Moana: A Brief Review!

There are few movies that strike a chord within me, especially in Disney movies, in such a way that I am happy to live on this planet. Okay, that's a strange statement, yes. First, it's not that I don't love Disney movies, but after watching Moana, I felt a surge of pride that the stories they are telling are worthy to tell.

Maui and Moana

See I grew up with Disney movies. There were the ones that I was constantly watching, like Robin Hood, The Jungle Book, Dumbo, and Cinderella. These are the stories of my youth, but they were the most powerful told stories. This isn't a slam against the animators on these movies. They were good movies, but there came a time when you wanted something powerful. It wasn't until Beauty and the Beast, that came out in 1991, that I saw Disney trying to tell stories with a purpose. The Little Mermaid was a fantastic movie and is the beginning of what many have dubbed 'The Disney Renaissance', but it wasn't until Beauty and the Beast that something sparked.

Not every modern Disney sparks my soul and promotes strong feminine roll models, or tell a thrilling and/or beauty story, but recently Disney has found it's stride. Brave, a story about a strong willed girl and her mother and finding yourself (not really a love story), Frozen, a story about sisterly love more than romantic love, and finding yourself, and now, Moana, a story of finding your place and not falling into the rolls that have been carved out for us, thus, finding yourself. These are stories that I love, and that I want my nieces and all children to have access to. They are also becoming strong contenders to be called the new classics (at least in my universe).

In the last few years there has been more stories featuring stories and legends from different cultures. I think that is great! The Grimm's fairy tales, of olden days are find, but that it is important to see the story that shape ALL of us. This is a main reason that Moana has become my new favourite story.

Moana, the stories of a pacific islander girl, who challenges her world and defies the rules by traveling across the barrier reef, searching for Maui, the demi-god who stole the heart of Tafiti (the mother goddess that created all of the lands of the ocean), and therefore began to tear the world apart. Moana, has to brave the dangers of the open sea and those within herself to reunite Tafiti with her heart. Kinda a dual life lesson there, eh Disney?

And then you have music written by Lin Manuel Miranda, the creator of Hamilton, a American Musical. Music in a movie can make a story more profound, and the song, We Know the Way, is about as profound as you can get, telling the story of Moana's heritage and her peoples travels to discover new lands; and there's How Far I'll Go, sung by Moana, yearning for something more, feeling just a little out of place, much is the way that Belle (Reprise) calls out Belle's desire for something greater.

How Far I'll Go

I've been standing at the edge of the water

Long as I can remember

Never really knowing why

I wish I could be the perfect daughter

But I come back to the water

No matter how hard I try...

I can talk about each of these songs and great length, but the point is that the songwriters knew what they were doing in building a story with music and words, from the love of a Gramma Tala to her granddaughter, and your pride within yourself, Moana to her people. Even the Shiny song, with the David Bowie-esque Crab pulls at your core. Although, it is less about personal growth and just a bad ass song.

Moana is a worthy addition to the Disney pantheon, and is definitely NOT A PRINCESS! She is a girl, designed to look like a girl, and voiced/sung by an ACTUAL 16 year old Hawaiian teenager. There are so many things that Disney got right. Also, Hei-Hei the chicken is voiced by Alan Tudyk (from Firefly). Hear the fan girl/fan boy squeeing (you're welcome, Sara)!!

If you get a chance to see Moana, please do. It is worth the watch!

Thoughts on The Muppets. What now?!?!

I've been going around and around what to write about this. I didn't want to rant or whine about The Muppets cancellation. It is true that I was bummed when I saw the headlines, and even more bummed as time passed, but there's more to it.

It was exciting to see the Muppets in prime-time. Now Muppet fan are left disappointed, confused, and  feeling like there might never be Muppet based show in prime-time, after all Muppets Tonight was also only ran 10 episodes (season 1) and later all 22 on Disney (season 2) in the late 90's. And then there was The Jim Henson Hour in 1989 where only 9 out of 12 episodes aired. There were some who were hoping that The Muppets would break the prime-time curse and go a second season. This is why many Muppet fans were sadden by the cancellation, including me. For my part I was just happy to see the Muppets being funny and relevant again.

See, Dear Readers, I can be sad that the ABC Network chose not to renew The Muppets, leaving us with a muppet-less prime time, but I can also think about the possibilities for the Muppets in the future. There will more opportunities I am sure of it, maybe a movie or more internet based Muppets via YouTube. I want to focus on the positive.

First, I can say that if Jim Henson was still alive he would have loved the new show. He always talked (in his biography by Brian Jay Jones) that he wanted the Muppets to be for adults. He didn't want to be labeled as children's performer. As an experimental film maker and comedic genius with puppets Jim was always thinking outside the box. I thinks that's a good sign that the show would have worked. Also, after thoughtful repose, I think that to trust that only one season is a mark of a show is rather lofty ideals from ABC. Did you know, Dear Readers, that in the first season of The Muppet Show, Bernie Brillstein, Jim's agent, he asked favours of friends for the first few guest stars.

Not all great shows, actors, concepts are breakout hits.

Now this leaves Muppet fans a little disillusioned about what will be next for a favourite monster, frogs, bears, pigs, and whatevers. There are those, at least from those I have talked to about The Muppets cancellation, who didn't like the show. It wasn't their flavour, or not kid -friendly enough, or even they weren't that into the Muppets. While others are sitting on their beds, sofa, and dinner room tables wondering how could the Muppets not succeed. I will always wonder myself. Wondering if Netflix would consider picking them up (Thanks Tough Pigs for the suggestion. *Hint Hint Netflix*), of course I wonder at the fate of the Muppets too. Being owned by Disney, think about this, Dear Readers, if Disney can bring back the Star Wars franchise from the brink, then maybe Disney can work magic with Kermit, Piggy, Gonzo, Pepe, and Uncle Deadly.

Now we wait!

Until then, consider that maybe Uncle Deadly is still out there with little Gloria Estefan and Sam the Eagle is trying to woo Janice (yeah, that is a thing you can't unsee). So, I will leave this right here....palate cleanser....

Movie Review: Zootopia

I have seen more movies this year, and its odd, but am glad I am making an effort to watch more movies. There are a number of really good movies that have come out recently. Still, I can be very selective of what I watch. I will admit that I am a bit behind on my Disney movies, still haven't watched Tarzan or Princess and the Frog.

Anyway, Dear Readers, I went to see Zootopia this past weekend.

First thing, don't go see a seven o'clock showing if you don't like a theatre filled with kids. 'Twas a bit noisy, but I digress.Yet I think the adult laughed harder at the humour in the movie.

Second, Disney can actually tell a story, one with purpose and relevance. This is something that I think gets lost in some of the movies (Disney and non-Disney alike) now-a-days.

Okay, with that aside, Zootopia wasn't what I was expecting. I really wasn't sure what to expect actually. The movie opens on a school pageant showcasing the history of Zootopia with Judy Hops, future Bunny Cop. Not something that creatures of this world expect (insert prejudices about bunnies and foxes here). Bunnies are carrot farmers, usually, but Judy plans to defy all the conventions and becomes a police officer. After becoming valedictorian of her class at Zootopia's police academy, she is placed in city center as a meter maid. Not one to give up she make her ticket quota and weasels her way onto a missing mammal case (looking for Emmett Otterton, the irony of this was NOT lost on me). She enlists the aid of a fox, Nick Wilde and adventure abounds in the search for the missing mammals.

What I was expecting was nothing like the richly developed world that Disney created. Its a real world, with subtleties of real problems that animals face and with its various cultures and personalities, and even prejudices portrayed. Yes, Zootopia has prejudices!

It was everything I could hope for in a KIDS MOVIE; a story for the children and a story for the adult, that even includes lessons that can be taught and learned in our own world. Learning to look past what we see in other people, bunnies, foxes, and sheep. Learning to come together to make the world a better place. Seeing a world with issues and meaty concepts that rise up, and rise up they did, with characters that could actually make that world a better place. It gave me something to consider when I think of my own world, my own views of the people that live on planet earth.

Not to get too deep, but really it was surprising and delightful to see that people really do care about the world. Enough so that they will make a statement to educate children that it is okay to be different. Kudos!

Also, SLOTHS + DMV = Awesome!! Enough said....

I also like to point out the eclectic casting from Idris Elba, Jason Bateman, Alan Tudyk, Octavia Spencer, and Shakira to name a few. If you get a chance to watch this movie then you should.

Retro Vision: The Reluctant Dragon

Continuing with my viewing of the Disney Mini-Classics, I am featuring, "The Reluctant Dragon". A cute 18 minute short about a dragon that prefers poetry and picnics to fighting. I am a little less familiar with this one, than say, "Mickey and the Beanstalk", "The Prince and the Pauper", "Donald in Mathmagic Land", or "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". (I am planning on doing subsequent blogs on some of these others.)

"The Reluctant Dragon" is one that cute and quirky all rolled into one. Loosely based on the earlier story of St. George and the Dragon, and directly adapted from the book written by Kenneth Grahame in 1898, the story tells of a dragon that is seen in the nearby country-side and thought to be terrorizing the villagers. A young boy, whose was warned by his father (a Shepard) and well versed in the lore of knights and dragon goes to investigate. He finds a dragon who loves poetry, playing his flute with birds, and drinking tea. In his aim to save the peace loving (reluctant) dragon the boy runs to town only to finds that a Sir Giles is going to fight and kill the dragon. 

The story of St. George and the Dragon goes like this; a dragon is menacing a village in Libya, the villagers are giving it sheep as appeasement and later children. When the rulers daughter is next to be sacrificed, along comes St. George. He battles a Dragon and rescues the daughter after the town of 'Silene' agrees to convert to Christianity. More on St. George here: Royal Society of St. George.

Back to the cartoon; he, the boy tries to warn the dragon and then persuades Sir Giles to come see the dragon for myself. Where upon the dragon and Sir Giles recite poetry to each other over a picnic. This has to be a favourite part and most likely a memorable part: Ode to a Little Upside Down Cake. After discussion Giles and the Dragon decide to stage a mock battle, even after the dragon realizes the he now has to fight. He is stricken with stage fright and can only be provoke to create flame after the boy calls him a "Punk Poet". The resulting battle ends in a dramatic "death" of the dragon and the following conclusion with Giles bringing the dragon to town and "reforming" him from "never rampaging throughout the country side again".  Note: you cannot find the Reluctant Dragon on youtube, except in one of my local Salvation Army stores. You can also find VHS copies of all the Disney Mini Classics cheaply on eBay or if you are diligent going to Salvo Stores, Flea Markets, or Yard Sales. 

Streaming Netflix has "The Reluctant Dragon" as a full movie. Produced in 1941 by the Disney Studios, it features a tour of the studios, a couple of animated shorts, and ending with the the movie of "The Reluctant Dragon". It's an interesting watch seeing bits of the studio, seeing the magic of the animated movies; cartoon drawing, the voice actors (Donald Duck and Clara Cluck), sound effects, camera work (with Donald Duck), colour and painting (with Bambi), story boarding, and the like. I'd say check it out if you get a chance.

As a dragon lover, I find "The Reluctant Dragon" charming, partly because of the dragon , but also because he loves poetry and is not the standard fire breathing monster from fairy tales. It's very silly thing, but a delightful and classic thing. Dragons are actually fond of tea, doncha know?

Morris and Balsam

The bonus on the VHS tape in the short "Morris the Midget Moose", which I have never seen before, but is a cute story about a rather small moose (Morris) with large antlers and a regular sized moose with small antlers (Balsam) and how they teamed up to challenge the reigning moose leader. A good story about teamwork and friendship.

Dear Readers, I have rather enjoyed many of these Disney shorts and cartoons from this time period (the 1940-50's era). They are rather fun stories, told in a simple way. Taking different stories from books and legends, or even creating new stories to be told in a new way, and since Technicolor was becoming a BIG thing, it expanded the scope of storytelling through moving pictures. If you haven't seen any of these, you should check them out and if you have, then re-watch them (Donald in Mathmagic Land, Mickey and the Beanstalk, and Lambert the Sheepish Lion. They are still good as they were when you were a kid, Dear Readers.

Retro Vision: Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land

Anyone growing between the 1960's and at LEAST the 1980's most likely saw "Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land". I remember going one of the FIRST video rental places in Fredonia in the 1980's, outside of the Barker Library, "Video Unlimited". Made in June of 1959 and was featured with the movie release of "Darby O' Gill and the Little People" and nominated for an Academy Award: Best Documentary - Short Subjects. It features the voices of Clarence Nash as Donald and Paul Frees as The Spirit of Adventure (known as Boris Badenov on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show). It was pretty popular viewing in schools (I wonder why?).

I remember watching this A LOT as a kid. I was maybe a bit obsessed with the older Disney cartoon and shorts: The Reluctant Dragon, Lambert the Sheepish Lion, The Prince and the Pauper, and Mickey and the Beanstalk to mention a few. I think I was fascinated by the golden segment and the golden rectangle being featured in art and nature. As a fan of all things ancient Greek, I was wowed.

Geometry was one division of math that I understood, somewhat. And after my reviewing of this special, I was able to understand what the Greeks meant by the Golden Segment (Ratio). A length of a segment that made up the most perfect shape (in their minds), the Gold rectangle. Which was used by the ancient Greeks in art and architecture. Then later in modern paintings. It's kinda neat to see how simple shape are broken down into the structures of our world; in the spirals of shells and pine cones, the pentagon of flowers and starfish; and the pentagrams that features the Golden Segment (Ratio) and the Golden Rectangle. ]

I am no math person and to try to put into words things mathematical, I get lost, but these pictures show what I mean to say.

Golden Rectangle

Golden Rectangle depicting the Spiral

Golden Rectangle are all over Greek Architecture

Golden Rectangles are in Space too!!

Golden Rectangle in Art!

 And also in nature! It makes me appreciate the beauty of the world and the beauty if math. I still rather dislike trigonometry, but that is me. Math is beautiful!

Disney taught me how to appreciate math, music, art, and structure. Heck! Disney taught me how to play 3 cushion billiards. I prefer playing pool, but I am now very familiar with the rules and concept of 3 cushion billiards.

Finding the Golden Segment

Dear Readers, "Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land" is a nice introduction to higher math concepts for both kids and adults. Thankfully you can find in on VHS (at Salvation Army stores and Flea Markets and also on youtube. It's a fun little trip down memory lane. Even with Donald pointing out the square roots of the trees in "Mathmagic Land". And the art is pretty cool too! I do love a good fantasy realm, even if it contains: number falls, square roots, and pi creatures.

Bridge to Terabithia: Book vs. Movie

I wanted to hate this movie. I was really ready to note every flaw, every incorrect detail that the screenwriter wrote (son of the actually author), but I couldn’t. Seriously, I couldn’t. I cannot hate this movie. And honestly, I wouldn’t want to.

It’s a good enough adaptation to strand with or without the novel. The greatest crime is that it is way more Disneified than the novel.

Honestly, what did I expect from a Disney movie? Probably what I hate most about Disney and their movies. The saccharine sweet story plot? The not really defined characters? Or maybe, the addition of additional material unrelated? It’s true that all three thoughts ran through my head. Truth time, I couldn’t see anything but a relatively good kid’s movie, with a pretty awesome story and even good lesson attached to it.

Oh, there are things that I really hate, such as the attempt to pull the story into the 2000’s, when the original story is set in the 1970’s. I find that many film adaptations have forced modernization of the story, Terabithia is not a stranger to this. The biggest case of this is when the teacher tells the class that the use of electronic devises will not be tolerated. It could have been dropped and none would have noticed.

But as a whole, the movie is really very similar to the book. There are the standard items that got altered and things were added. Something that occurred to me during the writing of this blog is that a novel (in the general sense) does well with,  more often descriptions and scene setting; where movies tend to rely on action to move the plot, although dialogue is equally as important.

After re-reading the novel, I discovered that much of the story that was changed for the movie was changed

because it wouldn’t work in the style of a motion picture. The opening scene of Jess waking up to run in the morning in the book as a lot of subtext and internal monologue that doesn’t always lend well to a movie, while in the movie it’s more of a non-dialogue montage of Jess’s morning ritual. Both versions are valid, I may prefer the novel, but at least with this movie I can understand the motive behind the scene.

What I love about the book is the raw gritty feeling of the characters. They feel like real people, and as the author based the lead characters on her son and his friend, you can imagine Jess and Leslie as real people, even the bullies in Lark Creek are real Janice Avery and Gary Fulcher. It’s that realism that draws me into the world of Lark Creek and Terabithia. it makes me feel like I am actually there.

Terabithia in the movie is needs to be obvious, as it is through their imaginations are what fuel their reactions to their own worlds. It’s basically their defense mechanism to how they deal with their world filled with Janice Averys, Gary Fulchers, and Mrs. Myers. How often have we as children had an imaginary friend and make believe land that allowed us to be free, to sort through our problems? I know I did. Stylistically, Terabithia mirrored Lark Creek in the same way. That made me closer to the characters, in a greater way than the book had. Not a bad representation.

Not to say that Disney and David Paterson got it all right. There was the change in the dynamic between Leslie and her parents. She much more connected to Judy and Bill (as she calls them) in the book (and it’s Bill who is fixing up the house with the help of Leslie), where the movie forces the family to suddenly be close during the Golden Room painting. It feels much too Disney and a bit distracting. It’s like putting that scene into the Disney machine and cranking the crank and out pops a saccharine scene of familial bonding.

Or making the father work at the hardware store, instead of driving all the way to Washington for work. It feels less right. Maybe I am too accustomed to the original story, but when we see the struggle of his father leaving early everyday and returning late at night, it packs more of a punch that they are struggling.

I do love that the Twinkie scene with May Belle (Jess’s little 6 year old sister) and is mostly word for word, action for action. That makes me happy. It a crucial scene, when Janice Avery is about to get her comeuppance. Or when Leslie asks to go to church and May Belle says, “Don’t God damn you to hell if you don’t believe in the Bible?” The actress playing May Belle says it with such conviction; it gives me a warm feeling of damnation. It plays nearly the same it either version and it’s just a really touching moment in both versions.

Even with the death of Leslie (crying as I typed this), you can tell that both the book and the movie were a labour of love, handled with care, and treated with the right amount of respect that a Queen of Terabithia should be treated with. It is truly an awesome scene to read and watch, both are poignant in their own ways. The book simply because the words just feel right, and the movie, because not everyone can treat death in a movie with that kind of respect.

And, honestly, the acting is really pretty good too I can believe, even if they age some of the character a bit more. Robert Patrick (T-1000 from T-2: Judgment Day) play a great father and AnnaSophia Robb really makes Leslie stand out, although her Leslie at times feels a little more obsessed with Terabithia than the book Leslie. Zooey DeChanel is the perfect fit for Miss Edmunds, the hippie music teacher and it utilizes her guitar and singing skills perfectly.

But over all a very pleasant adaptation.

Which would I honestly prefer? I am not sure I can pin it down, as both are equally good. I will always like the novel just a tad bit more (it’s the literary geek in me). I recommend anyone to read it, it is a beautiful read. For the movie, I’ll give it a 8 out of 10.

Up next: "The Wizard of Oz"

A Wrinkle in Time: Book vs. Movie

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. After all, “A Wrinkle in Time” is one of favourite young adult fiction/science fiction-fantasy novels ever. I first read it in 8^th (or 7th) grade in English. It was one of those books that gave me a warm feeling of happy when I read it, even years later it still holds up.

The movie, not so much! It’s not for lack of trying either. I tried to be forgiving. I tried to see it from all angles. I even tried to see the movie as a story for folks who may not have read the book before (a harder task indeed). But, the movie did so much wrong, even when they got things right. It doesn’t help when the CGI and green screening is pretty terrible.

I could go on and on about Madeleine L’Engle’s books, but I will say this, the woman knew how to tell a story (several in fact). A writer of Christian faith, as was C.S. Lewis, she found a way to use her beliefs and yet not ostracize readers of different faiths. I hardly knew that back in 8^th grade. After reading the Time Quintet (as they are called) year later I see how she connected faith, art, fantasy, epic battles of good and evil all together into an amazing set of stories. If you get a chance to read any of the Time Quintet series, I highly recommended them: “A Wrinkle in Time”, “A Wind in the Door”, “A Swiftly Tilting Planet”, “Many Waters”, and “An Acceptable Time”. The best part is how she connects all of her books through her characters, even after the Time Quintet is over.

I think the appeal of L’Engle books are because her characters are real. People can relate, sympathize, and even empathize with Meg, or Calvin, or even Charles Wallace. I know was quite the awkward kid growing up being tall, or feeling very inadequate around my classmates, maybe coming from a poorer family, or only child, and also being terribly shy.

Okay, back to the review! Like I said, I wanted to like this movie. I had see it sometime earlier (alas, I cannot remember when) back when I hadn’t read the book in a while. I remember not hating it then, but totally liking it either. It was a Disney movie after all (not even accurate statement, as Disney just distributed the movie). It was made in Canada by a Canadian production company in 2003. After re-watching it, it feels much like a Disney movie. See, there is a formula to many of the Disney movies that are made now-a-days and often this formula is used by others to get the “Disney Effect” for a movie.

"Take a object or person; put them in the Disney machine,

turn the Crankendy Crank, and out pops a Disnefied object or person." (my own words)

This is what happened with this version “A Wrinkle in Time”, it has become a Disnefied version of the original story.

What is it that makes this movie so terrible?

Is it the plot? Oh, yes, there is a plot! But, no, it’s not the plot.

What I find bothersome about “Wrinkle” the movie, is a number of things; things that any storyteller or avid reader would agree with me on. There is weak character development. It truly bothers me when characters are not given a personality and there is no development. It’s even worst when I am watching an adaptation and I know there is a character there, but the movie doesn’t convey it. The biggest example of this crime is poor Calvin O’Keefe; he just sort of rides into the scene and sticks around throughout the story. You do not feel vested in him as a person, and the ONE time they try to give him back story, it’s pushed off as barely important, when in fact it is. It’s really kind of sloppy writing if you think about it. Calvin is the popular kid at school. Smart and athletic, but he comes from a horrible family; one of several siblings and a mother that hardly care of his well being. The book shows how Calvin, despite his near perfect exterior, is just as fragile as Meg. The movie Calvin I hardly care for, yet the book Calvin, I can feel for, even empathize with. He is just a pretty face in the movie.

It’s not just Calvin, but Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which, and Aunt Beast are not fully developed, in some cases they are barely touched upon. Aunt Beast is hardly mentioned, and her name only brought up by Calvin in conversation. You get a whole scene within the novel with Meg and Aunt Beast because Meg was frozen by the Black Thing (IT); in fact Meg even gives Aunt Beast her name. Even more irritating is Ixchel, the planet where Aunt Beast lives is barely explained and even falsely represented. That is actually a greater crime than poor character development, when a movie falsely represents something. Ixchel is a planet within the same solar system as Camazotz (where Meg’s father is a prisoner) that they escaped to from Camazotz. This is not mentioned at all, there is no conversation between Meg and Aunt Beast about the Black Thing and the battle that Ixchel fights everyday, and the failure of Camazotz in the said battle. Even the representation of Ixchel in the movie is wrong; it’s a world of grays and brown, but beautiful scents and birdsong, not a frozen icy world. It may look pretty and flashy, but it’s wrong. I know, those who haven’t read the book, wouldn’t know, but it feel terribly wrong when you don’t at least have the moment between Meg and Aunt Beast.

You are introduced to Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which much later on the planet Uriel, while in the book each of the ladies are already on earth. Mrs. Who even interacts with the world by stealing bed sheet, while the movie just has them showing up on Uriel. Mrs. Which is not even represented properly. She is the oldest of the three and barely keeps corporeal form, but she is also the wisest of the three. Yet the movie makes her the prettiest and she actually insults Meg outright. I cannot understand why this change occurs outside of the reason that maybe the actress prefer to portray Mrs. Which in that way. The ladies are supposed to me non-corporeal energy beings, like angels. It makes the whole interplay between Meg and the ladies different, not as strong.

Something else that really bothers me about “Wrinkle”, it feels too long. With a run time of 128 minutes in far surpasses the 90 minute children’s movie span. Bet you didn’t know that this version was originally made to be a 2 part mini-series, which I think is the reason for the extra long exposition and the longer running time. It still feels like they were trying to cram extra character development and background information into the opening. Meg Murry is one of the few character that is developed, but much of her development is geared toward awkward emo teens. While Meg is clearly the awkward protagonist, they tried far too hard to make her a mopey emo teenager. Meg’s problems are very real, and part of the story, it just feels that the screenwriters tried too hard to show Meg as the struggling awkward genius and it just comes off and lazy and moody.

Also, the ancillary characters in “Wrinkle” are supposed to be far harsher than the movie portrays, whereas the movie sugar coats much of the real tension between Meg and her teachers, class mates, and family. These are things that define Meg as a character and when you make the character and her world less than what was originally written, you give less value to the story as a whole. Meg is a troubled character. She NEEDS to grow, find her faults, deal with her feelings, and become the person she is supposed to be, but she is also a character with emotion and that emotion is just as important and shouldn’t be skimped on.

I love the story of “Wrinkle” because it feels real. The characters feel real. You see and feel what Meg is feeling, you know how she distrusts Calvin at first and then starts open up to him without a forced attempted at a relationship. Never mind that in future books Calvin and Meg do get together. The forced relationship just makes Meg and Calvin’s relationship in the movie less valid. You need to see where they are and where they go, because hands down it’s a journey story.

What draws me to “Wrinkle” is the truth deeply embedded in the story. It’s a story of everyone’s journey to find themselves. And anything I have ever enjoyed has been on a journey, from seeing new places to discovering new things about the world and myself.

Alfre Woodard is on the left

As movie, “Wrinkle” falls so very flat; not just in the delivery, but in the purpose. While the acting is not terrible, it not stellar, there was so much that could have been done. I give Alfre Woodard, who played Mrs. Whatsit, she did a good job with the role. It was one of the better representation, she made Mrs. Whatsit real. The others were not given enough to work with, and what’s worst what they were given was incomplete or wrong. As an adaptation, it doesn’t work. Too much was changed and reworked to it's detriment. As a movie, it’s just barely watchable; even if you never read the book, I think you would. It has far too much exposition and tells you far too much, while not showing enough. It may be okay for a kid’s movie, but only if you don’t care to think too deeply.

Time to rate this puppy; I give it a 4 out of 10. Why? It was relatively true to the books, in some facets. There was some character development, but not enough for me to care about the characters. It would probably do well if someone riffed it, otherwise I will stick with the book.

Next week, I tackle “Bridge to Terabithia”.