 |
| photo courtesy of video.disney.com |
Ava DuVernay directs A Wrinkle in Time, Disney’s modern take on Madeleine L’Engle’s famous children’s novel of the same name. The movie tells the story of Meg Murry (Storm Reid), who sets off on an intergalactic adventure to find her missing father (Chris Pine). With help from her genius little brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), her friend Calvin (Levi Miller), and three mysterious, mystical guides (Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling), Meg will have to save her father from the sinister forces of evil that threaten to tear the universe—including Meg and her family—apart.
I think the best way to describe A Wrinkle in Time is to compare it
another one of Disney’s recent films, 2015’s Tomorrowland. On the upside, both are bold, visually striking films
with the best of intentions. On the downside, both are also sloppy, a bit too
preachy, and occasionally boring. That A
Wrinkle in Time isn’t a masterpiece isn’t hard to imagine. Anyone who’s
read Madeleine L’Engle’s original novel will immediately understand the
challenges in bringing an adaptation to the big screen; with a convoluted
science fiction fantasy story and, frankly, bizarre characters and set pieces,
it could reasonably be considered un-adaptable. Unfortunately, DuVernay’s A Wrinkle in Time does nothing to
correct that assumption.
 |
| photo courtesy of rollingstone.com |
The principal problem with A Wrinkle in Time is that it appears to
have no internal logic. On paper, the story is fairly straightforward: Meg and
company go on an adventure to rescue her father. But A Wrinkle in Time spends much of its narrative winding around several
different locations along the way, with only passing mentions as to why (and
how) the characters are where they are. It can be confusing, especially when the
movie devotes hardly any time to explaining just how the characters are
traveling through the universe (they travel by wrinkling space and time, a
technique which gives the movie its name). When something inexplicable happens,
rather than provide context and a consistent framework for understanding the
world the movie is building, Oprah just sort of declares what happened, and A Wrinkle in Time moves right along.
A Wrinkle in Time is not,
however, without its merits; what it lacks in narrative clarity, it makes up
for in emotion and imagination. You can feel the passion and intention that
DuVernay brings to the table as she tells Meg’s story, orchestrating crescendos
that embrace wonder and preach empowerment. A
Wrinkle in Time’s emotional journey may not exactly be subtle—several
scenes are entirely too on-the-nose to be especially meaningful—but it should
be strong enough to connect with kids. As far as regards the source material, A Wrinkle in Time does make some
thematic deviations from the novel, although it feels like it stays generally
in continuity with Madeleine L’Engle’s vision, at least in the broad strokes.
 |
| photo courtesy of geektyrant.com |
Visually, A Wrinkle in Time relies on quite a bit of CGI to build its strange
and exotic worlds. They are splendorous to be sure, but only a few scenes are
truly distinctive, bringing something new to the table. You get the feeling
that a movie with such a bizarre, space-shifting premise could have been a bit
more inventive. Interestingly, the movie’s visuals sometimes mimic its
narrative, presenting action in a scene without an early contextual shot to
help establish what the audience is encountering. It’s an approach that, while
somewhat disorienting, at least feels at home in the bizarre world of Madeleine
L’Engle’s imagination.
FINAL VERDICT: Good intentions might
endear A Wrinkle in Time to younger
kids, but it won’t be a new fantasy classic.
Watch the trailer here.
 |
| photo courtesy of traileraddict.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment