![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kukla_tkoOk, I know everyone else has a version of this.
Ever see something being done badly, and you think, "Hey! I should be getting paid to do that! I could have done it better and with less money!"
(The Wonderful World of) Disney's "A Wrinkle In Time" made me feel that way.
Ok, I will start by saying that I saw the last two-thirds of it, and missed the set-up. So my review is of the last two hours of the thing.
To be fair, one of the things that was particularly wrong with it was something I might not have been able to fix myself. The score was awful. However, if I had been in charge of the thing, I would have worked with some other composer. It sounded like every "wonderful world of disney" made for TV event that ever came out. It was the same campy, outdated, and irritating mush that Disney's made for TV stuff always seems to suffer from.
The script was... passable. I am not as intimately familiar with the story, and I admit that it is not a book I managed to read as a child. When my classmates were reading it and oohing and Ahhing over it... I was halfway through the Chronicles of Narnia and re-reading the OZ series and The Hobbit once again. It struck me as one of those books I ought to get around to... but didn't until I was an adult. And I liked it just fine, but it isn't my Childhood Favorite. (Or even my favorite Juvenile Novel. I think that Support your Local Wizard is a better book.) But I was looking forward to this Movie nonetheless, because it seemed that Hollywood was finally getting a clue about adapting beloved stories to the screen. These stories were finally being taken seriously.
Disney didn't get the clue.
Mind you, some of my favorite lesser-known actors and actresses made appearances. And all three kids were fine, but the director seems to have told them that the best way to make their characters "real" is to hold still and not do anything. I can see him now, "No, no. Hold still. If you react, or move or change expression it will look like you are fidgeting. Just stand there, and don't react until its time to say a line. No, no, underplay it."
The kid from The Ring was spectacular in that movie. In this one, he was a perfectly believable Charles Wallace. However, his performance here is really uneven, and kind of inconsistent. Since I know he's better than that, I have to chalk it up to bad directing, once again.
The grown-ups were making a really strong effort, but once again I have an image of the director stopping the action.
"No, no. You don't understand. This is a CHILDREN'S story. Don't act like a real person, you have to be a 'Character.' It should be funny. Be a clown. I know you are supposed to be the beings of light, but quit making them human and realistic. They need to be alien and silly."
Speaking of Silly.
The Happy Medium.
Good lord, where did they find that actor?
Nathan Lane sold his soul to Disney, why couldn't they get him to play the Medium? His gender ambiguity is much more convincing, and he has a real gift for comedy. Goodness, he even managed to upstage Robin Williams and make ol' Robin the "straight man" for bob's sake! (That would be "The Birdcage.")
A scene that should have been fun and should have made the audience fall on the floor giggling was merely forced, and sad. The kids laughed on cue, but they weren't amused.
Oh, and I think recycling is good, but do we have to shoot the whole thing on sets from Logan's Run and Dr. Who?
No, wait. There were all those sets that were entirely CGI. And cheap-looking bad CGI at that.
I wonder what this movie would have been like with JMS (Of Babylon 5) at the helm? For the Sci-Fi channel?
One more gripe: Michael Eisner's masturbatory "introduction" hailing the greatness and history of "The Wonderful World of Disney" made me gag. Ugh.
Positive notes?
Some of the minor characters (who the director obviously ignored) had some good moments. The woman who is waiting for her "adjustment" for example. Splendid. She conveyed oodles of meaning in two lines. Great job, drone # 2!
Meg's final showdown was done reasonably well, even if it did smell faintly like a rip-off of Sarah's confrontation with The Goblin King in the ending of Labyrinth.
"Dad" did a fine job, even with the bad direction and horrible wig.
So, bottom line? Disney screwed up the vision from a beloved story.
Oh. That's their theme, though, isn't it?
Which reminds me to give my review of Beauty and the Beast--one of the few occasions where I agreed wholeheartedly with the changes that Disney made to an existing story. Coming soon!
Ever see something being done badly, and you think, "Hey! I should be getting paid to do that! I could have done it better and with less money!"
(The Wonderful World of) Disney's "A Wrinkle In Time" made me feel that way.
Ok, I will start by saying that I saw the last two-thirds of it, and missed the set-up. So my review is of the last two hours of the thing.
To be fair, one of the things that was particularly wrong with it was something I might not have been able to fix myself. The score was awful. However, if I had been in charge of the thing, I would have worked with some other composer. It sounded like every "wonderful world of disney" made for TV event that ever came out. It was the same campy, outdated, and irritating mush that Disney's made for TV stuff always seems to suffer from.
The script was... passable. I am not as intimately familiar with the story, and I admit that it is not a book I managed to read as a child. When my classmates were reading it and oohing and Ahhing over it... I was halfway through the Chronicles of Narnia and re-reading the OZ series and The Hobbit once again. It struck me as one of those books I ought to get around to... but didn't until I was an adult. And I liked it just fine, but it isn't my Childhood Favorite. (Or even my favorite Juvenile Novel. I think that Support your Local Wizard is a better book.) But I was looking forward to this Movie nonetheless, because it seemed that Hollywood was finally getting a clue about adapting beloved stories to the screen. These stories were finally being taken seriously.
Disney didn't get the clue.
Mind you, some of my favorite lesser-known actors and actresses made appearances. And all three kids were fine, but the director seems to have told them that the best way to make their characters "real" is to hold still and not do anything. I can see him now, "No, no. Hold still. If you react, or move or change expression it will look like you are fidgeting. Just stand there, and don't react until its time to say a line. No, no, underplay it."
The kid from The Ring was spectacular in that movie. In this one, he was a perfectly believable Charles Wallace. However, his performance here is really uneven, and kind of inconsistent. Since I know he's better than that, I have to chalk it up to bad directing, once again.
The grown-ups were making a really strong effort, but once again I have an image of the director stopping the action.
"No, no. You don't understand. This is a CHILDREN'S story. Don't act like a real person, you have to be a 'Character.' It should be funny. Be a clown. I know you are supposed to be the beings of light, but quit making them human and realistic. They need to be alien and silly."
Speaking of Silly.
The Happy Medium.
Good lord, where did they find that actor?
Nathan Lane sold his soul to Disney, why couldn't they get him to play the Medium? His gender ambiguity is much more convincing, and he has a real gift for comedy. Goodness, he even managed to upstage Robin Williams and make ol' Robin the "straight man" for bob's sake! (That would be "The Birdcage.")
A scene that should have been fun and should have made the audience fall on the floor giggling was merely forced, and sad. The kids laughed on cue, but they weren't amused.
Oh, and I think recycling is good, but do we have to shoot the whole thing on sets from Logan's Run and Dr. Who?
No, wait. There were all those sets that were entirely CGI. And cheap-looking bad CGI at that.
I wonder what this movie would have been like with JMS (Of Babylon 5) at the helm? For the Sci-Fi channel?
One more gripe: Michael Eisner's masturbatory "introduction" hailing the greatness and history of "The Wonderful World of Disney" made me gag. Ugh.
Positive notes?
Some of the minor characters (who the director obviously ignored) had some good moments. The woman who is waiting for her "adjustment" for example. Splendid. She conveyed oodles of meaning in two lines. Great job, drone # 2!
Meg's final showdown was done reasonably well, even if it did smell faintly like a rip-off of Sarah's confrontation with The Goblin King in the ending of Labyrinth.
"Dad" did a fine job, even with the bad direction and horrible wig.
So, bottom line? Disney screwed up the vision from a beloved story.
Oh. That's their theme, though, isn't it?
Which reminds me to give my review of Beauty and the Beast--one of the few occasions where I agreed wholeheartedly with the changes that Disney made to an existing story. Coming soon!
