Showing posts with label Reese Witherspoon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reese Witherspoon. Show all posts

Saturday, March 10, 2018

'A Wrinkle in Time' (2018) Review

A Wrinkle in Time unfolds itself alongside a young, intelligent Meg Murry and her little brother Charles Wallace four years after the mysterious disappearance of their father. Meg, Charles, and her classmate Calvin are then transported through space by three peculiar and powerful beings in order to embark on a daring quest to find Mr. Murry. 
This incarnation of A Wrinkle in Time stands as the second attempt to translate Madeleine L'Engle's novel that's been long described as "unfilmable." I, myself, am quite familiar with the book as I had to read it eight years ago in my seventh grade English class, and I'll be upfront to admit that I absolutely hated it. However, I wasn't going to simply let my distaste for the source material or my preconceived notions automatically color my review as negative because I believe every film should be seen before I form and share an opinion . With that being said, my expectations weren't very high for A Wrinkle in Time and I still wound up disappointed when it was all over.
The 2018 adaptation is directed by the acclaimed African American female filmmaker Ava DuVernay and features a script written by Jeff Stockwell and Jennifer Lee, which was based on Madeleine L'Engle's publication. DuVernay previously had helmed smaller-scale films such as Selma and 13th to great success, but this was her first big-budget venture and I can't imagine how embarrassing this must be for her. I've often heard film fans throw her name into the ring to helm a Star Wars flick, but I couldn't be happier to hear she's not interested in the gig after seeing how she handled this big-budget bonanza. She's clearly talented but I don't think blockbusters fit her style of filmmaking.
I'd say A Wrinkle in Time's biggest issue is that it was well-intentioned but not well executed. DuVernay definitely embraced the awkwardness of the source material in an effort to remain faithful as possible I guess? As a result, the plot's immensely incoherent, the dialogue's dreadful, the acting is atrocious, the characters are uninteresting, and the film wasn’t entertaining in the least. That's not even mentioning the inharmonious edits, jarring camera movement, or terrible song choices including various generic pop-style songs I'd never heard before but am sure were created purely for the film's soundtrack. On that note, Ramin Djawadi is a composer who I greatly admire due to his work on Game of Thrones... but his score rarely fit the mood of the scene it accompanied... The sole strengths of A Wrinkle in Time are really just its visuals and Chris Pine's performance, but neither of those elements can carry the movie... Even the bright, colorful imagery doesn't look natural due to lackluster vfx work from time-to-time, as can be evidenced above.
So you may be wondering, "How is that DuVernay's fault?" Well, a director oversees the entire project and should reign things in if they aren't working. They provide guidance for the cast and crew, and it's their responsibility to ensure their vision makes it to the big screen the way they intended. Otherwise, they didn't exactly fulfill their obligation. Perhaps, these shortcomings can be attributed to the studio, as Disney's had a spree of at least one flop-a-year (whether it be critical, financial, or both in certain cases). However, this film is far too ambitious for it to simply be a studio-made product. There's evident artistic intent put into this so it's not like nobody tried. Genuine effort was put forth.
One of A Wrinkle in Time's most glaring issues though was an immense emotional disconnect. I could have cared less about the characters, and the filmmakers didn't give me any incentive to invest in them whatsoever. Every character functions as either an expositional device or a stilted, stale personality. Seriously, the lines these actors were provided with would suffice as some of the worst dialogue I've heard uttered all year. And if there's one thing we take for granted these days, it's quality performances. ESPECIALLY those from young actors since we've been blessed with watching a talented pool of performers these last few years. Unfortunately, Storm Reid, Levi Miller, and Deric McCabe aren't up to the task of elevating the material provided. In the role of Meg, Reid provides a performance leagues beyond her other young costars as she's at least able to occasionally display emotional depth. Her scenes with Pine are easily her best, and are a testament to her potential if she continues to fine-tune her acting abilities. However, Reid's mostly left waking around almost as expressionless as possible, and the film suffers a great deal from it.
I don't say this to rip on the child actors as I understand they're trying their best, but I get the vibe they were miscast and DuVernay's lack of experience directing young talent didn't help things. Poor Levi Miller is offered nothing of substance or pertinence to work with whatsoever. His introductory dialogue is along the lines of "I don't know why I'm here. I just suddenly felt the urge to here and so I'm here." At that point, I started laughing because his lines were so awkward and unnatural. Beyond that though, his character has little-to-no development and it feels like he was only incorporated to motivate Meg and because he was in the book. Then there's Deric McCabe as Charles Wallace... Sadly, his line delivery was one-note so he just sounded like a kid reading a script written by other kids... The script wasn't written by children by the way... Having read the book, I know what Duvernay and McCabe were going for... They just didn't hit their mark, and the role would have been far better suited to a young actor like Jacob Tremblay or Jackson Robert Scott (the kid who played Georgie in last year's adaptation of It).
In regards to the experienced adult actors, it's just as bad...The three entities Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who are portrayed by Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling respectively, and they're each awful... They're around to guide Meg and occasionally impart words of wisdom, yet they're rarely around and feel rather pointless as a result (I know it's like that in the novel as well). Oprah must be running low on interview money to stoop to this... Anyways, Oprah stands around to speak inspirational, empowering quotes you'd probably find on a poster without a care in the world, Reese Witherspoon is ditsy as can be as Mrs. Whatsit, and Mindy Kaling's Mrs. Who is stuck only able to utter quotes spoken by others unless the script demands otherwise... I couldn't take any of them seriously at all though because they each look ridiculous in the eccentric, over-the-top costumes.
I'm including this gif to point out how silly she looked running in that costume. I couldn't help but chuckle, and I hope you get a good laugh from it as well! If A Wrinkle in Time has any saving grace, its that you can at least laugh at it from time-to-time for all the wrong reasons. It should also be noted that Zach Galifianakis, David Oyelowo, and Michael Peña are in this, but good luck remembering that when it's over because their screen-time is SCARCE. Oyelowo's just a disembodied voice so you probably won't even know he was ever involved. Good for him I suppose!
The only actor in entire ensemble who I felt delivered an all-around quality performance was Chris Pine. Pine provides a performance rich with nuance and subtle expressions of emotion that enhance the awful things around him. Gugu Mbatha-Raw does the best she can with her depiction of Mrs. Murry, but is ultimately caged in by limited screen-time and an awful script. Thankfully, she has some scenes with Pine though because their chemistry really worked.
On the bright side, A Wrinkle in Time sends a positive message to young audience members. It's just a shame they've probably heard it already and that the delivery was so clunky in comparison to every other film that ever sought to inspire or empower its audience to be themselves. The children at my screening were not interested in the events onscreen at all, getting up on numerous occasions to walk around or simply divert their focus elsewhere.
In case it wasn't already apparent, I don't think A Wrinkle in Time is deserving of your crisp cash. If you hope to levy your hard-earned dollars towards supporting diverse blockbusters or you're simply going to the theater for the sake of enjoyment, you'd be better off supporting AnnihilationBlack Panther, or Game Night. Otherwise, you may as well stay at home since A Wrinkle in Time is a colossal waste of time. I was already envious of those whose Wrinkle in Time screening was interrupted by an entourage of celebrities during the Oscars, but I'm even more jealous now that I've seen the film. Their prayers for it to stop must have been answered at least... 

Film Assessment: D-

Monday, December 19, 2016

'Sing' Review

I had the chance to catch Sing about a month early on November 26th for a promotional Sing Saturday event but decided to refrain from posting the review so that my readers would have my thoughts on the feature fresh in their minds before or after they see it.

'Sing' Review


In the world of Sing, animals coexist in a utopian society, think dumbed down Zootopia, and koala theater owner Buster Moon is facing the potential foreclosure of his grand establishment so Moon decides to put on a singing competition in hopes of saving his theater. The prize reward is accidentally advertised as $100,000 that Moon doesn't possess and the film follows the succeeding shenanigans.
For all intensive purposes it's like all televised singing competitions; The Voice America's Got Talent, or American Idol, but with animals. As amusing as it is to watch animals sing, it gets old fast as it's difficult to stay engaged when there's little story present and the film relies almost entirely on the spectacle of singing animals. Also almost every "surprise" or moment of interest was shown in the film's marketing material so you can't help but feel that you've seen the movie already if you've watched one of the trailers. There are admittedly moments of fun, where I laughed hysterically, but those are too far and few between to make up for the lackluster predictable story.
Writer and director Garth Jennings alongside co-director Chrisophe Lourdelet manage to develop interesting concepts but don't ever fully flesh them out. Jennings' screenplay is constantly trying to shoehorn emotional character arcs into the story but when there's so many characters for the story to follow, these arcs can't help but feel lost on the viewer. Lourdelet amasses an interesting bunch of creatures but fails to properly service any of them since he's constantly switching gears, which is really a shame considering the voice talent involved.
On that note the film features Matthew McConaughey, Reese Witherspoon, Seth MacFarlane, Scarlett Johansson, John C. Reilly, Tori Kelly, Taron Egerton, Nick Kroll, and the director himself voicing the exuberant koala, stay at home mother pig, mob mouse, apprehensive porcupine, lazy llama, shy elephant, gorilla reluctant to join the family gang, flamboyant dancing pig, and the clumsy lizard assistant respectively. It's great to hear these stars sing jukebox hits but the lack of any noteworthy or original music makes Sing feel run of the mill, there's so many songs that I won't bother listing any and am simultaneously wondering how much of the film's budget went towards acquiring the rights to all this music. Also, the animation in Sing looked fine but was nothing compared to superior animated efforts this year like ZootopiaFinding Dory, or Moana for starters. 
Overall, Sing is sufficient family entertainment but Illumination Entertainment doesn't dare to traverse the emotional depth or sophistication that Pixar, Walt Disney Animation Studios, or Dreamworks Animation often explore. Illumination appears to be a studio that's capable of churning out mediocre family-friendly content that children adore, leading to big box office returns and the development of even more animated projects from the studio. Illumination's biggest problem is that it plays everything too safe, leading to formulaic features that spread themselves thin with abundant characters and storylines and no means of servicing them all.
When it comes down to it, Sing finds itself in the same rut that plagued Illumination's other release this year, The Secret Life Of Pets, and when placed next to the other animated releases this year it will probably be justly forgotten.

Film Assessment: C-