A Wrinkle in Time

“A Wrinkle in Time” was first published in 1962. That’s a long gestation period for a novel to find its way to the silver screen, but perhaps the digital and visual effects have finally caught up with Madeleine L’Engle’s epically visionary story. I remember struggling to read it when I was young; it was a bit too abstract, and I couldn’t quite follow the thematic nuances that the author was conveying in deep, sometimes allegorical layers.

Middle schooler Meg (Storm Reid) and her brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), are adjusting to life without their brilliant scientist father, Mr. Murray (Chris Pine), who mysteriously vanished four years prior. Their grieving is met with an almost cruel dismissal by everyone they encounter, leading them to close themselves off from relationships. Never giving up hope of a reunion, the enigmatic and precocious Charles Wallace conjures the visitation by three transcendental cosmic beings; Ms. Who (Mindy Kaling), Ms. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), and Ms. Which (Oprah Winfrey). With their tagalong friend, Calvin (Levi Miller), the three children embark on a fantastic journey to find their estranged father, where space and time are somehow both ubiquitous and non-existent.

At the corner of science and fantasy, “A Wrinkle in Time” is quite a trip. Never delving too deeply into the science (it is Disney after all), it is more a call to arms by a female director and an almost exclusively female cast to encroach on the traditionally male-dominated market. Disney has always been a bit ahead of the curve in terms of female protagonists, and Storm Reid holds her own surrounded by veteran actors and a media titan. I applaud the movement in Hollywood, which was clearly prevalent in the recent “Annihilation” as well (fantastic film by the way). We are witnessing the dismantling of a patriarchal industry, and it’s exciting to see what’s on the horizon.

Director Ana DuVernay (“Selma”) enlists writer Jennifer Lee (“Frozen”) to bring to life in a very feminist version of the novel, and it works to an extent. I appreciated the bold liberty taken in modifying aspects of the story (Meg’s two twin brothers are removed entirely) but the story doesn’t seem to move in a very traditional fashion. There are simply too many sequences that just take the audience to the next beautiful scene without much thought of context or reasoning. The narrative moves through stages of the hero’s journey without much fanfare or sense, but the imagery is stunning and lighthearted. By the time the climax nears however, there is a marked shift in tone, which I found to be a bit extreme in contrast to my expectations. It left the playful mood behind and jumped into the deep end of a dark, ominous nightmare.

Too scary for PG, and too childish for PG-13, I’m afraid the film finds itself in the twilight zone of demographic targeting. It’s a kid’s movie with far too much bite, but it is decidedly still a kid’s movie. For that, I had a hard time enjoying the ending. I can’t recall exactly how closely the film followed the book’s narrative, but it lacked the comfort of any sort of familiarity for certain. I’m sure it will do well at the box office with a modest $100 million budget and a strong marketing campaign, but I have to say I was less than thrilled with the outcome.

“A Wrinkle in Time” is yet another classic young adult book riding the coattails of its reputation in novelization form. You might enjoy the film if you’re a child; wait, you’ll be frightened by the ending. You won’t quite enjoy it if you read the book when you were a child yourself and seeking some nostalgia either. Maybe there is a sweet spot, like if you are a 12-14-year-old advanced reader? Otherwise it’s fine to miss this one. 5/10.

Red Sparrow

The anticipated Russian thriller reuniting Jennifer Lawrence with director Francis Lawrence (no relation) was bumped from the primo Oscar release timeframe of late November to early March, which always creates a bit of apprehension about the studio confidence. Lawrence has been out of the spotlight recently, appearing in last October’s “Mother!” which drew critical ire, but I actually really enjoyed the allegory, as abstract as it was.

Lawrence plays Domenica, a young ballerina who is forced into a deep cover spy program when a leg injury shatters her career. The program quickly transforms her into a “sparrow” or a vamp who uses sexuality to gain trust and information. She forms a bond with CIA operative Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), but there is very little cat-and-mouse as they simply don’t have any chemistry and there is absolutely no mystery or intrigue to their relationship. As she falls deeper in the spy game rabbit hole, the danger becomes real and it isn’t until the lackluster final scene that we truly understand her real motives.

I was a bit stunned by the blatantly sexualized characterization of one of Hollywood’s hottest young starlets with an already impressive resume under her belt. At this point in her career, she has her pick of projects, so this one seemed a bit counter-intuitive. There is a confused message of feminism and male domination rolled up in a cliché ball of pretentious wannabe sophistication. It is cliché, it is not sophisticated.

The story fumbles with a couple of severely neglected plot points, and predictable linear progression while taking far too long. By the time the inevitable twist arrives, the audience is far too bored to appreciate the attempt at cinematic novelty. Simply put, the story is weak and lacks originality.

It lacks the punch of last year’s “Atomic Blonde” while trying desperately to land the tone of 2007’s fantastic “Eastern Promises.” There is certainly a whiff of “Basic Instinct” not just in the shocking gratuitous nudity, but in the early 90’s quality of filmmaking. That’s not to say there’s anything terribly offensive about the direction or cinematography, but the film could have done much, much better (as could have J-Law).

The one bright spot for me was Joel Edgerton’s Nate Nash. The character lacks any depth, but his attitude and carefree demeanor somehow works. He’s cool, confident, and plays a spy far more effectively than Lawrence’s Domenica, which is disappointing. The supporting characters played by Matthias Schoenaerts, Charlotte Rampling, Ciaran Hinds, and Jeremy Irons are all emotionless and, well, Russian, but there is nothing that stands out by any of their performances, which is a surprising shame since they are all very accomplished actors.

Amidst the Russian collusion hype and nuclear armament, the idea of espionage with our Cold War rival has an eerie verisimilitude, but this particular story lacks any teeth. There is no reason to care about the characters or the events, and for that I fault the screenwriter, Justin Haythe (“Revolutionary Road,” “The Lone Ranger”). Francis Lawrence is to blame for allowing the film to degenerate to the extent it did, but I imagine that it seemed like a good idea at the time.

With an A-list star on full display (literally), I expected more (and less) out of Jennifer Lawrence. She is talented and attractive, but her Russian accent leaves much to be desired. The film is colder than Siberia, and is simply not enjoyable, even if you try. 4/10.