfect, but it mostly captures the feeling of the book, and the casting is excellent. After reading a myriad of reviews that excoriate the Ava Duvernay update, I went to Amazon and re-watched this version. It was incredibly satisfying, and it cost a lot less ($5 to purchase) than two tickets and a bunch of snacks at the theateR. If you loved the Book, then this is the version you want to see.
Sorry... I might have liked it better if they at least got the characters right. 'Mag' is supposed to have red hair, braces, and glasses- Calvin is supposed to have orange hair. I don't see much similarity between the book characters. Then there's also the fact that Calvin meets Margaret before he's even supposed to- he's supposed to meet her near the 'Haunted Mansion' later on. Then there's also the special effects- they could always be better. Overall, they could have done a better job of making it line up with the book. It's an ok movie.
They made the Happy Medium into an effeminate man and the Man With the Red Eyes just a dude. This adaptation has the bare bones of the plot from the book, but while the book's messages were woven into the story the movie likes to hit you over the head with their half-developed ideas. Hope the Hollywood version does a better job than this shlock.
This movie was horrendous. Although somethings remained true to the novel, it hurt more than it helped. I don't recommend this to anyone who is looking for a good representation of the book. Or to anyone really. I'm still having nightmares about the freaking centaur monster.
The movie felt padded and clunky. It looked like the makers of this movie had money to waste on a CGI budget, but forgot to concentrate on a theme, story, and pacing. On the plus side, David Dorfman does a capable job as Charles Wallace, but that's not enough to save this adaptation from falling very very short.
The book must be good because I've heard nothing but positive things about it; unfortunately, this adaptation kind of sucked. I understand that it's been a few years since this was made and the animation has not quite reached the epic proportions it has nowadays, but aside from that, the acting was kind of lame especially from lead actress Katie Stuart, (she kind of reminds me of Kristen Stewart except she actually has more than one expression, so I guess she has one up on K-Stew).....but that's neither here or there. Even commonly great actress Alfre Woodward (who plays Mrs. Whatsit) wasn't all that good. The only exception was Alison Elliot (who plays Mrs. Who), she was actually charming, speaking solely in quotes.
Before Phillip Pullman, J.K. Rowling, and Rick Riordan, there was Madeleine L'Engle, one of the greatest science fiction and fantasy writers who made a classic known as "A Wrinkle in Time", a captivating and distinctive children's novel that treated us like adults. Before she died in 2007, her book was translated into a TV movie from Disney in 2004 (seven years ago) starring Katie Stuart, Gregory Smith, David Dorfman, Kate Nelligan, Allison Elliot and Alfre Woodard.
I've read the book after seeing this and I think it was a very wonderful adaptation. It's not great, perse, but it was actually faithful to the book.
Apparently, I do have some problems with this film. The storyline has a few flaws including the characterization of Mrs. Which, the town of Camazotz being unterrifying, and Dennys and Sandy Murry's personalities being changed. The CGI effects were kind of mediocre (not good, but not terrible) and the pacing was just plain awful.
There are a few good things, however. The characters' performances were very fantastic when it comes to an A-Cast. The storyline was well-developed as well as Meg Murry's character growth as it gives the characters enough screentime and the visuals were very amazing. Jeff Danna's music score was emotive and innovative and the Christian message about the power of love was actually faithful.
A Wrinkle in Time lacks in any depth due to its flaws, but its, without doubt, a faithful adaptation of a great novel. I was shocked to see that lots of people hated it for not being translated into theaters. To those who love/hate it, there's some good news that Disney plans to remake the novel due to the success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.
Long story short: A really good TV movie and it's worth seeing.
My wife says the book is better. I sure hope so, because this was a confusing, though somewhat entertaining, movie. Even with a running time of over two hours, it felt like the director just didn't have enough time to tell the whole story which left me scratching my head. Decent acting and special effects make it watchable. Just wish I had more explanation for what was going on and why.
instead of making a new version that most people seem to hate, Disney could have simply moved this version to the big screen. It isn't perfect, but it mostly captures the feeling of the book, and the casting is excellent. After reading a myriad of reviews that excoriate the Ava Duvernay update, I went to Amazon and re-watched this version. It was incredibly satisfying, and it cost a lot less ($5 to purchase) than two tickets and a bunch of snacks at the theateR. If you loved the Book, then this is the version you want to see.
They made the Happy Medium into an effeminate man and the Man With the Red Eyes just a dude. This adaptation has the bare bones of the plot from the book, but while the book's messages were woven into the story the movie likes to hit you over the head with their half-developed ideas. Hope the Hollywood version does a better job than this shlock.
The movie felt padded and clunky. It looked like the makers of this movie had money to waste on a CGI budget, but forgot to concentrate on a theme, story, and pacing. On the plus side, David Dorfman does a capable job as Charles Wallace, but that's not enough to save this adaptation from falling very very short.
The book must be good because I've heard nothing but positive things about it; unfortunately, this adaptation kind of sucked. I understand that it's been a few years since this was made and the animation has not quite reached the epic proportions it has nowadays, but aside from that, the acting was kind of lame especially from lead actress Katie Stuart, (she kind of reminds me of Kristen Stewart except she actually has more than one expression, so I guess she has one up on K-Stew).....but that's neither here or there. Even commonly great actress Alfre Woodward (who plays Mrs. Whatsit) wasn't all that good. The only exception was Alison Elliot (who plays Mrs. Who), she was actually charming, speaking solely in quotes.
Before Phillip Pullman, J.K. Rowling, and Rick Riordan, there was Madeleine L'Engle, one of the greatest science fiction and fantasy writers who made a classic known as "A Wrinkle in Time", a captivating and distinctive children's novel that treated us like adults. Before she died in 2007, her book was translated into a TV movie from Disney in 2004 (seven years ago) starring Katie Stuart, Gregory Smith, David Dorfman, Kate Nelligan, Allison Elliot and Alfre Woodard.
I've read the book after seeing this and I think it was a very wonderful adaptation. It's not great, perse, but it was actually faithful to the book.
Apparently, I do have some problems with this film. The storyline has a few flaws including the characterization of Mrs. Which, the town of Camazotz being unterrifying, and Dennys and Sandy Murry's personalities being changed. The CGI effects were kind of mediocre (not good, but not terrible) and the pacing was just plain awful.
There are a few good things, however. The characters' performances were very fantastic when it comes to an A-Cast. The storyline was well-developed as well as Meg Murry's character growth as it gives the characters enough screentime and the visuals were very amazing. Jeff Danna's music score was emotive and innovative and the Christian message about the power of love was actually faithful.
A Wrinkle in Time lacks in any depth due to its flaws, but its, without doubt, a faithful adaptation of a great novel. I was shocked to see that lots of people hated it for not being translated into theaters. To those who love/hate it, there's some good news that Disney plans to remake the novel due to the success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.
Long story short: A really good TV movie and it's worth seeing.
My wife says the book is better. I sure hope so, because this was a confusing, though somewhat entertaining, movie. Even with a running time of over two hours, it felt like the director just didn't have enough time to tell the whole story which left me scratching my head. Decent acting and special effects make it watchable. Just wish I had more explanation for what was going on and why.
No comments:
Post a Comment