Movie Review: Disney gives us DuVernay’s still-life version of “A Wrinkle in Time”

wrinkle1.jpg

Hyped up to 12 on the “Black Panther” anticipation scale and as high-minded as “A Very Special ‘Oprah,'” “A Wrinkle in Time” arrives in theaters as an exquisite waxwork rendition of  Madeleine L’Engle‘s Newbery Medal-winning novel.

It’s lovely to look at — occasionally. And director Ava DuVernay lets the camera linger over those gossamer effects — as if the natural beauty of New Zealand could be improved by digital crescent moons and fantastical additions to the Hobbitscapes. She also dwells on the circus aerialist makeup of her version of L’Engles “Three Witches” (“Three Mrs.”), the startlingly dolled-up Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling and queen of them all, Oprah, as if they’re special effects unto themselves.

The child actors cast are just as gorgeous as the children of a coupling of Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Chris Pine would be.

And the story? A lost father chased through the cosmos by his intrepid daughter (Storm Reid), “brilliant” son (Deric McCabe) and the classmate who’s sweet on the daughter (Levi Miller) holds promise, even if the movie can’t find its actual excitement, suspense, coherence or narrative drive.
Which is a big build-up to essentially saying, “This movie’s a stiff — ‘Still Life with Oprah.'”

Mbatha-Raw and Pine are married scientists who have discovered an interstellar Tesseract, a fifth dimension which connects places and people throughout the universe. Their peers have laughed, but NASA researcher dad disappeared into it years ago.

And his smart and intrepid daughter Meg (Reid) and too-clever-chatterbox son Charles Wallace (McCabe) pay the price for his absence — bullied at school, gossiped about by teachers.

Until Charles Wallace invites this Bjork-attired weirdo (Witherspoon) in for a visit. She’s “Mrs. Whatsit,” she insists. The boy is a genius, she declares. The girl, even if she clings to Dad’s “Love is always there, even if you don’t feel it” credo, is more troubled. Whatsit can help. But not on her own. She summons her sisters in galactic stewardship.

Mrs. Who (Kaling) is given to quoting the wisdom of the ages — “‘The feet feels the foot when if feels the ground,’ Buddha.” She’s a veritable inspirational calendar of aphorisms — “Loves sees not with the eyes, but with the mind,’ Shakespeare!”

Mrs. Which (Winfrey) lords over them all, warns of “the darkness” spreading over the universe and onto Earth and directs their journey.

Whatsit? “Wild nights are my glory!”

They somewhat aimlessly and cryptically point the kids in the direction Dad went, seeking help from The Happy Medium (Zach Galifianakis, blessed comic relief) and an intergalactic dream merchant (Michael Peña, dolled up like Rip Taylor selling ice cream on the beach).

All the while, this more or less threatening ink blotch of “darkness” spreads.

DuVernay (“Selma”) fails utterly in her search for urgency in this story and cannot concoct a threat any more palpable than the “darkness” of which Mrs. Which speaks. The director loses herself in static conversation scenes and extreme close-ups of her beautiful players. That’s soap opera/TV movie camera work and no, that’s not a compliment.

The “Hero’s (heroine’s) Journey” quest takes a back seat, when it’s given any seat at all. The heroine? Meh. Jake Lloyd with curls.

wrinkle2

The performances are as flat as the static, generally dull conversations (exposition without wit) the script makes the actors play. The story provides no highs or lows, just changes of costume and (digitally enhanced) setting.

“Selma” had built in goals, tension, heroes and villains. DuVernay is at a loss to provide them or do justice to the ones L’Engle’s novel provided.

The eye candy is, I have to say, somewhat underwhelming. This is the sort of movie that screams for a visionary director with proven chops in the genre, or at least producers with those credits. Time passes so slowly in “Wrinkle” that one can lose oneself in imagining what a Terry Gilliam in his free-spending prime, a Tim Burton or Kathryn Bigelow could have done with this.

Memo to Frances McDormand. “Inclusion riders” are a great way to bring overdue diversity to film sets, in front of and behind the camera. Read DuVernay’s IMDb page to see just how many different jobs the future “Selma” director had on film sets and in movie studios before she finally made her own breaks.

But using that as an end unto itself is how one arrives at movies of mendacious mediocrity,  echo chamber productions where “feeling” and message (“Love trumps hate.”) and checkbox “This is what America looks like — EVERYbody is represented” casting takes precedence. No consideration for their acting chops, they’re just here to fill a checkbox. Nobody on set has the wherewithal to state the obvious — this director isn’t suitable for this material.

And NOBODY remembers “Hey, we’ve got to find charismatic actors and make a riveting, witty, exciting or at least ambulatory movie out of this classic novel.” Because here, nobody did.

1half-star

 

MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements and some peril

Cast: Storm Reid, Reese Witherspoon, Oprah Winfrey, Chris Pine, Mindy Kaling, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Zach Galifianakis, Deric McCabe,  Michael Peña, Levi Miller

Credits:Directed by Ava DuVernay, script by Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell, based on the novel by Madeleine L’Engle. A Walt Disney release.

Running time: 1:47

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Reviews, previews, profiles and movie news. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Movie Review: Disney gives us DuVernay’s still-life version of “A Wrinkle in Time”

  1. Minor C says:

    Thanks for the review Mr. Moore. Having a diverse cast &crew though isn’t responsible for the movie sucking. Lots of movies with un-diverse companies suck even more but they keep making them. It just happens. This movie isn’t a referendum on diverse cast & crew just like all the crappy movies ever made aren’t a referendum on white people.

    • Point taken. But in this case, way too many decisions appear to have been based on broad-demo marketing and making some sort of inclusion statement. And no thought was given on how letting Oprah and her hand-picked out-of-her-depth director follow their feelings — casting, rubbing the edges off the story, etc. — was just bollixing the works. “Echo chamber” is always a bad way of brainstorming a movie to life.

  2. Jack Brooks says:

    I loved this book as a child. It bred into me a fear of demonic submission and uniformity. But the ads for this film ended it for me as soon as I saw Oprah. She cannot disappear into a part. At this point in her media career, she is always and ever The Oprah. And, I just figured the Christian thematics of L’Engle’s book would be stripped out, and replaced by some vacuous fog of New Age feel-goodery and self-lovery.

    • I do wonder if it is filmmable. And nothing against Oprah (mentioning her in a blurb is classic trolling, mea culpa), but this thing fairly reeks of “The Secret” and her self-actualization branding. The leading lady is pretty, but bland, and the child playing her brother is grating. It feels like another Disney check-box diversity effort where they put more emphasis on that (overdue) to the exclusion of getting the Next Keke Palmer or Shailene Woodley. The director? She had an Oscar-nominated hit, so she was a fair gamble. Not right for the material at all, and her DP could have told Disney that two days in.

      • Jack Brooks says:

        I’m not sure I can quite put it into the right words, but I think the book would need someone like a benevolent Tim Burton, if there was such a person. Or or a certain kind of British director of sci-fi thrillers that I remember from the 1970s, where the story featured something weird intruding into the middle of your difficult but normal life. Someone who could toggle back and forth between scary stuff, tears, love, and moral principles. But I can’t give you an exemplary name. You probably can think of someone that my memory is trying to grasp.

      • Jack Brooks says:

        Walter Murch, “Return to Oz.”

  3. You make some really good points and I appreciate your honest review. “A Wrinkle in Time” has definitely checked off all of the diversity boxes that clearly has had a ton of funding. But, the cost-benefit analysis is evidently not great if there’s no cohesive story. Is it a little too much to ask for a witty and exciting adaptation of one of my favorite novels?

  4. StanLeeKubrick says:

    Don’t confuse genius with weirdo. Bjork is a genius.

    Also you are being too politically correct. This movie deserved 1/2 a star!

Comments are closed.