Disney's A Wrinkle in Time | 9th March, 2018 | Frozen's Jennifer Lee writing, Ava DuVernay directing. 45% on RT

[Curtis1986]

With a 40 to 45  Million opening Disney is going to have some great headlines this Monday. Congratulations Miss Ava.

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

Disney marketed the movie like they do their other ‘original’ live action movies. They didn’t hype it up like an event film. They didn’t even lift the review embargo as early as they usually do.

 

The movie got a lot of publicity because of the cast and director, and the significance of Ava being the first African American female director to get a $100m+ budget. And I didn’t realize studios can choose to give their movies Time covers, thought that would be the decision of the editors based on what they think is meaningful or would draw attention to their magazine.

Nowdays marketing is not just buying ad time, but trying to get "free" advertising by getting media coverage for your film. And don't think that Disney...or any other studio...does not to try to get all the attention they can for a film.

No, Disney did not choose the cover for story for Time, but I am sure the material they released was a factor in Time's decision. That is marketin 1A:Tey to Maximaze exposure.

And you lift and review embargo early if you are really confident in a film;generally the later you lift it the more unsure you are about a film's reception.

[Porthos]

*walks back in from screening*

 

Ooh, boy... where to begin.

 

...

 

Okay, first off, this is NOT a film that needs to have a thread locked.  TWICE.  So just stop it y'all.  Seriously.  

 

Alright that's all I have to say about that nonsense.  On to the film.

 

I see exactly what reviewers mean about it being a mess at times and what @BoxOfficeZ meant in his previous comments, which I'll get to in my next post which will be a spoiler filled thoughts of the movie.

 

It's not a bad movie and it's not a great one.  It has serious issues, but the core demo of families with pre-teenager kids should like it just fine. Maybe even some teens, for that matter. I'm bouncing around between a 7/10 and 7.5/10. Admittedly, I'm an easy grade, but that feels about right.

 

Let's compromise and call it 6.5/10 for the General Audience and 7.5/10 for family demos.  

 

Ava Duvernay's direction isn't the problem here, and in many cases it's quite good, bordering on excellent.  She gets a lot out of her actors, with a couple of notable exceptions (see my next post).  Considering she's dealing with child actors, that's no mean feat.  Her shot framing is fantastic and the direction/execution of the scenes, as written, work fairly well.

 

It's the script which is the problem, and there's no getting around that.

 

I'm going to try VERY hard not to compare this to the book, because this is an adaptation and it should be judged on its own merits.  And... that's where the problem is. This thing needed a structural overhaul in the final act and that's where this film finally wins or dies with a viewer, I think.  Just how much one buys into that final act is probably where one will settle into the movie.

 

Kids and parents?  Yeah, they should be fine with it.  Should get enough of a positive WOM in those circles to hit 3x, probably.  But I don't think it will have the oomph to truly breakout.  Unfortunately.

 

Gonna take me a bit to write up my spoiler thoughts, but shouldn't be more than 30 to 45 minutes, depending on how long I take to refine my thoughts.  It'll be in my next post in this thread, spoilered of course.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Porthos

[Noctis]

I'll say this...the Twilight series has been excellent in representing minorities.

[ban1o]

6 minutes ago, Noctis said:

I'll say this...the Twilight series has been excellent in representing minorities.

Really? I've only seen the first film but I honestly don't remember any racial minorities besides that black vampire. 

 

Edit: Maybe she had an asian friend as well? I forget it was a while ago lol. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by ban1o

[Noctis]

6 minutes ago, ban1o said:

Really? I've only seen the first film but I honestly don't remember any racial minorities besides that black vampire. 

I only like the third and fifth films, but they have been an excellent example of representing minorities. The werewolves were all Native Americans, and the other vampires in the fifth film were from the nationalities that the script required.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Noctis

[Fancyarcher]

18 minutes ago, Porthos said:

*walks back in from screening*

 

Ooh, boy... where to begin.

 

...

 

Okay, first off, this is NOT a film that needs to have a thread locked.  TWICE.  So just stop it y'all.  Seriously.  

 

Alright that's all I have to say about that nonsense.  On to the film.

 

I see exactly what reviewers mean about it being a mess at times and what @BoxOfficeZ meant in his previous comments, which I'll get to in my next post which will be a spoiler filled thoughts of the movie.

 

It's not a bad movie and it's not a great one.  It has serious issues, but the core demo of families with pre-teenager kids should like it just fine. Maybe even some teens, for that matter. I'm bouncing around between a 7/10 and 7.5/10. Admittedly, I'm an easy grade, but that feels about right.

 

Let's compromise and call it 6.5/10 for the General Audience and 7.5/10 for family demos.  

 

Ava Duvernay's direction isn't the problem here, and in many cases it's quite good, bordering on excellent.  She gets a lot out of her actors, with a couple of notable exceptions (see my next post).  Considering she's dealing with child actors, that's no mean feat.  Her shot framing is fantastic and the direction/execution of the scenes, as written, work fairly well.

 

It's the script which is the problem, and there's no getting around that.

 

I'm going to try VERY hard not to compare this to the book, because this is an adaptation and it should be judged on its own merits.  And... that's where the problem is. This thing needed a structural overhaul in the final act and that's where this film finally wins or dies with a viewer, I think.  Just how much one buys into that final act is probably where one will settle into the movie.

 

Kids and parents?  Yeah, they should be fine with it.  Should get enough of a positive WOM in those circles to hit 3x, probably.  But I don't think it will have the oomph to truly breakout.  Unfortunately.

 

Gonna take me a bit to write up my spoiler thoughts, but shouldn't be more than 30 to 45 minutes, depending on how long I take to refine my thoughts.  It'll be in my next post in this thread, spoilered of course.

This is pretty much my overall thoughts as well, after seeing the film (I'll be writing a review later). I thought it was extremely well-made and visually looked really good, and some of the performances were great. However the script was quite amateurish and seemed to be trying to appeal more directly to kids then anything.  

 

I don't think there's anything particular wrong with the film however. It doesn't send any bad messages, it's just quite underwelming at points. I don't think the film will break-up big or anything, but given its budget, it looks to do decent business. 

[Porthos]

WARNING LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF SPOILER FILLED THOUGHTS ABOUND:

Spoiler

Alright, for folks just joining in, the best way I can describe my state of mind going into this project was wary, but hoping for the best,with my A#1 concern being Oprah Winfrey.  I previously said this film would live or die on three things if it was following the book:

 

1) How Meg Murray was handled.

2) How the Witches were done.

3) How Charles Wallace Murray was portreyed.

 

Left unsaid, though also just as important, was how Camazot and IT was done.  Gotta say I was surprised and somewhat disappointed at how LITTLE there was of classical satire of Suburbia Camazotz there was in this film.  In fact, when I say "how little" I mean, what we see in the combined trailers is 90% of 'Classical Satirical Suburbia'.

 

That's not to say that Camazotz isn't important in the film.  It is.  It's just very different from the book.  And I don't want to belabor this point as the film should live or die on its own, but fair warning.  If one is expecting a lot of the Camazotz from the book, y'all better dial back those expectations and FAST.

 

So since I might sound like I am going to be overly negative at times, and I really don't want to, let me address a lot of the good things.

 

Storm Reid is excellent as Meg Murray.  She brings nuance to the role and I was very heartened to see her character arc in the book mostly play out on screen.  She's flawed.  She's angry.  She's awkward.  She's the central character and if she didn't work, the whole damn film would have collapsed under its weight and been borderline unwatchable.

 

That's not to say she's perfect or her character is written perfectly.  But I think I feel it is safe to say this is a star in the making.  Watch out for her in the future, is mostly what I am saying.

 

Levi Miller wasn't given much with Calvin O'Keefe, but he's a supporting character and works quite well.  The chemistry between him and Storm Reid is not only undeniable but it is perfect for the sort of awkward just figuring out this whole thing we call relationships.  Not to cloying, not too clingy.  Just the right level of support and understanding.

 

In short, even if one hasn't read the books, one can see why they would be destined for each other.

 

The Witches?  Well, Mindy Kaling was fine, I suppose. She sold her character fairly well and played up the "Not quite all here with you mortals angle".

 

Resse Witherspoon was easily the best of the three, and that's good because she was the front and foremost of them.  She wasn't perfect, and I can see people just rejecting her/them out of hand if they don't like Weird Things.  But it's a central premise of the plot and she was able to get the whole "newcomer who wants to prove to the bosses that she's going to be good at her job" aspect across with out it being too clunky.

 

Oprah Winfrey?  Yeah, I'll get to her later. 

 

Chris Pine acts the hell out of the movie whenever he is on screen, which isn't much.  Gugu Mbatha-Raw is fine as Supportive But Stern Mother, but not a lot to say here.

 

The person who steals the film when he in on screen is Zach Galifianakis.  He absolutely is on fire whenever he is there.  

 

Which brings me to Deric McCabe as Charles Wallace Murray and the script.  Now he's a young child actor and for what he had to act out, he's fine (with a proviso below).  At times great and at other times, "Oh, yeah, this is a ten year old kid alright".

 

I really don't want to bring up the book and compare and contrast, but the MAIN problem with this film is just what BOZ said when character do things Just Because.  It starts right off the bat where the film doesn't sell enough of a reason for why Charles Wallace trusts these Witches so much and why we as an audience should go along with them.

 

And that's really the big problem with this film:  The script.  Take for instance when Charles Wallace joins with The It.  In the book (I know, I know, but this is important), it was Charles' own pride and belief that He Was Special that he could try to understand IT/The Man With Red Eyes and still hold on to himself.

 

The film even alludes to this at a couple of points where Charles Wallace points out he's never been wrong before and it's his trusting nature which drives the first half of the film (as a compare/contrast with Meg).

Here though, The Man With Red Eyes just chants a couple of mathematic tables and suddenly Charles Wallace is, "Oops, I'm Hitler Youth now.  See Ya".  It completely robs him of agency and makes him a victim of circumstance instead of a victim of his own hubris.  Which would be fine, as this IS an adaptation, but it was handled so suddenly and so badly as to just make the film come to a screeching halt and suddenly pop gears into something else.  If I'm honest, this is here most of the points I'm taking away occur. Especially since literally seconds before, he was all "this place stinks, and is horrible and awful".

 

The film doesn't quite collapse under its own weight in the third act, but, wow is it not for the lack of trying.  Once Charles Wallace has been possessed, the film nearly goes off the rails.  The reunion between Meg and her father is absolutely heartbreaking.  As is the decision of Alex Murray to tesser out because he can't stand to lose another child.

 

But the ultimate confrontation between Meg Murray and Possessed Charles Wallace Murray didn't quite work.  Something's a little off that I can't quite place. And The It/Charles Wallace just sits around and lets Meg get her father for REASONS.  I.e. it's left completely unsaid why The It let Meg do anything once The It got what it wanted.  I suppose it wanted to torture Meg/Alex Murray for shits and giggles, and I'm not one who demands a film spell things out for me. But it was... odd.

 

Which brings us to the climax.  The climax of the book is... difficult to pull off cinematically, and I'm just going to ignore the compare and contrast here.  Here Meg Murray's love for Charles Wallace and bringing out Charles Wallace's love for her badly weakens The IT enough for it to...

 

Well.. It kinda just sits in the background, dazed by the Pure Love expressed.  Okay that's exceedingly unfair.  But what happens to The IT is literally handwaved away with a single line of dialogue from the Witches and some really naff special effects in the background.  Parents and kids should love the denouncement, but everyone else?  Well, it's not awful, but it's a little disappointing.

 

Which brings me to my last critique. Oprah wasn't QUITE as bad as I feared, but... It's not so much that the film comes to a screeching halt whenever she is on screen, but I'll say I was not a fan.  There are a couple of scenes where she is genuinely very good.  When she is called to be Warm, Nurturing, and Supportive, for instance.  But when she is called to be regal or imperious or cosmic/unknowable?  Yikes.  The one real place Ava's direction doesn't work.  The other place it doesn't quite work is Bad Charles Wallace.  There's something off about it that I can't quite place, but he's a child actor and I really should just give credit for what Ava was able to bring out of him in his other scenes.

 

All in all there is quite a lot good with the film.  It's visually gorgeous, and most of the acting is very good. When I see people say "it's a mess but still worth seeing", I absolutely agree, especially if this is the kind of film one enjoys. I think the main problem outside of what I already mentioned in the really really REAAAAAALLY long spoiler box is it just doesn't connect the dots very well. 

 

It's worth seeing, but I can see why some won't like it.  I think how much one likes it depends on 1) how invested one gets in the characters and 2) how much one cares about shortcuts being taken in a script.

 

Which, now that I think about it, is kinda ironic for a film which is all about taking shortcuts.

 

[Porthos]

37 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

However the script was quite amateurish and seemed to be trying to appeal more directly to kids then anything.  

Yep.  It's not quite at the level of After School Special.  But it's not for the lack of trying at times! 

 

One of the things I didn't mention in my way too long spoiler thoughts is that teenagers should find the plight of Meg very relatable.  Which is why the climax irks me, as it deserved to be handled better.  It was trying to stick a difficult landing and missed it by (holds fingers together) that much.

 

The central plotline for Meg is really good though, and with more (a lot more) polish, it could have been excellent.  Which is probably the main reason I think it will resonate well enough with its target demo, but not enough to break out.

 

...

 

Did I mention that Storm Reid is a star in the making?  Coz she's easily the best thing about this movie.  Watch out for her in the future.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Porthos

[Fancyarcher]

11 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Yep.  It's not quite at the level of After School Special.  But it's not for the lack of trying at times! 

 

One of the things I didn't mention in my way too long spoiler thoughts is that teenagers should find the plight of Meg very relatable.  Which is why the climax irks me, as it deserved to be handled better.  It was trying to stick a difficult landing and missed it by (holds fingers together) that much.

 

The central plotline for Meg is really good though, and with more (a lot more) polish, it could have been excellent.  Which is probably the main reason I think it will resonate well enough with its target demo, but not enough to break out.

 

...

 

Did I mention that Storm Reid is a star in the making?  Coz she's easily the best thing about this movie.  Watch out for her in the future.

I think the climax was more of an attempt to have some real conflict.

Spoiler

It didn't need to be as "defeat the darkness with hope", as it turned into. I haven't read the book in a while, but I don't remember it having such a "danger" fight, like that. 

 

Storm Reid was indeed fantastic in the film. I thought the whole cast was good, but she did a great job as the lead. Love that moment near the end where she 

Spoiler

confronts and finally discovers her father (Pine). The acting was great in that scene. I nearly got teary-eyed. 

 

I hope she gets a lot of good opportunities after this, because she has real potential. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Fancyarcher

[Porthos]

15 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

I think the climax was more of an attempt to have some real conflict.

  Hide contents

It didn't need to be as "defeat the darkness with hope", as it turned into. I haven't read the book in a while, but I don't remember it having such a "danger" fight, like that. 

 

My issue with the climax isn't the path chosen, as I can see why it was done IF

Spoiler

one is going to completely jettison the Meg gets hurt by her father's amateurish tesser abilities and her feelings of abandonment and resentment come to a head as she and her father have a major falling out plotline.  It's an emotional confrontation between Meg and her father and her coming to terms with her own anger and seeing her father as a person and not someone to be put on a pedestal is a major turn in Meg's growth and what gives her the courage to go back and save her brother in the book.

 

The problem I have, is the film did set up all of that. Meg never really has a confrontation with her father about him leaving outside of that screaming weird corridor scene and the film suffers greatly for it, IMO.

 

Speaking of which, I have to admit I am also irked that no mention is made whatsoever of Alex Murray tessering out. Sure Meg chose to stay behind, but it's hardly addressed at the end, if at all.

 

It's more a missed opportunity and it's absence is one of the things that stops this film from being truly great.  

 

 

That being said I admit I enjoy the twist that 

Spoiler

Meg brings out Charles Wallace's love so he can love again as well as loving him at the same time.

 

Just wasn't in love with the execution of it all, for reasons I'm still a little unsure about. 

 

So when I said it didn't quite stick the landing, I think that's the best way I can put it.  There was just something missing in that scene, be it dialogue or camera framing or even acting that made it not work as well as it should.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Porthos

[Fancyarcher]

9 minutes ago, Porthos said:

My issue with the climax isn't the path chosen, as I can see why it was done IF

  Hide contents

one is going to completely jettison the Meg gets hurt by her father's amateurish tesser abilities and her feelings of abandonment and resentment come to a head as she and her father have a major falling out.  It's an emotional confrontation between Meg and her father and her coming to terms with her own anger and seeing her father as a person and not someone to be put on a pedestal is a major turn in Meg's growth and what gives her the courage to go back and save her brother.

 

The problem I have, is the film did set up all of that. Meg never really has a confrontation with her father and about him leaving outside of that screaming weird corridor scene and the film suffers greatly for it, IMO.

 

Speaking of which, I have to admit I am also irked that no mention is made whatsoever of Alex Murray tessering out. Sure Meg chose to stay behind, but it's hardly addressed at the end, if at all.

 

It's more a missed opportunity and it's absence is one of the things that stops this film from being truly great.  

 

 

That being said I admit I enjoy the twist that 

  Hide contents

Meg brings out Charles Wallace's love so he can love again as well as loving him at the same time.

 

Just wasn't in love with the execution of it all, for reasons I'm still a little unsure about. 

 

So when I said it didn't quite stick the landing, I think that's the best way I can put it.  There was just something missing in that scene, be it dialogue or camera framing or even acting that made it not work as well as it should.

I think it was the execution. I did really like what they did with Charles initially, but it didn't exactly win me over either how they progressed to it. It was partially why my opinion wasn't "great". I did enjoy seeing it in the theaters, but that climax left me kinda "eh".

Edited March 10, 2018 by Fancyarcher

[ban1o]

1 hour ago, Noctis said:

I only like the third and fifth films, but they have been an excellent example of representing minorities. The werewolves were all Native Americans, and the other vampires in the fifth film were from the nationalities that the script required.

the werewolves were not all native americans. Maybe their characters were supposed to be but the actors certainly weren't which defeats the point. Taylor Lautner ain't Native American as much as he has an "ethnic" look to him. 

[Porthos]

@aabattery @HerediTele

 

Shouldn't this thread title say "Disney's A Wrinkle in Time"? I mean, we DO want to be accurate, right? 

 

Spoiler

I forgot to check to see what the title card said when the movie played, but Tele's bitching in the weekend thread about the marketing reminded me about this.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Porthos

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, Porthos said:

@aabattery @HerediTele

 

Shouldn't this thread title say "Disney's A Wrinkle in Time"? I mean, we DO want to be accurate, right? 

 

  Hide contents

I forgot to check to see what the title card said when the movie played, but Tele's bitching in the weekend thread about the marketing reminded me about this.

 

 

I will cut you. 

[Porthos]

Just now, HerediTele said:

 

I will cut you. 

 

Spoiler

Love ya, ya 'ol grump.

 

[Morieris]

I didn't understand why what was happening was happening, but I really loved Storm.

[angeldelmito]

i...... cannot believe this has a 42% on RT

 

[MrGamer]

 

And that's my review of Disney's A Wrinkle in Time. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by MrGamer

[Durden]

When your friend makes you tear up on opening day. #WakandaForever #BeaWarrior https://t.co/hh7HdIepcI

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) 10 de março de 2018