A Wrinkle in Time (2018) review

In 1962, author Madeleine L’Engle published a novel that would end up becoming her most famous piece of work, A Wrinkle in Time. Despite being initially turned down by at least 26 different publishers, the novel went on to become a watershed entry in the science-fiction fantasy genre and a staple of classrooms across the country. And now, more than five and a half decades after its release, it graces the big-screen for the first time ever in Disney’s new adaptation of this timeless story. However, this is not the first time that A Wrinkle in Time has been adapted to film; in fact, this isn’t even Disney’s first adaptation of it. Back in 2003, Disney produced a made-for-TV film adaptation that aired on ABC in May 2004. However, the film ended up receiving negative reviews from both critics and fans of the book; even L’Engle herself was highly critical of it. And yet, despite her passing in 2007, I bet that she might have been a little more positive towards this new adaptation of her book if she had seen it. This new version is brought to us by Ava DuVernay, who’s become a major critical darling these past few years thanks to her work on films like the 2014 Martin Luther King Jr. drama Selma and the 2016 Netflix documentary 13^th. Along with being the first $100 million+ film directed by a female director of color, it also boasts a screenplay written by Jennifer Lee, writer/co-director of Disney’s 2013 smash hit Frozen, and features an all-star cast highlighted by the trio of Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, and the one and only Oprah Winfrey. And while it ultimately may not be a completely successful adaptation of its source material, DuVernay does manage to deliver a visually spectacular sci-fi fantasy adventure capable of delighting both young and old.

In an average American suburb, teenager Meg Murry (Storm Reid) struggles to fit in at school due to her abrasive personality. However, this recent behavior was mainly brought upon by the disappearance of her father, noted astrophysicist Dr. Alex Murry (Chris Pine), who sought to uncover a way to travel across dimensions with ease. Now that it’s been at least four years since his disappearance, Meg begins to lose hope that her father is still alive; that is until she is visited by three omnipotent beings capable of traveling to the places that her father had always dreamed of reaching. This trio of women consists of the wise and all-powerful Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), who often quotes several historical figures, and the cheerfully eccentric Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon). Meg learns from the three Mrs. W’s that her father is, in fact, still alive, having successfully managed to transport himself to another dimension through the process known as ‘tessering’. However, in doing so, he’s also become trapped by a dark force known as ‘the It’, which is the cause of all negativity across the universe. Thus, Meg must embark on an adventure with her precocious little brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and her classmate Calvin O’Keefe (Levi Miller) across dimensions with the help of the three Mrs. W’s to find her father and rescue him from ‘the It’, an adventure that, per Mrs. Which, will test them ‘every step of the way’.

A common criticism of this film has been towards its plot, with some calling it ‘convoluted’. Personally, though, I didn’t find the plot to be that convoluted. Granted, there are times where the film throws a lot of important story beats at you, but never enough to the point where it’d leave audiences totally confused as to what’s going on. However, in terms of the narrative, there is one thing that hurts the film from time to time, and that is its surprisingly brisk pacing. Simply put, this film attempts to get a lot done in the span of its 109-minute runtime, and because of this, not everything in the story gets as much attention as it should. This includes everything from a lack of development for the main threat that is ‘the It’ to even glossing over some story beats in the first half hour or so that are meant to set up this universe and its characters. Still, DuVernay and Lee do manage to convey the emotional poignancy of this story of a young girl trying to find her father (along with showcasing the strength of family) quite well; maybe not to its fullest potential but still just enough to register the right sense of emotional catharsis. And as far as the film’s visuals are concerned, this is one of the best-looking films to come out in recent memory. Once Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace begin traveling across dimensions, the CGI work that is on display here is second to none, syncing up perfectly with the film’s vibrant cinematography. And just like how Peter Jackson used the beautiful landscapes of his home country of New Zealand to their fullest effect in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, DuVernay does the same for this film, which was partially shot there as well.

Ultimately, though, arguably the best aspect of this film is the stellar ensemble cast that DuVernay has assembled to play these iconic roles. It’s all headlined by the phenomenal lead trio of Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling as the three Mrs. W’s. Oprah, as always, dignifiedly graces the role of Mrs. Which with the same kind of class that has helped to make her the icon that she is today, Reese Witherspoon gets a lot of the best lines due to Mrs. Whatsit’s dry wit, and Mindy Kaling is an equally delightful combination of the two. The interesting thing to note, though, is that while the three of them do receive top billing, they’re only in about a third of the film. As such, it relies more on its young leads, who are all quite excellent. Newcomer Storm Reid very much shines in the role of Meg, even managing to hold her own against the likes of Oprah and Reese Witherspoon, as does Deric McCabe as her gifted brother Charles Wallace. And while Calvin doesn’t get as much to work with material-wise compared to Meg, Levi Miller does work well off both Reid and McCabe. There are also plenty of great supporting roles in this film as well. Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw bring much warmth to the film as Meg and Charles Wallace’s parents, especially in terms of the strong ‘parent-child’ bond that Reid shares with them both. Zach Galifianakis gets some great humorous scenes as the eccentric Happy Medium, who aids Meg and co. in their adventure, while Michael Pena is also a major highlight as Red, a sinister agent of ‘the It’ who seduces Charles Wallace to their side.

A Wrinkle in Time has long been referred to by many as one of the prime examples of an ‘unfilmable’ novel, with some feeling that it’d be impossible to fully bring Madeline L’Engle’s fantastical narrative to life on the big screen. But while it may not fully succeed at doing so, Ava DuVernay’s take on this timeless tale is quite the admirable attempt at it. Sure, it suffers quite a bit in terms of pacing, namely through its attempts to try and cram so much of the story into a rather light under two-hour runtime. But when it comes to its visual department, that is where this film truly shines. This is very much one of those films that’s worth checking out on the big-screen, where one can experience the true scale of its vivid imagery. And despite a few instances where the film somewhat glosses over important parts of the plot, it does manage to be an effectively emotional sci-fi fantasy adventure that’s buoyed by an excellent ensemble cast. In short, I can’t really say much about how this film compares to its source material as I’ll admit that I’ve never read A Wrinkle in Time. Seriously, the only experience that I had with this story prior to seeing this film was when I saw an ad for the previously mentioned made-for-TV film from 2003 on an old Disney DVD. Despite this, though, I bet that this adaptation of it could very well satisfy fans of the book; at the very least, more so than the previous film version.

Rating: 4.5/5

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) review

In January 2008, audiences were treated to a new sci-fi monster flick known as Cloverfield. Produced by ‘franchise savior’ J.J. Abrams, written by Joss Whedon veteran Drew Goddard, and directed by ‘pre-Planet of the Apes’ Matt Reeves, the film was a major critical/commercial hit while also proving to be somewhat of a landmark entry in the ‘found footage’ genre. After that, though, it was unclear for a while if there would be a follow-up despite Abrams, Goddard, and Reeves all claiming that they were planning on making one. It wasn’t until 2016 when audiences learned that the series was set to continue, as 10 Cloverfield Lane was announced just two months prior to its March 2016 release. But despite this short time-span between its initial announcement and release, the film was another major critical/commercial hit that effectively paved the way for a fascinating new franchise that was intent on being reminiscent of the classic anthology series, The Twilight Zone. And now, this brings us to film #3 in the franchise, The Cloverfield Paradox. Initially named God Particle, this film was confirmed to be part of the Cloverfield franchise not long after 10 Cloverfield Lane’s release. However, the film’s initial fall 2017 release date ended up getting scrapped. Plus, like any major J.J. Abrams production, details about it were scarce for the following few months… that is, until this past Sunday when its first promo aired during the Super Bowl. Even more surprising, the promo revealed that the film would debut that very night on Netflix in lieu of a theatrical release. Thus, without further ado, let’s delve into the third installment of the Cloverfield franchise, which claims that it’ll uncover some backstory regarding the events of the original film that started it all.

In a not too distant future, the planet Earth is on the verge of a worldwide war due to an impending energy crisis. To fix this problem, all the major space programs of the world launch the Cloverfield Station, which is outfitted with a particle accelerator known as ‘the Shepard’ that will hopefully provide the planet with a new source of energy. However, the experiment ends up failing numerous times, resulting in the station’s crew being forced to prolong their stay up in space for at least two years as they must figure out why the Shepard keeps malfunctioning so that they can get it to work in time before a war breaks out back home on Earth. Eventually, the crew manages to achieve what appears to be a successful test, but in the process, they then find themselves in a troubling situation as the Earth mysteriously disappears from existence. This predicament is then further compounded by the unexpected arrival of a woman named Mina Jensen (Elizabeth Debicki), who claims to be a member of the crew and the best friend of crew member Ava Hamilton (Gugu-Mbatha Raw). In other words, the crew of Cloverfield Station soon come to realize that they’ve somehow ended up in an alternate dimension, which they must escape from before the damages to the station that were caused by the particle accelerator become too severe. Little do they know, though, that they must soon deal with the various dangers of this strange new world while, unbeknownst to them, the Earth of their dimension is dealing with a dangerous new threat of its own.  

While the potential was very much there for an interesting sci-fi story that further developed the universe of Cloverfield, this potential is ultimately wasted due to the film’s biggest issue of having a generally undercooked plot. Not only that, but it’s also quite derivative of several classic sci-fi films. Now I won’t be naming some of the biggest films that are clearly this film’s primary influences here because I fear that they would lead to some spoiler-y discussion about the events that happen in this film and I want to keep this review as spoiler-free as possible. Still, I’m 99.9% confident that you’ll know EXACTLY what films I’m talking about when you see this because, sadly, the similarities that The Cloverfield Paradox shares with those other sci-fi films are quite blatant. Now to the film’s credit, it does live up to its promise of delving into the mythos of its franchise, specifically by providing an answer to one of the key mysteries that was laid out in the ending of the original Cloverfield. Still, its attempts at connecting everything in the Cloverfield franchise ultimately feel just as underdeveloped as its main plot because it never really explores any of the story ideas that it introduces, especially the one that establishes the concept of alternate dimensions. And it’s a shame, really, because, from a technical perspective, the film is at least decently made. For a film that was originally meant to be released in IMAX but was ultimately relegated to being released on Netflix instead, it looks fine enough thanks to the solid cinematography from Bad Robot Productions regular Dan Mindel, who also did the cinematography for J.J. Abrams’ two Star Trek films and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And just like the previous Cloverfield film, 10 Cloverfield Lane, this film sports an excellent score courtesy of the legendary Bear McCreary.

Alas, though, the various story issues of this film also end up affecting its cast of characters AKA the crew of Cloverfield Station. These characters are just as generic as the plot itself, with most of them getting little to no character development only to serve as a collection of stock horror film protagonists. Thankfully, this doesn’t apply to ‘all’ of them; specifically, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as main protagonist Ava Hamilton, who is easily the most well-developed character of the entire group. Obviously, that’s not really saying much given the lack of character development for everyone else but, to the film’s credit, her overall role in the story (which is all tied to an immensely devastating tragedy from her past) does yield its most effective moments of emotional poignancy. And this is only strengthened further by Mbatha-Raw’s excellent performance in the role; in other words, she’s easily the best part of the film. As for the rest of the cast, while they don’t get as much to work with by comparison, at the very least they’re all fine in their respective roles. Daniel Brühl is another major standout as Schmidt, who ends up being one of the more enigmatic members of the station’s crew, as is Chris O’Dowd as Mundy, who’s basically the film’s main ‘comic relief’ character. But again, without any decent bits of character development to work with, the two of them along with fellow co-stars David Oyelowo, John Ortiz, Zhang Ziyi, Aksel Hennie, and Elizabeth Debicki end up being just as stranded as their characters are in their current predicament.

From what I’ve read, it seems as if The Cloverfield Paradox’s fate as a Netflix release was due to Paramount, the franchise’s main studio, being uneasy about the final product and its potential profitability given its franchise-high budget of $45 million. J.J. Abrams himself was keen on trying to salvage the film in post-production but was ultimately unable to do so when he signed on to direct Star Wars: Episode IX. And overall, this does basically sum up this film in a nutshell. While it’s not outright ‘terrible’ (if anything, it’s not necessarily as bad as its abysmal 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes suggests), it’s still a tragically underwhelming continuation of the Cloverfield franchise. Despite the potential for some interesting plot-lines, the film ultimately wastes them all due to its woefully generic sci-fi horror story that does little to further explore the franchise’s lore. This, in turn, wastes a perfectly good ensemble cast (save for Gugu Mbatha-Raw) that ends up being restricted to a bunch of stereotypical sci-fi horror roles. Ultimately, though, I will admit that I wasn’t ‘bored’ by this film at any point despite it being a clear hodge-podge of other films in its genre. Thus, if you are a fan of the Cloverfield franchise, then there’s a chance that you might like this film okay even if it’s nowhere near as good as its two predecessors. And despite this film’s disastrous critical reception, I don’t believe that this will be the end of the Cloverfield franchise. After all, there’s yet another Cloverfield film coming out later this year in October in the form of a WWII-set supernatural horror film called Overlord. Of course, it’ll probably get renamed soon so that it’ll have Cloverfield in the title, as was the case with 10 Cloverfield Lane (originally The Cellar) and this (originally God Particle). But thankfully, it’s been recently announced that it, along with other potential future installments of the franchise, will be theatrical releases instead of what happened here.

Rating: 2.5/5

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)