davidgouldthorpe

The movie starts interestingly enough, and the premise is really clever. But the rest of the movie just doesn't carry it. It talks about important events instead of actually letting us see them. It tells us that this and that person have an important deep bond, but we don't get any chemistry. The biggest developments in the plot only happen off-screen.

Directing just flat-out didn't work. The acting felt too muted, especially in scenes that called for more emotion, while the camera work made it so difficult to see what was on the screen.

I do have to say that there was a lot of clever writing with how the resistance pieces together their plan, and the espionage was mildly intriguing. But when new characters get brought in every few minutes, it's hard to really invest yourself in anything going on when you hardly know anyone.

Finally, a question I've already seen asked around: why aliens? This movie would be virtually identical if this was Nazi-occupied America, or a newly minted megacorporate state. There's hardly any science-fiction present in the movie. It's 2028, and alien contact occurred nine years ago. Police and special ops haven't received any upgrades to their equipment to keep the order? There's nothing to suggest that aliens inhabit this universe except for the fact we're reminded every ten minutes or so.

I had been really anticipating this movie, but I ultimately came away disappointed.

Mackenzie Foy tries her hardest here, and I enjoyed the one scene with Misty Copeland on stage. However, dialogue and story is beyond muddled. Internal logic makes no sense. Another fairy tale is now an edgy political commentary and an "epic war". World feels confined and claustrophobic. A bunch of tired Disney cliches surface here, like moping about dead mothers and Chosen One Princess. They even have a twist villain, because that's so beloved.

It's cynical and unpleasant. Too dull and scary for kids, too dumb for adults. If you're looking for the Nutcracker you won't find it here. Just go to the actual ballet, or watch the first Narnia movie

A Wrinkle In Time is a children's book by Madeleine L'Engle that blends science-fiction and fantasy. It's also remarkable for featuring a female protagonist with a majority-female supporting cast all the way back in 1962. It follows Meg Murry on a journey across the cosmos to rescue her father. The book's gentle thrills and spiritual themes have made it loved by many, including by myself. It's also quite surreal, dealing in abstracts and ambiguous descriptions. As a result it has long been considered "unfilmable." That word has never stopped filmmakers before though! So, now we get a crack at it directed by Ava DuVernay, with screenplay by Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell. How did they do? Let's take a look and see...

A Wrinkle In Time opens with Meg, played by Storm Reid, remembering her father (Chris Pine). He disappeared four years ago, leaving no trace. She's ended up troubled at school, but while people around her have accepted that he's gone, Meg refuses to give up her hope. Her hope is rewarded when her younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) brings home a friend. This friend is a woman who calls herself Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon). She's joined by Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling) and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey). She informs the kids that their father is, in fact, alive. But, he will need their help to escape the clutches of a cruel force known as the Darkness. Meg and Charles Wallace thus have to venture out, joined by Meg's friend Calvin (Levi Miller), to save him.

So first I want to praise the movie's strengths. Nowhere is it stronger than in the visuals. A Wrinkle in Time boasts delightful scenery, and looks wonderful at every angle. The effects used for the tesseracts - pathways that allow instant travel around the cosmos - look fun and surreal. I found myself especially impressed by the planet Uriel, a utopian garden world with soaring mountains and lush plant life. Between the visual artists, costuming, and make-up, a lot of people deserve to feel proud of their work here...

Read the rest at https://www.gouldenbean.com/wrinkle-in-time-review

I tried. I really did. I went in with an open mind. "This could still be like The Lego Movie," I told myself. "Just give it a chance."

Turns out we were right all along.

The Emoji Movie, from Sony Pictures Animation, was written and directed by Anthony Leondis. Eric Siegel and Mike White joined as co-writers. To these men I ask, what compelled you to birth this? The Emoji Movie is a grating movie. It gives us characters flatter than actual emojis, and replaces world-building with ads!

The movie opens at a schoolyard where human teenager, Alex (Jake T. Austin), receives a text from a girl he has a crush on. As he tries to formulate a reply, we zoom in to his phone to see the city of Textopolis. In this world, each emoji has to be their one "thing" their whole life. Crying emojis need to always be sad, laughing emojis need to always be happy, and so on. We're then introduced to Gene, voiced by T.J. Miller, who's supposed to be a "Meh" emoji. The problem is, he doesn't seem able to control his expressions, and his first day on the job he messes up everything. The head of the texting department, Smiler (Maya Rudolph), holds a meeting where it's decided he should be deleted. Gene then tries to escape, running into Hi-5 (James Corden). Together, they decide to find a famous hacker named Jailbreak. (Anna Faris) She can take them to the Internet and reprogram Gene's code to make him normal again. It's a race against time though, because if it's not fixed, then Alex will erase his phone.

So, I do want to start with what I did like about the movie. The animators did their jobs well. When Textopolis is introduced, there's a lot going on in the background. Movements look good and smooth enough. The designs leave much to be desired though. Most of the background characters are just their respective emojis with little dot eyes and arms and legs attached. For what they were given to work with though, the animators did a good job at capturing movement. I also found a couple of good gags. The old-fashioned emoticons (like ":)") were depicted as the elderly citizens of the world, which I found clever. Other than that… there was little else.

Now, for what you probably came here for. To start from the top: the setup of this entire movie is ridiculous! Apparently, it all starts when a human selects an emoji from their touchscreen. The order is sent down to a massive complex where there's a huge finger-shaped scanner. All the emoji citizens line up in their little boxes. If they are chosen, the scanner then takes a snapshot of them. That picture is then sent up to appear in the text box. It's such a round-about way to send emojis!

There's also the world they live in. Gene has two parents, and it is revealed in the movie that he inherited his multi-facial malfunction from his father who had hidden it all these years. Does that mean emojis have children? It's Gene's first day on the job. Does that mean his father is retiring? Do emojis age and then die? Did Gene have to qualify for the job? There's so little explanation here that it leaves me more confused than anything else.

And then there's the world outside Textopolis. We peek into different apps where activity is going on. When Gene and his allies jump into them to do stuff though, the app suddenly opens on Alex's phone causing disruptions. But why did the other apps humming with activity not cause any disruptions? Also, they say they have to go through different apps to reach their destination. It very clearly shows, though, that they can simply walk around them! Sure, you could say the anti-virus robots would get them… but the robots find them inside the apps anyways. Just save time and make a break for it!

Now, getting down into the "characters". First of all, the dialogue in the movie is badly written and badly delivered. No high schooler actually says to another, "Play it cool, just send her an emoji." The poor delivery only trims any potential impact the decent lines have. As for the characters themselves, they're all really bland. Gene says he wants to fit in, but he can't due to his varied expressions. Later in the movie though, it shows that he can change them just fine! Hi-5 is flat-out obnoxious: think Animal House-style frat bro.

And then there's Jailbreak. T.J. Miller has stated before that he believes this movie sends "a feminist agenda, but not in a preachy way." Well, he's wrong on both counts. Of the few "feminist" things Jailbreak says, they're so out-of-place that they come across as annoying. For example, as she explains the way to the cloud, Gene ends up finishing her sentence in excitement. She immediately reprimands him, saying "Men are always taking credit for women's ideas!" Now that's a pretty solid point, but… he was just excited about what she was saying. He didn't try to steal her idea at all.

Not to mention, after being built up to be a "strong female character"... she ends up falling in love with Gene. She abandons her dream to be free in the cloud so she can come back home and be his princess, complete with a princess costume. For a movie touted to have such feminist ideas, I don't see very many here.

Which brings me to the romances...

~TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH. READ THE WHOLE REVIEW ON GOULDTHORPECREATES.TUMBLR.COM~