You'd perhaps hope, wouldn't you, that with a movie about temporal relativity, the attracted audience would be able to arrive at the time printed on their tickets*1. Now obviously that designated time includes a buffer for ads and trailers, but people were still entering the auditorium to watch the 10:50 screening of A Wrinkle In Time at 11:40. That's 23 minutes into the film itself. Why? I sincerely hope that everyone who rocked up after the BBFC card had at least seen the film before, because it makes little enough sense to people watching the whole thing; I can only imagine how the story comes over with the first quarter trimmed off...
Ava Duvernay's take on Madeleine L'Engles 1962 novel has been hotly anticipated for both its classical literary standing and the contemporary social-tweaks applied for our current times. It's the story of introverted 13yr old Meg (Storm Reid), hunting in the time-between-times for her vanished astrophysicist father (Chris Pine), accompanied by her younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and friend Calvin (Levi Miller). On her quest she meets three the wise elders Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling) and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), who hold the key to unleashing Meg's full potential.
So as I was late to this party, I know I won't be the first to say A Wrinkle In Time is all over the place. From an effects-standpoint, it's everything you'd expect (but certainly nothing more). From a plot point-of-view, it feels unfocused*2, and from a character-perspective everything's turned up to 11. Storm Reid gives a fairly solid performance in the lead role, hampered by a script which uses cliché and exposition as punctuation, a burden shared by almost everyone else she shares screen-time with. Mindy Kaling and Oprah Winfrew have studied at the Widow Twanky School Of Dramatic Performance for their parts, while Reese Witherspoon is having the time of her life over-acting with every single line and gesture she's been given. But on the plus side, I never thought I'd see the day where Chris Pine is the most naturalistic presence in a movie, and any director who can get that performance is okay in my book.
Don't get me wrong, there are some great moments in here, but there are far more that made me roll my eyes and wish that a film about scientists was less dismissive of science. As it rolls on, A Wrinkle In Time begins to feel more like a fable about philosophy which, ironically, someone hasn't thought about hard enough. In the first and third acts, the essence could only be more patronising if Ava DuVernay herself was manning the door, ready to hand out milk, cookies and pats on the head.
The main narrative problem could be that while we get plenty of faces on-screen, the villain of the piece is conceptual-evil. Love™ may be universal and occur instinctively within nature, but Actual Evil™ is subjective, so requires sentience and an assertion of malign-will. So there's nobody here for the heroes to actually defeat in a real sense, just a bunch of metaphorical lessons to be learned*3. Oh, and there's also that bit where Space-Winfrey tells our trio how vitally important it is that they stick together on their quest, then the film's finale essentially forgets that Calvin*4 is a character in the story, but they succeed anyway. Proving Space-Winfrey wrong. Way to go.
But y'know what? This isn't aimed at me. Which is fine. DuVernay's heart is in the right place (just about*5), and I've certainly seen less sincere fare aimed at youngsters. I can see what A Wrinkle In Time is aiming at. I mean, I think it flails wildly and misses, but at least it knew there was a target to begin with, and with Hotel Transylvania 3 on the horizon I think it's important we keep that in mind. Ultimately, I suspect the film is about Just Being Yourself™. I can't see any other reason that the makeup department would have waited until Space-Winfrey's grand, closing monologue before leaving her moustache clearly visible.
Inspirational literature or otherwise, A Wrinkle In Time is Interstellar, forced through the Disney meat grinder and served up as a happy-meal.
Exercise caution as appropriate...
Well my instinct would be to say Tomorrowland or John Carter but truth be told, I enjoyed each of those more than A Wrinkle In Time.
*1 Today's audience consisted of lots of parents accompanying young girls, so the marketing push has partially succeeded, at least. The father directly in front of me also fell into this bracket, and spent the ads and trailers reading articles on his phone about petrol prices. Textbook. Although bear in mind that this was the film's third week of release, and by the second it had already been relegated to one screening a day before 11am. That's the same marketing-push limiting its own audience numbers, right there. [ BACK ]
*2 There's a thread laid out in act one where a NASA astronaut has gone missing 36 years to-the-day when Meg's father does likewise, and our story begins four years after that.The synchronicity is dropped in a way which indicates the NASA dude is a pretty important plot-mechanic. Then he's never mentioned again. So well done for that, I guess? [ BACK ]
*3 One of which is that an actual physical human man has been metaphysically imprisoned for four years by a concept, after thinking about stuff too hard - so what kind of message is that sending out? [ BACK ]
*4 And while I'm on, almost every time I saw Levi Miller here, I thought of a young Harrison Ford, either as Solo or Indy. Come on Lucasfilm, he's already on Disney's books, let's make this happen. And while I'm sure Alden Ehrenreich is going to be great as everyone's favourite Corellian pirate, maybe get Anthony Ingruber on the blower for the archaeology flick, yeah? [ BACK ]
*5 Mind you, Storm Reid is credited fourth in the closing montage, after Winfrey, Witherspoon and Kaling. That's not appearance-order, or alphabetical, it's just seems to be putting the kid further down the list, and after the annoying space-fairies. The hell? This is entirely Reid's film - and what kind of message is that sending out? [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Pan (3D)
Cert: PG / 111 mins / Dir. Joe Wright / Trailer
Did you know that "James Hook" is an anagram of "Han Solo"? Well according to Garrett Hedlund, it is. In fact, there's so much of the Corellian smuggler in his portrayal of Hook that there's barely room to top it up with Indiana Jones; to the point where Hedlund's outfit may as well consist of a t-shirt featuring a head-shot of Harrison Ford. But wait, I'm ahead of myself…
And so, director Joe Wright firmly grasps the wheel of the Warner Bros. ship, bound for a prequel/origins-tale of Peter Pan. Beginning during the Second World War*1, the story follows young orphan Peter as he's abducted by flying clown-pirates and taken to Neverland to mine for crystallised Fairy-Dust™, a substance which serves as the elixir of life to the megalomaniacal pirate overlord, Blackbeard. All the while, hints of Peter's lineage and glimpses of his destiny are revealed, as the journey introduces the friends and foes which will define his life to come.
First things first, Pan looks fantastic*2, and the action set-pieces of the film are executed magnificently. Levi Miller carries the weight of the title-role easily and Rooney Mara is great as warrior-princess, Tiger Lily, his accomplished and intriguing counterpart in Neverland. But it's Hugh Jackman who appears to be having the most fun as Blackbeard, bringing the pompous-camp to the film in full-force, like a matter-transporter mashup of Frank N. Furter and Emperor Palpatine (with the Darth Vader rejuvenation chamber, but I'll get on to that). There's also a spot of product-placement for Fray Bentos, which is something you won't see in too many movies this year. Outstanding work.
The film's stumbling blocks are twofold, however. Most noticeably that Pan borrows far too heavily from other action/adventure/fantasy movies, even if it is a Hero's Journey story. Now my brain is always looking for visual nods to the Galaxy Far, Far Away anyway, but I swear that so many of Pan's beats come from Star Wars that it's barely got time for the Pirates Of The Caribbean tropes it wants to employ. It's honestly no exaggeration to say that either by character archetypes, recurring themes and plot points, or just the action sequences themselves, I was reminded of Star Wars every two-to-three minutes. And it certainly didn't make me enjoy Pan any less, but I don't even get that many Star Wars references when I'm watching Star Wars.
More disconcertingly, the screenplay seems to ignore the central themes of the established Peter Pan mythos, reasoning that they just haven't occurred yet so how can they be important? The film goes a long way to establish the How of the classic story that it ends up leaving the Why to future instalments*3 of this particular strand. The original Peter is a tragic figure who, although helping others through acts of heroism, petulantly refuses to grow up and adapt. And how do you develop a character who by their very definition resists change and urges their contemporaries to follow suit? None of these issues are even hinted at in Pan, meaning sequels to this film will either get a hell of a lot darker, or will just ignore the original subtext completely.
Visually, Joe Wright's entry to the canon is a finely executed fantasy adventure movie, but thematically its reach exceeds its grasp, somewhat. There are slightly too many knowing, post-modern winks for the film to be the classical adventure it aspires to, but Wright also relies too heavily on good old-fashioned derring do for this to be a fresh take on the mythos.
In terms of sheer entertainment however, this film is a notable success.
While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call Pan the cinematic equivalent of fast-food, it's certainly a meal which has been prepared by looking at the menus of other restaurants…
For the casual audience, yes. Although fans of J.M. Barrie may want to wait for the home-release, to save them being thrown out of the cinema for yelling "You're doing that WRONG!" during the performance…
You'll lose a lot of the visual impact watching this at home, but it'll be a one to buy and watch back-to-back with other adaptations of the mythos, if only for contrast, not comparison..
Levi Miller's performance is occasionally heavy on the "child actor" front, but he handles the part very well and I look forward to seeing him in future roles. Or even just future-takes on this one.
Mythologically/thematically? Not particularly.
Nope.
Not that I heard, but I'd be amazed if there isn't one buried somewhere.
In addition to my opening snark above, Pan features Garett Hedlund, who appeared in Inside Llewyn Davis along with Oscar 'Poe Dameron Isaac and Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver.
*1 In a move which may well boil the piss of continuity-hounds everywhere. My knowledge of the Peter Pan story itself is fuzzy admittedly, but I was under the impression it's set about forty years before this movie in late-Victorian times, and it's also heavily implied that Peter knew Wendy's mother when she was a little girl. Now, the film does establish that Neverland is dimensionally set aside from Earth-time, and that there are children 'from all places and times' there. And yet, I didn't notice anyone asking where all the Playstations are, or making jokes about Kim Kardashian. So if the film eventually segues into Peter Pan as is implied by the opening narration, you'll have a boy from one decade bringing a child from an earlier one into a timeless realm which nevertheless has its own chronological continuity, whilst also knowing her mother from a time earlier still, when he took her to the same place after the events of the Pan film. A place where they sing a capella Nirvana and Ramones songs (no, seriously). Frankly, it's a space-time continuum disaster waiting to happen. But not to worry; thematically, the film has far bigger issues which it's completely ignoring ;)
*2 Although for some reason the animation of the mermaids looks utterly dreadful. Like someone's printed a picture of Cara Delevingne's face onto a sheet and waved it about underwater...
*3 That's not me being cynical, by the way. This film is definitively written as the opening-chapter of a series, rather than a one-off standalone prequel. Besides, when was the last time you watched a 21st century family adventure movie which wasn't geared up for sequels?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
