This film had to have been a turning point for her career, a defining moment for an African-American female director leading a huge 100 million dollars production but the result is perhaps the first great Honestly I feel bad for Ava DuVernay. If they overcame this you were not shown this but instead directly told this. If a character had an insecurity you were directly told. There were no subtlety in any narrative or character. The villain also did not have clear motivations as to why it wanted to kidnap the main character. A lot was grown at them but they were basically completely passive in a solution. At no point did any main character solve a problem. This scene took up about ten minutes but didn't lead to anything.
At one point of the main characters becomes a flying lettuce. Scenes that were trying to be magical were just dull. The tone was consistent with that of a soap opera. And the solution was the power of love, which is just lazy story telling. The villain had no motivation or purpose. The characters never actually solve a problem. Lacks the basics needed for story telling. This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not even Chris Pine or Reese Witherspoon can save this dog. Maybe if some film company besides that lukewarm Disney could give it a go, but I doubt anybody will. It fails every which way to convey the dangers of the book, removes the cold sinister feel of Camazotz, and falls woefully short of doing the classic book justice. Your kids might think it's okay, but I hate this movie. Believe me - the millions of us who loved the book I'm positive thought these plot aberrations were silly and distracted from the menace of the story. Here is where the Man With The Red Eyes encountered them, not on a beach with a stupid Wizard of Oz reject who takes them to a single room instead of the great building. The book had a far more sinister feel - all identical buildings that didn't fold up, then to apartment style buildings as they neared the city center, and finally the skycrapers, all identical, except for the monolithic CENTRAL Central Intelligence building, higher than any building on Earth and just as wide and deep.
The cul-de-sac with the automaton children did not convey the sinister behavior of It controlling their every breath and movement, along with the rest of the city where the kids had to go to find Meg and Charles Wallace's father.
#A wrinkle in time will be another tomorrow land movie#
It didn't suddenly change backgrounds like the movie claims. The worst thing they did was screw around with Camazotz, a planet controlled by an evil entity called It. The boy playing him does okay, but comes off as a young smartass most of the time. Meg was angry - smart, and much more impetuous in the book, and Charles Wallace was more vulnerable, and likable. But Disney really blows it as their version of Meg and Charles Wallace are so far from the book characters it's maddening. Which is the strongest of the three, she barely if ever materializes completely, and then in a typical witch form. Further details include the "Mrs." Whatsit, Who, and Which as young, and Whatsit a young first time whatever she is, which is the opposite of her book personality, very very old, as are the others. Charles Wallace was not adopted, and Meg's father disappeared as a part of a military experiment with several other scientists, and they were not part of NASA. There is no mention of the Murry twins, Sandy and Dennys, who would be in a book of their own later. We don't expect movie scripts unless they're bios or historical to follow to the letter the books they use for their movies, but this is ridiculous. Not that Madeleine L'Engel didn't propose some silly ideas in her book (defining the "Mrs.'" characters as former stars didn't make sense even when I first heard it, but it didn't take away from the overall imagery and storyline), but as usual Disney Studios have a way of sanitizing, omitting and ultimately ruining this adaptation a second time, after an even worse earlier version that was so bad I couldn't believe it. It was my first "novel" so to speak, even if it was geared somewhat toward younger readers. It was my first "novel" so to speak, even if it was geared somewhat I'm a bit biased, having loved the book since I was in elementary school, as early as the third grade when my parents bought me my own copy because I loved the book. I'm a bit biased, having loved the book since I was in elementary school, as early as the third grade when my parents bought me my own copy because I loved the book.
0 kommentar(er)
