RATING: F
When it comes to movie adaptations of books, I do feel like there's sometimes somewhat unfair expectations from book readers. Basically all the time, book readers go to see the movie and end up saying "the book was better" and trashing the movie. This is not to say that the books aren't better, because they usually are. But I think people just have their expectations too high sometimes for the movies. I've generally come to expect that the movie won't be entirely like the book, and try to enjoy it on its own merits. This usually does work. But one expectation that I do think is definitely fair is for the movie not to be a complete piece of crap that is almost completely irredeemable.
If you're not familiar with the book, it centers around two children (Meg and Charles Wallace) whose father is missing; and they get visited by three mysterious beings who also want to find him, and in order to do so they must "wrinkle" through time and space to a different part of the universe. Oh yeah, and there's an evil being called "IT" spreading through the universe. Here, it's called "The IT," which is unfortunately probably due to the existence of that other "It" movie with the evil clown.
Here's the thing: if all of that sounded like a bunch of nonsense, don't worry too much about it. Things do actually (mostly) make sense in the book. There isn't nearly as much luck in the movie. There are a whole host of problems with this movie, some related to the book, some not. I hardly even know where to begin.
Let's start with the characters and this movie's interpretation of them, and tie that into the casting. Because that's one of the biggest problems; some characters are butchered from how they originally were from the book, personality-wise. Some are just cast poorly (regardless of some of the ethnicity changes that characters had). At least one is *both.*
Let's start with Meg. The interpretation of her is a little weird. In the book, she's a little bit emotional and definitely quite the vocal person. Here? Uh... not so much. At least for the first part of the movie, anyway. If anything, she's oddly emotionless at times early on. This improves as time goes on, but Movie Meg just does not feel quite like Book Meg. Unfortunately, the cliched treatment her character is given in the grand scheme of the script does not help her out (more on that later). Storm Reid's performance of her neither really stands out nor induces cringes; it's just kind of there. Unfortunately, "just kind of there" isn't a good thing either when we're talking about the lead role.
Then there's Charles Wallace. He gets the worst treatment out of all the characters. The unusually serious six-year-old is turned into something closer to a normal six-year-old; more smiley, outgoing, and annoying. Deric McCabe was definitely a serious miscast there, but the way the character is written kind of makes that a wash anyway. And given the character's importance to the storyline, this *alone* puts the movie in serious trouble.
Elsewhere, you have a more oddball and sometimes unaware version of Mrs. Whatsit (though Reese Witherspoon was actually a decent casting), a Mrs. Who played by Mindy Kaling (aka Kelly, arguably the most annoying regular character on The Office), a mysteriously 50-foot-tall Mrs. Which (at least they wrote her character right otherwise), a non-threatening version of the Red-Eyed Man, and a Happy Medium that is so unrecognizable in every possible manner from the book character that shares its namesake that I don't even know why they bothered naming it the "Happy Medium."
And then there's the messy manner in which the script is written. Seriously, this script is pretty bad. Filled with cliches and things that make no sense (even in the book's universe), I wouldn't blame people who hadn't read the book if they had no idea what was going on. It feels like pretty much everywhere they could screw things up, they did. Even "The IT" (as it's called here) is not really done quite proper justice.
I could go on and on about things that are bothersome about this movie. The ridiculously stupid pop soundtrack that gets thrown in at random points. The fact that the ending part (after the climactic act) is an unnecessary ten minutes long (keep in mind, this movie is only about 105 minutes). The awkwardly put in "run from the storm" scene with the dumbest use of the "do you trust me" cliche that I can remember in a while.
But the deep heart of the matter--the main reason why this movie is so bad--is because of the way it was written and the target audience it was intended for. For some reason, they wrote this movie pretty strictly to pander to 10-to-12-year-old girls and basically no one else. The dialogue, as such, is a bit loaded with self-esteem and empowerment references that pretty quickly just become silly and ham-fisted. When this is what you base the writing of your movie around (especially when this was *not* the sole target audience of the book), it's probably not going to end well.
As depressing as it is, A Wrinkle In Time is the worst book-to-movie adaptation in recent memory. What separates it (in a bad way) from its peers is that even some other movies that were not faithful to their book counterparts were still at least somewhat enjoyable in their own right. This one is not. It's just a mess. A Wrinkle In Time deserved better.
Here's the thing: if all of that sounded like a bunch of nonsense, don't worry too much about it. Things do actually (mostly) make sense in the book. There isn't nearly as much luck in the movie. There are a whole host of problems with this movie, some related to the book, some not. I hardly even know where to begin.
Let's start with the characters and this movie's interpretation of them, and tie that into the casting. Because that's one of the biggest problems; some characters are butchered from how they originally were from the book, personality-wise. Some are just cast poorly (regardless of some of the ethnicity changes that characters had). At least one is *both.*
Let's start with Meg. The interpretation of her is a little weird. In the book, she's a little bit emotional and definitely quite the vocal person. Here? Uh... not so much. At least for the first part of the movie, anyway. If anything, she's oddly emotionless at times early on. This improves as time goes on, but Movie Meg just does not feel quite like Book Meg. Unfortunately, the cliched treatment her character is given in the grand scheme of the script does not help her out (more on that later). Storm Reid's performance of her neither really stands out nor induces cringes; it's just kind of there. Unfortunately, "just kind of there" isn't a good thing either when we're talking about the lead role.
Then there's Charles Wallace. He gets the worst treatment out of all the characters. The unusually serious six-year-old is turned into something closer to a normal six-year-old; more smiley, outgoing, and annoying. Deric McCabe was definitely a serious miscast there, but the way the character is written kind of makes that a wash anyway. And given the character's importance to the storyline, this *alone* puts the movie in serious trouble.
Elsewhere, you have a more oddball and sometimes unaware version of Mrs. Whatsit (though Reese Witherspoon was actually a decent casting), a Mrs. Who played by Mindy Kaling (aka Kelly, arguably the most annoying regular character on The Office), a mysteriously 50-foot-tall Mrs. Which (at least they wrote her character right otherwise), a non-threatening version of the Red-Eyed Man, and a Happy Medium that is so unrecognizable in every possible manner from the book character that shares its namesake that I don't even know why they bothered naming it the "Happy Medium."
And then there's the messy manner in which the script is written. Seriously, this script is pretty bad. Filled with cliches and things that make no sense (even in the book's universe), I wouldn't blame people who hadn't read the book if they had no idea what was going on. It feels like pretty much everywhere they could screw things up, they did. Even "The IT" (as it's called here) is not really done quite proper justice.
I could go on and on about things that are bothersome about this movie. The ridiculously stupid pop soundtrack that gets thrown in at random points. The fact that the ending part (after the climactic act) is an unnecessary ten minutes long (keep in mind, this movie is only about 105 minutes). The awkwardly put in "run from the storm" scene with the dumbest use of the "do you trust me" cliche that I can remember in a while.
But the deep heart of the matter--the main reason why this movie is so bad--is because of the way it was written and the target audience it was intended for. For some reason, they wrote this movie pretty strictly to pander to 10-to-12-year-old girls and basically no one else. The dialogue, as such, is a bit loaded with self-esteem and empowerment references that pretty quickly just become silly and ham-fisted. When this is what you base the writing of your movie around (especially when this was *not* the sole target audience of the book), it's probably not going to end well.
As depressing as it is, A Wrinkle In Time is the worst book-to-movie adaptation in recent memory. What separates it (in a bad way) from its peers is that even some other movies that were not faithful to their book counterparts were still at least somewhat enjoyable in their own right. This one is not. It's just a mess. A Wrinkle In Time deserved better.
No comments:
Post a Comment