I need this movie like I need air.
Husband hasn't read the book, so I'm having him do so. Lucky bastard gets to experience it for the first time!Thoughts?
Earlier thread with a bit of discussion :).
I surely hope it is better thanthisversion… Even L’Engle herself thought it sucked. That being it comes out right before my birthday… hmm.
(Let us know what Hubby thought of the book)
This is a new trailer, though.
My reaction to the first trailer was “cautiously optimistic”, and there’s nothing in this trailer yet that moves the needle off of that one way or the other. It’s a really easy story to get wrong, but if they do get it right, it could be amazing. I really hope it’s amazing, as that book probably had more of an influence than any other on the person I became.
I read the books back in grade school. this might be promising, but I usually strongly dislike movies and TV shows where kids/teenagers are significant characters.
Well, this is a new trailer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UhZ56rcWwRQ
The one in the OP is still the first one.
After watching the link you shared I have to say I’m very optimistic about this film. It seems likely to appeal to the tween/YA audience. Maybe somewhat to millennials. I consider that a good thing.
it’s looks good - let’s hope!
I read the books , but I usually strongly like movies and TV shows where kids/teenagers are significant characters)
I see a whole lot of people concerned with all the stuff they say isn’t from the book in the trailer. I myself don’t see it.
The “hero” concept on Meg does worry me, though. The whole point is that she’s not a hero. It worries me they are going the direction of the TV movie, which had Meg rescue all of Camazotz at the end.
I also find it weird how little Charles Wallace there seems to be in the trailers. He’s kinda important. Yet I don’t believe we’ve heard him speak.
I happened to see the trailer at the movies the other day. I will certainly watch the film when it comes out but with a “hope for the best, expect the worst” sort of attitude. The book seems tailor-made for a film adaptation, though that in itself rarely seems to produce good films.
Like a PP, I’m a bit surprised that Charles Wallace barely appears in the trailer.
Visually it looks stunning, but I’ve still got the concerns about the “Be a warrior” stuff. The whole freakin’ point is that…um…
…ok, just in case, book spoilers here
Meg doesn’t need to be a “warrior”. Her mission to rescue Charles Wallace is to simply love him because only love is powerful enough to break the hold of the Dark Thing. There’s even a comment that if Meg had been able to, she could have “saved” (or destroyed) IT if she could love IT.
The “warrior” comments are substantially troubling. Everything else* looks so damned good though that I’m still in the “cautiously optimistic” camp.
*Except Mr. Jenkins. I don’t care about race changing or whatever, but the actor they got to play him looked downright dapper. Mr. Jenkins is slightly unkempt (badly shaved, dandruff, etc) and this is a plot point for book two (the best of the five, IMO. 
) Minor quibble but it’s there.
I’ll admit I’m a little worried. Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling seems like possible stunt casting to me.
The “warrior” language is in the book, coupled with the point that the real warriors in the fight against darkness aren’t always the people you’d think. They can’t fit that much nuance into a trailer, but hopefully it is in the movie.
And I’m guessing that Oprah’s presence in the cast means that she fronted a significant amount of the production costs. I think that this being (at least partly) a vanity project for her might actually bode well: If she just wants her name in lights, then she’s going to focus more on making good art than on profitability.
I saw it. It’s okay, a little cheap looking and if actually prefer it to be longer to be able to paint some of psychological depths of the characters’ struggles more effectively. As it is, these were handled pretty expositionally, unfortunately.
Witherspoon was pretty badly miscast.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
I saw it today, and I’ve read the book and went with a friend who hadn’t, and we both enjoyed the movie but she was definitely confused at points. I liked it, but didn’t love it, but I don’t know what I would have changed to make it better, and I’m fairly sure if I had seen it when I was around 12 years old it would have become my favorite movie ever.
That seems to be the consensus so far. Kids are loving it. Parents are underwhelmed and confused.
Honestly, if parents weren’t at least a little bit confused, I’d take that as a troubling sign.
why? this is based on a book which was published in 1962 (14 years before I was born.) I read the books up through Many Waters, and am old enough to have kids in their teens or 20s. So why would I be “confused” by this film (other than wondering why it’s so bad?)
It wasn’t bad… just a bit… plodding? Slow? The kids were amazing, the Witches were weird (and not exactly in a good way) the mom was sadly ignored (same in the book) dad never seemed particularly imperiled, and the whole Camazotz thing left me seriously underwhelmed.
But my god those kids were well cast.
I think the production concept was ‘glitter. no, even MOOOORE glitter’
I agree with whoever said this would have been their favorite movie as a kid. It’s like an alternate Narnia; I loved that BBC version with my entire heart, even tho when I watch it now it’s like - hooo boy.