I have seen great books turned into awful films. Ella Enchanted is a perfect example of a terrible and soulless adaptation of a wonderful and charming book. Eragon and Inkheart are also prime examples of the beloved source material being completely ignored in exchange for a disheartening cinematic experience. But this movie...this movie in my opinion takes the cake for worst adaptation of all time. Here are my thoughts on A Wrinkle in Time.
In 1960, Madeleine L'Engle was a struggling author shopping around her completed novel A Wrinkle in Time. She was rejected 30 times until her novel was finally accepted and published in 1962. It turned out to be her most successful novel, winning the Newberry Medal for literature. It is still revered as a classic today, blending science and L'Engle's Christian faith as well as depicting one of the first female protagonists in a science fiction novel. It's a fascinating and engrossing read, written with such great diction and strength, by far one of the best books I've ever read. Fast forward to 2018 and Disney has delivered one of the most atrocious movies I've ever had the displeasure of watching. That movie is A Wrinkle in Time, based on L'Engle's beloved novel. The film is directed by Ava DuVernay, a director hot off the success of critically acclaimed films such as Selma (2014) and 13th (2016). The cast is filled to the brim with stars such as Reese Witherspoon, Oprah Winfrey, Chris Pine, Michael Pena, and Zach Galifianakis. The script was written by Jennifer Lee, who directed a little Disney movie called Frozen and wrote Zootopia, one of my favorite movies of all time. With all of that talent involved, this should have been a runaway success. But it's not. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This movie is bad. This movie is really really really bad. So why is this movie bad? For one thing, it seems like absolutely no one read the novel. Parts were added into the movie that were not in the book, which sometimes isn't a huge problem in film adaptations of books (the elves were certainly not at Helm's Deep in Two Towers, but it doesn't bother me), but these new additions added absolutely nothing to the story and were unnecessary. Many of the characters in the movie acted nothing like their novel counterparts. For instance, Charles Wallace is portrayed as sincere, quiet, and intelligent in the novel, whereas in the movie he's portrayed as obnoxious, pretentious, and annoying. Which is a shame because Charles Wallace is one of the most important (and one of my favorite) characters in the novel. What bothered me the most, however, is that important parts from the novel are glossed over and completely cut from the movie. Where's Aunt Beast? She's the reason why Meg goes to Camazotz to save Charles Wallace in the first place! Instead it's replaced with a garish CGI-riddled confrontation between Meg and Charles Wallace that's laughably bad. Why is Calvin even there in the first place? Calvin is a great and strong-minded character in the book, but in the movie he's no more than a love interest for Meg that doesn't do anything of importance. You could've taken him out of the movie and there would've been nothing lost. Why in the world is the Happy Medium portrayed as a sarcastic stereotypical Zach Galifianakis character? Why is Mrs. Whatsit so unnecessarily mean to Meg when she wasn't that way in the book at all? What's the point of making Charles Wallace adopted when he's not in the book? Point is I could go on and on about how bad this adaptation is, but I need to talk about the other issues. The acting is so hit and miss in this film. I can see that everyone is trying their best (mostly), but the script really isn't doing them any favors. Instead of using L'Engle's intelligent and philosophical style, Lee substitutes that with safe cookie cutter writing that uses horrible dated references to attempt to get laughs and cliched concepts that would be more suited for cheesy Hallmark movies. The worst actors by far are the child actors. There are child actors who do great with their material (Jacob Tremblay in Room and Dafne Keen in Logan are prime examples), but that also has to do with how competent the filmmakers are in executing direction and script, which this films fails at on both aspects. It also has to do with the fact that Tremblay and Keen are naturally great actors. Storm Reid, who portrays Meg, is the better of the three leads by far and I feel like she's sincere in her performance for the most part. It's not great, but it's not awful. Levi Miller as Calvin is wooden and unmoving and Deric McCabe is just plain awful as Charles Wallace. Because of the stilted acting and the blundering script, I felt no emotional connection to any of the characters nor did any of the characters resonate with me. There were moments where, if it were any other movie, I definitely would've cried, but because of how poorly put together and emotionally shallow this movie was, I certainly did not. For a movie that was made with an $100 million dollar budget, this movie sure does look bad. The CGI is unbelievably appalling. Every time I saw Oprah the giant I would just laugh at how ridiculous she looked. Also didn't help that she was wearing what looked like a mermaid outfit. When Reese Witherspoon turned into a giant lettuce, I thought to myself "I don't think this is how I imagined it in the book". Terrible film adaptation comment aside, the flying giant lettuce monster looked ridiculous. I will admit, the bright color palette was appealing to the eye, but the problem is that it all looked so...fake. It was very clear that it was all green screened. It's like DuVernay didn't even try to make it look real. Lastly, the whole movie is BORING. The film moves slower than a snail's pace and some scenes took what felt like forever to get through, although that was probably because they were painful to watch as well. The musical score is generic and just downright tedious to listen to, which doesn't help the movie's already lethargic feel. And why why WHY did DuVernay feel the need to add pop songs to this movie??? Whenever I heard a pop song, it would immediately take me out of the movie, although honestly I was already tuning out about half an hour into the movie. It made it feel like I was watching an angsty teen drama instead of the deep science fiction epic that it was SUPPOSED to be. Is this the worst adaptation I've ever seen? Yes, yes it is. I cannot emphasize this enough: if Hollywood plans to hand the keys of a well beloved classic over to someone, those filmmakers better damn well read the source material and at least attempt to understand what made the source material so special in the first place. More than likely, audiences will appreciate it. Ava DuVernay and Jennifer Lee clearly did not understand that and delivered a horribly underwhelming and generic cinematic experience. If you want to see just how much audiences hated it, just look at the 4.2 IMDb score it has. This movie is close to being on the Bottom 100 list on IMDb. I gave it a 1, although I would've given it a 0 if I had been given the option. Disney doesn't usually deliver duds like this, but A Wrinkle in Time is an awful adaptation that is the epitome of failure on every level possible. Madeleine L'Engle must be rolling over in her grave now. Rating: 0/10 Bottom of the Barrel
1 Comment
An incompetent illogical nonsensical mess. Here are my thoughts on Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
While not all of the Star Trek movies are fantastic, each movie has some sort of redeeming quality or genuinely cool scene that makes me go "wow". Except for one. As you can guess, that one is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989). Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner had a "favored nations clause", which stated that whatever Nimoy received, so would Shatner. In this case, Nimoy had directed the last two movies, which meant that Shatner could direct the next movie. Nimoy did a great job directing the last two films, showing a keen eye for acting, story, comedy, and the overall understanding of how the Star Trek universe works. William Shatner, on the other hand, did an awful awful job with Final Frontier. Granted, some things were out of his control, including a writer's strike which delayed production and lower production costs which resulted in shoddier looking special effects. However, there were multiple production problems that stemmed from Shatner's stubborn attitude and constant arguments with co-writers Harve Bennett and David Loughery regarding elements and the overall tone of the story. It also didn't help that some of the cast, primarily DeForrest Kelley and Nimoy, asked for revisions of the story so it could fit their needs. The plot in a nutshell: Spock's half-brother Sybok hijacks the Enterprise to visit Sha Ka Ree, a mythical planet that supposedly houses God. Sybok, who is a full-blooded Vulcan unlike Spock, has a unique ability that allows him to feel and heal other peoples' pain through use of the mind meld, which enables him to heavily persuade them to do his bidding for him. Through this ability, he's able to gather a cult-like following, brainwash the crew of the Enterprise, and easily take over the ship. Oh, and there's a hotshot Klingon commander pursuing the Enterprise for self-fulfilling and personal glory as well. There's also a hostage rescue mission in there too. In honesty, this plot should not have failed like it did. It certainly sounds like a Star Trek story, much more so than Voyage Home. But there's something that Voyage Home did well that Final Frontier failed at at every level. Voyage Home succeeded in that it applied humor in a way that helped elevate the movie. It never went overboard nor did it ever feel unwelcome. Not only that, but the humor was one of the focal points of the entire movie. It was executed extremely well by director Leonard Nimoy and the entire cast. Shatner thought that it would be a good idea to continue that trend of making humor the focal point, except none of the humor in Final Frontier is funny at all. So why isn't this movie funny? That is a great question. To answer that, I am going to run a bullet list of moments that illustrates just how unfunny this movie is: 1. The whole scene of Scotty breaking out Kirk, Spock, and McCoy from the brig plays out like a poorly made Three Strooges bit. 2. Scotty says "I know this ship like I know the back of my hand" and then precedes to hit his head on one of the bulkheads, knocking himself out. CLASSIC comedy. 3. Sulu and Chekov get lost in the woods. Get it, it's funny because they're the helmsman and navigator and they got LOST in the woods. It's IRONIC. 4. Spock's rocket boots. Because they thought it would be FUNNY for Spock to have a pair of ROCKET BOOTS. 5. The whole camping trip scene, complete with a sing-along. A SING-ALONG in a Star Trek movie. 6. Spock telling Kirk ("not in front of the Klingons") not to hug him because it would be embarrassing to do so in front of the Klingons. What a laugh riot. 7. Sulu and Chekov looking at a female Klingon's tush and actively pursuing it but then having to stop because Klaa is glaring at them. Knee slapper. 8. Kirk and McCoy climbing on Spock and his damned rocket boots, sinking first because they're three heavy grown men, but once Spock turns on the boosters, they blast off. Brilliant. But to REALLY illustrate just how bad this movie is, here are some of the lowest moments: 1. SPOCK VULCAN NECK PINCHES A HORSE. A. HORSE. 2. Kirk and crew coming in guns blazing for the hostage rescue mission like it's a cheesy wild west shootout. 3. Kirk kills a three-boobed cat stripper. Nope you didn't read that wrong. 4. Scotty and Uhura are a couple. This was never alluded to during the series at all, nor is it ever mentioned again in the future. Just...why? 5. Uhura performs a striptease to distract the guards on their hostage rescue mission, to which she says "I've always wanted to play to a captive audience". Hard pass. 6. Spock neck pinches...a HORSE. 7. A sequence where we see Spock being born in what appears to be a cave straight from caveman times and then Sarek hissing "he's so...human". Literally no. 8. Kirk hammily shouting "so it's me you want, you Klingon bastards!" at the poorly rendered Klingon ship approaching him. It's laughably bad. 9. After being beamed up by the Klingons, Kirk thanks the Klingons for saving him, only for the chair to turn around and reveal that it was Spock all along. Even though it had been made clear that Spock was responsible from the scene before. So...not a surprise at all. 10. Did I mention that Spock NECK PINCHES A HORSE? There are also tired tropes that are unfortunately present in this film. Like how the Enterprise is once again the ONLY ship in the quadrant available to go on this hostage rescue mission, even though there are probably plenty of other ships in the area, but nope, it HAS to be the Enterprise. Or how Kirk is played out as the big hero and everyone else has to worship the ground he walks on. While this trope has been present but not a HUGE issue in the past, it's cranked up to 11 in this movie, portraying Kirk as an untouchable godlike figure who is the absolute good. He HAS to feel his pain. He HAS to be the one to question "God". He HAS to climb a rock at Yosemite to show how BIG of a man he is. Or how the Enterprise is inconveniently broken in a time of need, because of course it is. The biggest problem is more than William Shatner failing to understand what made the franchise successful, which is odd because he definitely should've known better considering he's seen what made it successful. It's more than William Shatner failing to make a good Star Trek movie. It's that William Shatner didn't make a good movie at all. Nothing in the movie works. The story moves so slow. The acting is AWFUL, especially on Shatner's part. The humor never lands. The dialogue is so poorly written, which could be chalked up to the writer's strike, but even still, I'm not giving it a pass. The special effects and "action" scenes are laughably bad. Every character EXCEPT for Kirk acts like a bumbling idiot. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, primarily because of how it fails on every level as a Star Trek movie AND as a movie as a whole. But hey, can't say that there's another movie where Kirk kills a three-boobed cat stripper. Fun fact: Sybok was originally supposed to be played by Sean Connery, but instead we got Laurence Luckinbill. Man, if only... Rating: 0/10 Bottom of the Barrel |
AuthorBuster Bigelow: 30 year old lover of movies, cinema, and music. Whether you agree or disagree with my reviews, I'd love to hear what you think in the comments! Archives
June 2020
Categories
All
|
"Every great film should seem new every time you see it."
-Roger Ebert
Copyright © 2015