I think this will be the second to the last movie review I'll do this year as summer blockbuster fatigue season moves in.
I read A Wrinkle In Time back in seventh grade for school and it blew my mind, the way it presented a science fantasy setting with Meg and family, Calvin and the Witches fighting against the forces of darkness while trying to find her missing father. A lot of the typical heroes journey, light vs. dark themes show up in this 1964 novel before it became required in all fantasy before Tolkienism set in completely. I have seen the 2003 movie version and I hardly remember it outside of the bad cgi affects. With that in mind here's my observations on how this new adaptation by Ava DuVernay movie holds up:
Meg Murray is a clever child of two genius parents who starts to lose her way when her father leaves for four years. Charles Wallace is her adopted younger brother (not adopted in the novel) and he's a cutie who stands up for his sister when teachers talk shit. Meanwhile their stuck up neighbor who heads a popular clique gives Meg shit for her missing, or dead father, taunts her and basically says they wish she had disappeared too. I didn't have that kind of gossip when I was growing up, but I was always told the line when picking on others is to not give them shit for having dead, jailed, or absent family members. That was a no no in my school district. Otherwise everything else was fair game (everything else), so these kids as portrayed in this movie whether accurate to current real life, or not, just goes to show that they're mean about anything just to be mean, which sounds about right. So Meg's Principal in the movie and her mother pull the whole bullshit that since Meg threw the first hit (smacking a ball in the neighbor's face) she has to apologize even though they started the taunts. This is why I hate parents and school staff. This shit. Whatever I'm over it. Also the Principal lecture's Meg over her grief as if it was some moral defect, which is bullshit.
The movie mostly follows the plot of the book with minor changes and a lot of cuts. Meg and Charles Wallace don't have twin siblings to join them in their journey. Calvin does show up, but most of his development and use of "diplomacy" hardly comes up so he's sort of just their as the platonic, but potential love interest. I dig that he and Charles Wallace have classic male haircuts, none of this crew cut crap, or shaved sides shit men do now that's disgusting. It gives them that sixties vibe that this movie has due to it's source material, though it's updated for today.
There are lines of dialogue in the movie that I swear are lifted from the book, but I can't be sure because I haven't read it in years, but it feels familiar, but their are some updated changes I don't mind. For example different people Mrs, Who quotes, such as Chris Tucker himself. Also at the end when they talk about the heroes that fight on the side of light against the dark, the list is slightly changed to include later people than the book's publication. I don't mind that honestly. It would have been too dry if they stuck exclusively with what L'Engle references.
A lot of this movie's appeal in marketing was the casting of the three witches because the children are unknown. Oprah Winfrey, Mindy Kaling and Reese Witherspoon. Most people complained that Oprah plays Mrs. Which who in the book can't keep her form and is often a bright light, but they reference that in the movie with Which's legs being transparent. I didn't mind the change, you don't cast Oprah to be a disembodied voice in a live action movie. Kaling was disappointing as Mrs. Who, only because no matter who played Who they would have been resigned mostly with quotes than original dialogue. Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit could be both annoying and amusing. I didn't mind her change in the movie being this visually stunning leafy serpent/flying carpet thing instead of a centaur pagasi type being. I have an irrational hatred of horses, so other people will be pissed at this change, but I still have nightmares of the earlier movies horrible cgi transformation.
As I've said before I was happy they mostly stayed accurate with ages. They cast fourteen year old’s, or close to, Storm Reid and Levi Miller to play Meg and Calvin instead of aging them up and giving them sexual tension like every other young adult movie ever in the last twenty years. Charles Wallace as played by Deric McCabe was bumped up from five to six years, which isn't a big deal.
Other cast-members are Chris Pine as the dad, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as the mom, Andre Holland as the Principal and Michael Pena as Red. I'm sort of glad the marketing didn't emphasize Pine over the Witches.
One of the casting choices I'm a bit annoyed with is that they cast bearded Zach Galifianakis as The Happy Medium. Now I swear my memory was that this character was genderqueer, or agender, but that might have been only in the older movie adaptation as according to wikipedia she's a woman, so what the fuck happened here? Was one more woman with a speaking role too much to ask for in a movie about female empowerment? If I hadn't known this, it wouldn't bother me. It's one thing to change character's race, whatever background it then informs on the character because white people have almost all the roles so losing some doesn't matter. Changing a character's gender on the other hand is kind of annoying. Disney is guilty of this when is comes to source material female characters turning into guys all the sudden, like Bagheera in every Disney Jungle Book movie adaptation and no changing Kha to a girl in the new adaptation was not a consolation.
Anyway this movie is a visual treat and has a mythology and similar themes that would fit in with Kingdom Hearts which is a shame it won't make it in there when we're stuck with crap like Tron Legacy making it in the last title. I feel like a lot of the journey is cut and, or rushed and no there aren't big blockbuster battles, or cheap, stilted young adult romances. The battle is strictly personal and between family, the light and dark. I didn't expect more. Other people disappointed: Sorry, new movies spoiled you. This movie would have fit in with a lot of 90's family movies, but the visual effects at that time would not have made this possible and they probably wouldn't have done diverse casting like making the main character, her mother, and not one, but two of her mentors as poc. Another good thing about this movie is that it doesn't bait you for a sequel that might not be made. If it does get a sequel, I'd like to see more of the family, the three witches and the It fleshed out more.
I've read rumors that Ava DuVernay is now going to helm the Fourth World/New Gods for Warner Brothers. Here's hoping it's a hit like Wonder Woman and that DuVernay doesn't have too much studio meddling fucking it down.
I read A Wrinkle In Time back in seventh grade for school and it blew my mind, the way it presented a science fantasy setting with Meg and family, Calvin and the Witches fighting against the forces of darkness while trying to find her missing father. A lot of the typical heroes journey, light vs. dark themes show up in this 1964 novel before it became required in all fantasy before Tolkienism set in completely. I have seen the 2003 movie version and I hardly remember it outside of the bad cgi affects. With that in mind here's my observations on how this new adaptation by Ava DuVernay movie holds up:
Meg Murray is a clever child of two genius parents who starts to lose her way when her father leaves for four years. Charles Wallace is her adopted younger brother (not adopted in the novel) and he's a cutie who stands up for his sister when teachers talk shit. Meanwhile their stuck up neighbor who heads a popular clique gives Meg shit for her missing, or dead father, taunts her and basically says they wish she had disappeared too. I didn't have that kind of gossip when I was growing up, but I was always told the line when picking on others is to not give them shit for having dead, jailed, or absent family members. That was a no no in my school district. Otherwise everything else was fair game (everything else), so these kids as portrayed in this movie whether accurate to current real life, or not, just goes to show that they're mean about anything just to be mean, which sounds about right. So Meg's Principal in the movie and her mother pull the whole bullshit that since Meg threw the first hit (smacking a ball in the neighbor's face) she has to apologize even though they started the taunts. This is why I hate parents and school staff. This shit. Whatever I'm over it. Also the Principal lecture's Meg over her grief as if it was some moral defect, which is bullshit.
The movie mostly follows the plot of the book with minor changes and a lot of cuts. Meg and Charles Wallace don't have twin siblings to join them in their journey. Calvin does show up, but most of his development and use of "diplomacy" hardly comes up so he's sort of just their as the platonic, but potential love interest. I dig that he and Charles Wallace have classic male haircuts, none of this crew cut crap, or shaved sides shit men do now that's disgusting. It gives them that sixties vibe that this movie has due to it's source material, though it's updated for today.
There are lines of dialogue in the movie that I swear are lifted from the book, but I can't be sure because I haven't read it in years, but it feels familiar, but their are some updated changes I don't mind. For example different people Mrs, Who quotes, such as Chris Tucker himself. Also at the end when they talk about the heroes that fight on the side of light against the dark, the list is slightly changed to include later people than the book's publication. I don't mind that honestly. It would have been too dry if they stuck exclusively with what L'Engle references.
A lot of this movie's appeal in marketing was the casting of the three witches because the children are unknown. Oprah Winfrey, Mindy Kaling and Reese Witherspoon. Most people complained that Oprah plays Mrs. Which who in the book can't keep her form and is often a bright light, but they reference that in the movie with Which's legs being transparent. I didn't mind the change, you don't cast Oprah to be a disembodied voice in a live action movie. Kaling was disappointing as Mrs. Who, only because no matter who played Who they would have been resigned mostly with quotes than original dialogue. Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit could be both annoying and amusing. I didn't mind her change in the movie being this visually stunning leafy serpent/flying carpet thing instead of a centaur pagasi type being. I have an irrational hatred of horses, so other people will be pissed at this change, but I still have nightmares of the earlier movies horrible cgi transformation.
As I've said before I was happy they mostly stayed accurate with ages. They cast fourteen year old’s, or close to, Storm Reid and Levi Miller to play Meg and Calvin instead of aging them up and giving them sexual tension like every other young adult movie ever in the last twenty years. Charles Wallace as played by Deric McCabe was bumped up from five to six years, which isn't a big deal.
Other cast-members are Chris Pine as the dad, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as the mom, Andre Holland as the Principal and Michael Pena as Red. I'm sort of glad the marketing didn't emphasize Pine over the Witches.
One of the casting choices I'm a bit annoyed with is that they cast bearded Zach Galifianakis as The Happy Medium. Now I swear my memory was that this character was genderqueer, or agender, but that might have been only in the older movie adaptation as according to wikipedia she's a woman, so what the fuck happened here? Was one more woman with a speaking role too much to ask for in a movie about female empowerment? If I hadn't known this, it wouldn't bother me. It's one thing to change character's race, whatever background it then informs on the character because white people have almost all the roles so losing some doesn't matter. Changing a character's gender on the other hand is kind of annoying. Disney is guilty of this when is comes to source material female characters turning into guys all the sudden, like Bagheera in every Disney Jungle Book movie adaptation and no changing Kha to a girl in the new adaptation was not a consolation.
Anyway this movie is a visual treat and has a mythology and similar themes that would fit in with Kingdom Hearts which is a shame it won't make it in there when we're stuck with crap like Tron Legacy making it in the last title. I feel like a lot of the journey is cut and, or rushed and no there aren't big blockbuster battles, or cheap, stilted young adult romances. The battle is strictly personal and between family, the light and dark. I didn't expect more. Other people disappointed: Sorry, new movies spoiled you. This movie would have fit in with a lot of 90's family movies, but the visual effects at that time would not have made this possible and they probably wouldn't have done diverse casting like making the main character, her mother, and not one, but two of her mentors as poc. Another good thing about this movie is that it doesn't bait you for a sequel that might not be made. If it does get a sequel, I'd like to see more of the family, the three witches and the It fleshed out more.
I've read rumors that Ava DuVernay is now going to helm the Fourth World/New Gods for Warner Brothers. Here's hoping it's a hit like Wonder Woman and that DuVernay doesn't have too much studio meddling fucking it down.
