If there is a section of Disney’s entertainment enterprise that could be considered “uninventive” in its current form, I’d say their live-action films would fit that bill. In an era where the words “remake” and “reboot” are mostly met with lukewarm reception, it’s astounding to see that Disney has been putting so much stock into live-action adaptations of some of their beloved classics. Now I’m well aware that films like 2012’s “John Carter” and 2015’s “Tomorrowland” are main examples of why Disney is now so tied to live-action adaptations of already existing (and easy money-making) properties. I’m also well aware that the live-action remakes of “The Jungle Book” and “Beauty and the Beast” made way too much money for Disney not to keep going with the live-action remake train. Even with that in mind though, it’s odd to think that, in Disney’s mindset, a live-action “Pete’s Dragon” and a live-action, Tim Burton version of “Dumbo” are saner ideas than making a follow-up to 2010’s “TRON: Legacy.”
It was those personal frustrations that led to me thanking this year’s “A Wrinkle in Time” for being a big-budget adaptation of something NOT directly connected to a Disney classic. Based on a young adult novel that was originally published in the 60’s, this science fantasy film has a decent amount riding on it. Not only is it the most “risky” thing Disney has done with their live-action films since their new direction, but it is also the big budget debut of “Selma” and “13th” director Ava DuVernay. She is the first African American, female director to be given a film of this size. Add a cast of well-known actors (including Oprah Winfrey herself) and you have a film that could be helpful, or detrimental, depending on the final product.
The film follows Meg Murry (Storm Reid), a smart delinquent that has a hard time dealing with anything after the disappearance of her father (Chris Pine) four years prior. She has a gifted adopted brother named Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and a scientist mother (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) yet their family dynamic has unsurprisingly been damaged since the father’s disappearance. That all changes when Charles Wallace introduces Meg, and the popular kid at her school Calvin (Levi Miller), to two odd women: Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) and Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling). They introduce the kids to Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), another strange character who says that the fate of the universe is somehow tied to their father’s disappearance and his work on tesseracts. With the kids in tow, the three strange women take them on a good versus evil adventure, “wrinkling” space and time in order to stop the malicious The It and save Dr. Murry.
There is truly only one word to describe both the good and bad elements of this film: weird. The first act of the film is really odd and not in a good way. Certain characters are hilariously over-the-top, the exposition is clunky, the acting is all over the place, all the flashback scenes are unnecessarily handheld, and the story makes very little sense. It even became more perplexing when I realized later on that some of these problems I had seemed intentional by Ava DuVernay. As a fan of DuVernay’s work in “Selma,” that worried me because I wanted to see her talents shine in something that’s far different than what she’s known for. They certainly weren’t being shown in the first act.
Thankfully, the film got a bit better when the weirder and prettier aspects of the concept started to peek through in the second act. The first alien planet they go on is beautiful, doing a great job of mixing the initial photography with post-production work. While the visit to that planet is overall fairly useless, I noticed that some of the first act’s problems with acting and camerawork began to slowly fade away. When the film didn’t have to stay in California, it seemed to be pretty good. Even the weird leaf monster with a cabbage head that flies with the children on its back (If you’ve seen the trailer, you know what I’m talking about) was great in comparison to the robotic acting and oddly close-up cinematography in the first act.
It’s also in the second act where the thematic and emotional elements in the film begin to shine. Meg becomes less rude and sassy as the group proceeds, especially when they go to meet Zach Galifianakis’ Happy Medium. You start to see that sadness, fear, and shame has led her to become the closed-off, angsty teenager we currently see. With the help of her group, she starts to open herself up more as she realizes that she’ll need to be strong in order to save her father. The idea of overcoming your flaws and accepting them in order to grow as a person is a phenomenal lesson, especially when it’s executed well.
This leads to the best part of the film: the last half. As the film reaches its climax, due to narrative circumstances, it starts to focus solely on the children as they attempt to face The It. For some reason, the film’s pacing becomes perfect, the visuals are the best type of weird, and the acting actually has really good moments. There was even a specific scene where I was both impressed by the visuals and emotionally tied to it, causing me to surprisingly cry as Storm Reid goes from bad to great in the span of a little over 90 minutes. It was mind-boggling but in a good way, ending on a solid high note that left me with a sense that I’ll always be conflicted about this film.
In the end, this film certainly has issues. It feels like a case where they had to edit more of the film out than they had initially planned, leading to a final product that is good but not without its fair share of strange issues, odd pacing, and shallow characters. This isn’t a film with one big problem. It’s a collection of small issues that end up building into a film that is enjoyable and emotional but also flawed and disappointing. While I doubt this film will ever give DuVernay a chance to continue adapting the Time Quintet, “A Wrinkle in Time” is an above average Disney film that has enough good and emotional moments to warrant a trip into its science fantasy world in the future.