[yasr_overall_rating]
After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.
Disney’s new movie “A Wrinkle in Time,” based on the book by Madeleine L’Engle, left much to be desired as elements failed to line up to a cohesive plot. Writers Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell, along with director Ava DuVernay, failed to bring enough relevant magic from the pages to the screen. I left the theater disappointed to the point of anger and frustration to see this fifty plus-year-old novel stripped down into random pieces before landing awkwardly on screen.
The Murry’s live a happy, content life as scientists on the cusp of a scientific discovery with their only child Meg (Storm Reid). They adopt a precocious boy, Charles (Deric McCabe), just before Mr. Murry (Chris Pine) disappears without a trace after announcing to the public he believes inter-dimensional travel is possible through wrinkles in time. Let’s pause there. I understand taking liberties when adapting a book to a film but what is the purpose of adopting a child when they were already siblings in the book? This element hindered the already one-dimensional relationship. I kind of want to smack the writers, and this isn’t the only time during the showing. The bond between Meg and Charles is the foundation of the book, whereas, in the movie, they have known each other for but a minute being before thrown into the unknown together. Was this to coerce a level of inclusion or race otherwise left out of the novel to meet some need in this decade? Moving on.
Mrs. Murry (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) struggles to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives with a downtrodden teenage daughter prone to violence and a six-year-old boy who loves books. At least I think he was six and loved books. We have little information on their personalities beyond their grief for daddy’s disappearance, even then, Charles seems unaffected by the loss of his adopted father. Enter confusion because while not stated, the storyline implies unaffected Charles prayed for help and received an answer from three angelic beings from the universe. The three beings, Mrs. Who (Mandy Kaling), Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), and Mrs. Which (Oprah), touch briefly on what they are but the answer is more of a riddle than a response. This element pulls through from the novel as the women are ambiguous creatures there as well.
Schoolmate Calvin (Levi Miller) joins Meg and Charles on their venture to search for Mr. Murry. The teenage boy’s role made little sense in the film adaption except for the obvious star-crossed adoration he carries for undeserving and sullen Meg. He makes sense in the book. He had a purpose and added more than young love to the diluted plot. In the movie, he could have been deleted and no one would have been the wiser despite the writers attempt to give him a flimsy back-story.
While the Mrs.’s delight the audience with whimsy, wonder, and gaudy outfits, their unfounded presence makes even less sense than in the novel. They serve as the vehicles to allow the children to travel through other dimensions, which does little to explain why they help lowly humans. Oprah was pure emotion, elegant if too large in her representation of wisdom. Reese was a quirky know-it-all with undefined boundaries. Mandy was an unknown but loving element. They transport the children only so far before leaving them to their own devices to rescue Mr. Murry from an unknown evil. Guarded with vague advice, the children hunt a strange part of the universe for Mr. Murry who is held captive by a darkness called “It.” The “It” hopes to fill the universe with darkness and the children are the light poised to defeat him.
I read the book about a year ago and failed to rehash before the film, but little translated from page to screen. If the film only had rough edges, it would have been an improvement. I left the theater angry at the raw emotion floating through the Alice-in-Wonderland style confusion. The entire adaption lacked clarity and understanding and expected the beauty of the cinematography to be enough to sate the appetites of the audience. I suppose the purpose of the film was to show how small we are, especially through a child’s eyes, in a universe set out to destroy all light and good with visual representation. Just another spin on good versus evil.
The novel left a satisfying feeling of hippy love and familial bonds without coercion like its counterpart. Lacking similarities was not the only reason for the lack of balance. Everyone loves mystery but at some point, a valid explanation should be offered on a plate. All the characters were one dimensional, just pure emotions and impressions. Not the actors’ faults, their roles were limited. Disney flopped on a grand scale. With few redeeming qualities, you will leave underwhelmed as the movie was encumbered with meaning that did not exist.
In theaters Friday, March 9th
