tapewench Reviews

A Wrinkle in Time (2003 TV Movie)

Much better than expected (some spoilers)

[7/10 · 15 May 2004]

I had great fear when I heard that Disney was planning on making a TV Miniseries out of the classic "A Wrinkle In Time," because I knew just how awful most Disney TV movies are, and just how many liberties they would try to take for the sake of a TV audience. When ABC continued to postpone the airing of "Wrinkle" for almost two full years, I had even greater fear, because, more often than not, the reason for a very long delay in release is because the product is nigh-to-worthless. When I heard that the original 4-hour Miniseries plan was cut down to a 3-hour movie, that fear doubled. And then, ABC announced it would air beginning at 8pm, when most kids wouldn't be able to stay awake for the whole thing. All of this didn't bode well, and gave me the feeling that ABC didn't want anyone to see this movie.

After all is said-and-done, "A Wrinkle In Time" greatly exceeded my expectations. Sure, liberties were taken, but the majority of the items that were changed for the film were changed in a logical fashion, and would only be cited by die-hard L'Engleites.

THE GOOD:

• The casting. They didn't go for the pre-fabricated Hollywood ideal. Meg is pretty, but not a stunning supermodel with huge "assets." Calvin is kinda weird-looking. Charles-Wallace is a cute kid, but gives off an unexpected creepiness. And, despite my initial reservations, Alfre Woodard didn't annoy me at all.

• The acting. Top notch performances from all. Meg and Calvin had all of the chemistry and depth that the book demanded. Charles-Wallace, while occasionally slipping into cheese-mode, gave one of the creepiest performances I've seen since the original "Bad Seed."

• The set design. Specifically, the Murray house, and the planet Camazotz. Both were exactly what I had pictured when reading the book, and in my own screenplay adaptation attempts. The long streets lined with precise, grey tract housing was especially dead-on to my own vision.

• The cinematography. Jon Joffin, you deserve a cigar. Finally, a TV movie that isn't completely flat! There's shadow, depth, and mood dripping off of nearly every scene in this film. But, what more do you expect from the man who lit "Home," by far one of the creepiest and darkest episodes of "The X-Files." Kudos specifically to Meg's arrival on Camazotz, lit only by a slight backlight and lightning flashes. Fantastic work.

• The score. Great work by Jeff Danna, who also wrote the moody, diverse score for "Boondock Saints." (His brother is Mychael Danna, of "The Ice Storm" and "The Sweet Hereafter.") Of course, I do feel there were missteps, particularly the occasionally cartoony incidentals, but on the themes and backgrounds had a mood and depth that echoed the feelings exemplified in the book.

• The teleplay. Susan Shilliday certainly did change quite a few things, but the most important aspect remained, and that is the spirit of the book. The film displays the same sense of wonder and purpose that L'Engle infused into her novel. That, coupled with some well-placed snarky humor, made this adaptation one of the better ones I've seen.

• The very end. Call me whatever you want, but, I never cared for the end of the book. Sure it's creepy, but it's ridiculously sudden. The movie wrapped things up nicely while still providing a necessary bridge toward the book's sequels.

THE BAD:

• The Happy Medium. Egad, what a horrible decision that was. Please, next time, make sure characters are laughing at things that are actually funny.

• The visual effects. Granted, it's a TV budget. And granted, the effects are probably over a year old now. But still, it could've been much better. The winged horse was laughable, the landscapes were plastic, and "IT" was... well, not very much at all, was it? I did like the Tesseract effects, though I think that the film dwelled on too many of them. The final Tesseract effect was fantastic, and obviously the one that the most money was spent on. If more effects looked like that, I'd be happier.

• "IT." This was one change that really bothered me. Those of us who read the book know exactly what "IT" is, and showing such obscure sections of "IT," and having the climactic battle with IT's representative rather than IT itself, I feel, was a poor choice.

THE UGLY:

• The direction. Sometimes, the film was very well-done. At other times, the direction was very clumsy and confusing. This could be attributed to how much had to be cut out of the 4-hour version to fit into its 3-hour timeslot, but nonetheless, there were some scenes that just didn't work at all.

All-in-all, "A Wrinkle In Time" is a very enjoyable film, and, despite a few wrong turns, is a good adaptation of a great work of literature. If it is ever released on DVD, it will likely join my collection.

Wonderful Days (2003)

Gorgeous, except...

[3 February 2004]

I saw "Wonderful Days, " which had been retitled "Sky Blue," at the Sundance Film Festival. The animation is beautiful. Unfortunately, the film itself doesn't make any sense. What exists of a story seems to only be a slight supplement to the visuals, and the English voice acting is overly dramatic trite. There's a little ditty of a "love story" subplot that streaks in out of nowhere, and a climax that is completely unexplained in the story, leaving the viewer to simply ask "what the heck just happened?"

Dark Tomorrow (2002)

Needs Work

[26 May 2003]

Much like another commentor, I was invited to the Premiere by some Michigan friends who had heard good things about it. This was my first experience going to a movie premiere in the Detroit area, so my wife and I gladly burned three-and-a-half hours worth a gas to attend. Unfortunately, "Dark Tomorrow" was also my first experience in how uncomfortable it can be to sit through a bad film while surrounded by the people who made it.

The film tells the tale of John Wesley (Chris Moller) who wakes up after a night of boozing only to find that, not only has one year passed, but also he has killed his fiance' and escaped from prison, and he has no recollection of any of it. A news crew, shooting a story outside his house, gives chase, and John winds up running all over town for a good portion of the next fifteen to twenty minutes of the film. In one scene, he steals a car. Then it cuts to a different scene, then when it cuts back to John, he is magically running yet again. Where'd that car go? And what was the purpose of even having that scene in the film?

After a bit more running, John arrives at his friend Joe Freeman's (Mike Merna) house. Joe Freeman, in this past year, has written a book about John's bloody rampage, and after fighting with John and stabbing him in the leg, has no problem sitting down and telling him his recollections of the events of that fateful evening.

I don't want to give away more plot, because there really isn't much else until we get to the "twist" ending - an ending that is often used and rarely done correctly, and in "Dark Tomorrow," causes a state of confusion that borders on annoyance.

THE GOOD:

• There were two shots in the film that I liked. One is an interesting low angle of Alex Safi after an argument with his wife, the other is another intresting low angle of Chris Moller with a lovely composite sky behind him.

THE BAD:

• The story is cliche' beyond comprehension, and filled with holes that can't be filled without a complete reshoot of the film.

• I often notice in Indie films that directors feel they need to fill every waking moment of their masterpiece with music. So, with every scene change in "Dark Tomorrow," we have a drastic change in musical accompaniment that jars you out of the context of the film.

• At one point, John (Moller) goes to a cemetary where he and his girlfriend used to have picnics (which I still don't understand), and discovers her grave. That grave is a piece of cardboard with hand-scrawled "Here Lies" lettering, and is a laughably bad prop. This, to me, indicated that the makers of this film just stopped caring about trying to create a reality, and shot things that no one in their right mind would do.

THE UGLY:

• The lighting is also fairly typical of indie films - flat, even, and spruced with sporadic colored gels for "symbolic mood." This is a film noir. This film should be high contrast and moody, not lit more flatly than a soap opera.

-CONTINUITY - always a problem, it seems. Often, continuity issues can be forgiven as simple oversights. However, things like eyeline continuity (i.e. person1 and person2 are facing each other, talking. Cut to close-up of person1 talking facing the left - Cut to person2 talking to person1, but for some reason facing left as well) and the aforementioned plot hole with the car, are unforgivable sins, even for a first feature.

CONCLUSION:

As said, this was a first feature. John Goins deserves congratulations on creating a feature film. However, Mr. Goins, you're gonna need a bit more practice.

Hatred of a Minute (2002)

Quite Good

[7/10 · 28 February 2002]

"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

Biker Zombies from Detroit (2001 Video)

Nothing short of Terrible

[6 January 2002]

With a name like "Biker Zombies From Detroit," you don't expect high art. What you expect is a cheesy yet comical romp with lots of blood and interesting, if cheesy, make-up. That's what's supposed to make these films fun to watch.

"Biker Zombies," however, is not fun to watch. It is a terrible movie on every level.

This is a DV feature, so, naturally, it doesn't have the highest production value in the world. But, judging from the quality of the sound, these people didn't even TRY to make the film worthwhile. In fact, the sound quality is so bad, it often sounds like they recorded scenes using only the camera's on-board microphone, which is a travesty even in no-budget production.

The least they could've done is make the film visually interesting to make up for the lack of story, acting, make-up, etc. Instead, the film is primarily locked-down master shots, the most uninteresting way to shoot a movie. The only part that had the remotest quality to it was a slow-motion fight sequence, where the stunts and camera angles made for a very interesting look. The difference between that fight sequence and the rest of the film is so glaring, it almost seems like someone else directed the fight scene.

Not to mention the fact that the film is permeated by an annoying zombie voice-over that's been processed to the point of inaudibility, as well as random shots of homeless people that seem to be there for the sole purpose of increasing the film's running time.

In short, "Biker Zombies From Detroit" is a film that gives Detroit filmmakers a bad name. Garbage like this should not be used to represent the primarily high-quality work that goes on in this town.

The Sixth Scent (1999)

Who says a spoof can't be dramatic?

[10/10 · 31 January 2000]

When I first heard of "The Sixth Scent," I thought it'd be another one of those awful internet-spoofs with toilet humor- something that my adolescent video students would produce.

Needless to say, I was extremely pleasantly surprised by this movie- "a non-spoof spoof" as the director put it. It's really more of an homage to "The Sixth Sense," and an extremely well-produced one at that. Great acting all-round, and a surprise ending that's almost as good as the real one.

This is the way a spoof should be.