A couple of weeks ago, the school I work at had its Spring Break. One of the things I did in my week off was go see two movies. The first movie I saw was I Can Only Imagine, which tells the story behind the hit MercyMe song. The second was A Wrinkle in Time, based on the 1962 sci-fi/fantasy novel by Madeline L'Engle. Even though I had initially only planned to watch one, I am glad I changed my mind because I enjoyed both movies, although neither was perfect. Here, in no particular order, are a list of the strengths and weaknesses of these two movies.
Visuals: One of my favorite things about A Wrinkle in Time was how beautifully done all the visuals were. Even though I was unable to see the movie while it was still in IMAX, the visuals were still immersive enough to draw me into the story. The colors were dazzling on Uriel, and the ever-shifting landscape of Camazotz lends a tension leading up to the climax, where we are introduced to the jet-black, multi-tentacled It. The contrast between the light and the dark is stunning, and follows along with how much light each planet is described as having, with Uriel being the brightest, Camazotz the darkest, and the Earth in between.
I Can Only Imagine also makes good use of the contrast between light and dark, with the scenes between Bart and his father having muted lighting, the early gigs of the band being bright, but not as bright as they could be, and the conclusion lit up with all the power contained in the song that gives the film its name. Since this movie is based on a true story, the visuals are more realistic than the ones found in A Wrinkle in Time, but they still help draw the viewer into the story. The only visual I did not care for was the quick panorama toward the end of the movie because the speed made me dizzy.
Casting: While many of the actors in I Can Only Imagine were ones I hadn't heard of before, they're all actors I'll be looking for now. Every part was played well, and the chemistry between the main characters in both the tense and peaceful moments was undeniable. Dennis Quaid was great as the overbearing Arthur Millard, and J. Michael Finley shined as a young Bart Millard, although it was hard for me as a longtime fan of the band to stop comparing him to the actual person. Trace Atkins made a good showing as the band's manager, Brickell, and Madeline Carroll was convincing as Bart's girlfriend and future wife, Shannon. However, where I think the casting was the most spot on were the actors who played Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith, who were only recognizable as not being the people they portrayed because they are younger. In fact, until the credits rolled, I was convinced that Michael W. Smith had actually played himself, but a combination of lighting and makeup had made him look younger.
In A Wrinkle in Time, I agree with some of the casting decisions, but not others. While I was initially skeptical of Mindy Kaling as Mrs. Who and Reese Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit, they played their parts wonderfully and embodied the characters as well as I had hoped they would. The young actors playing Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace were superb, and I look forward to any future projects of theirs. Chris Pine was great in the role of Meg and Charles Wallace's father. Zach Galifianakis was even able to tone down his usual goofiness to play the role of the Happy Medium. The only casting decision I really didn't agree with was Oprah as Mrs. Which. Mrs Which is the oldest of the three heavenly guides, and as such is the wisest and most ethereal. Oprah nailed the wise part, but failed miserably when it came to being ethereal. Throughout the movie, she was Oprah, not Mrs. Which. The lines that were stretched out in the book were read quite plainly by Oprah, and while in the book, Mrs. Which never materialized unless absolutely necessary, she materialized all the time in the movie because, hey, she's Oprah and we have to see her, right? Now in a couple of scenes, she materializes way too big, but that isn't ethereal, that's just plain stupid because it's played for laughs the film doesn't need.
Faithfulness to source material: This is the hardest thing for any movie to get right, but I Can Only Imagine does it well. All the events portrayed in the movie occurred, but not always in the way or order depicted on the screen. While some scenes of the movie are hard to watch, they are no less accurate.
On the other hand, A Wrinkle in Time fails quite miserably in this area. About the only thing the book and movie share in common are the characters and the main plotline. Some of the changes, like the shifting landscape of Camazotz and the appearance of the It, add to the story in a way that only film can. Others, like how easily Charles Wallace falls prey to brainwashing and the fact that he is adopted, don't. One of the most unnecessary changes, however, is the cave of the Happy Medium. In the book, it is an ordinary cave, but in the movie, it contains an alarming amount of small rock platforms balancing tediously on tall, thin stalagmites. Yes, the need for balance on the rocks provides an opportunity for Meg to grow by learning to balance her mind, but I think this change was more to freak out audiences watching the movie in 3D than to add to the plot.
Christian themes: In this area, I Can Only Imagine is the clear winner. Throughout the film, faith is a part of all the characters do. Even the times that Bart is wrestling with his faith, he still has faith. Through the part where we see the end of Arthur's life, we see the power of faith healing the relationship between father and son. We also see how faith emboldens Bart to write and later sing the song that is the film's namesake, even being willing to give it up so that it can reach the most people. The climax of the movie transformed the theater into a place of worship, and the presence of God was so tangible by the end that I kept smiling long after I had gone through the doors.
However, even though the book is rich in Christian themes, the movie version of A Wrinkle in Time is not. Yes, there is still the fight of light against darkness and good against evil, but a movie can have that without being a Christian movie. I didn't expect it to be overwhelmingly blatant, but since the book quotes the Bible often, it makes sense that the movie would quote it at least once. I could still see some elements of Christianity in the movie, but they were so subtle that only a very dedicated searcher would find them. This movie had the potential to be a great witness, but it fell flat.
In conclusion, both of these movies have their faults, but both balance them out with strengths in other areas. So which one should you choose? It depends on what you want to see. If you want a movie telling a real story about how God can use a painful situation to create a powerful song that brings people to Him and fills them with hope, then I Can Only Imagine is your best bet. If you want a story about light breaking through darkness and kids saving the day told with breathtaking visuals, look no further than A Wrinkle in Time. If you want both, you can certainly see both, because I did. Have you already seen one or both of these movies? Feel free to comment and tell me your thoughts on them. I'd love to hear what you liked or didn't like, and you can help other readers decide whether or not they want to go see these movies.
Casting: While many of the actors in I Can Only Imagine were ones I hadn't heard of before, they're all actors I'll be looking for now. Every part was played well, and the chemistry between the main characters in both the tense and peaceful moments was undeniable. Dennis Quaid was great as the overbearing Arthur Millard, and J. Michael Finley shined as a young Bart Millard, although it was hard for me as a longtime fan of the band to stop comparing him to the actual person. Trace Atkins made a good showing as the band's manager, Brickell, and Madeline Carroll was convincing as Bart's girlfriend and future wife, Shannon. However, where I think the casting was the most spot on were the actors who played Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith, who were only recognizable as not being the people they portrayed because they are younger. In fact, until the credits rolled, I was convinced that Michael W. Smith had actually played himself, but a combination of lighting and makeup had made him look younger.
In A Wrinkle in Time, I agree with some of the casting decisions, but not others. While I was initially skeptical of Mindy Kaling as Mrs. Who and Reese Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit, they played their parts wonderfully and embodied the characters as well as I had hoped they would. The young actors playing Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace were superb, and I look forward to any future projects of theirs. Chris Pine was great in the role of Meg and Charles Wallace's father. Zach Galifianakis was even able to tone down his usual goofiness to play the role of the Happy Medium. The only casting decision I really didn't agree with was Oprah as Mrs. Which. Mrs Which is the oldest of the three heavenly guides, and as such is the wisest and most ethereal. Oprah nailed the wise part, but failed miserably when it came to being ethereal. Throughout the movie, she was Oprah, not Mrs. Which. The lines that were stretched out in the book were read quite plainly by Oprah, and while in the book, Mrs. Which never materialized unless absolutely necessary, she materialized all the time in the movie because, hey, she's Oprah and we have to see her, right? Now in a couple of scenes, she materializes way too big, but that isn't ethereal, that's just plain stupid because it's played for laughs the film doesn't need.
Faithfulness to source material: This is the hardest thing for any movie to get right, but I Can Only Imagine does it well. All the events portrayed in the movie occurred, but not always in the way or order depicted on the screen. While some scenes of the movie are hard to watch, they are no less accurate.
On the other hand, A Wrinkle in Time fails quite miserably in this area. About the only thing the book and movie share in common are the characters and the main plotline. Some of the changes, like the shifting landscape of Camazotz and the appearance of the It, add to the story in a way that only film can. Others, like how easily Charles Wallace falls prey to brainwashing and the fact that he is adopted, don't. One of the most unnecessary changes, however, is the cave of the Happy Medium. In the book, it is an ordinary cave, but in the movie, it contains an alarming amount of small rock platforms balancing tediously on tall, thin stalagmites. Yes, the need for balance on the rocks provides an opportunity for Meg to grow by learning to balance her mind, but I think this change was more to freak out audiences watching the movie in 3D than to add to the plot.
Christian themes: In this area, I Can Only Imagine is the clear winner. Throughout the film, faith is a part of all the characters do. Even the times that Bart is wrestling with his faith, he still has faith. Through the part where we see the end of Arthur's life, we see the power of faith healing the relationship between father and son. We also see how faith emboldens Bart to write and later sing the song that is the film's namesake, even being willing to give it up so that it can reach the most people. The climax of the movie transformed the theater into a place of worship, and the presence of God was so tangible by the end that I kept smiling long after I had gone through the doors.
However, even though the book is rich in Christian themes, the movie version of A Wrinkle in Time is not. Yes, there is still the fight of light against darkness and good against evil, but a movie can have that without being a Christian movie. I didn't expect it to be overwhelmingly blatant, but since the book quotes the Bible often, it makes sense that the movie would quote it at least once. I could still see some elements of Christianity in the movie, but they were so subtle that only a very dedicated searcher would find them. This movie had the potential to be a great witness, but it fell flat.
In conclusion, both of these movies have their faults, but both balance them out with strengths in other areas. So which one should you choose? It depends on what you want to see. If you want a movie telling a real story about how God can use a painful situation to create a powerful song that brings people to Him and fills them with hope, then I Can Only Imagine is your best bet. If you want a story about light breaking through darkness and kids saving the day told with breathtaking visuals, look no further than A Wrinkle in Time. If you want both, you can certainly see both, because I did. Have you already seen one or both of these movies? Feel free to comment and tell me your thoughts on them. I'd love to hear what you liked or didn't like, and you can help other readers decide whether or not they want to go see these movies.
Comments
Post a Comment