Flatland

This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.

The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.

The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.

The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.

So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.

Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.

The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.

Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 8 and the Travis film a rating of 6. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.

Or, like me, you could simply buy both... ;-)

This is a great film with a lot of strong philosophy weaved in, I'm not surprised to find that there is a great book behind this film. The central plot for the film is a 2D world and two factions within it. Right from the start of the film you are bombarded with parallels to reality and its hard not to get distracted by your own thought chain, in a good way :) The CGI is as good as it needs to be to tell this story, the yellow sphere that you'll have seen if you've read this far is a bit misleading - the film has its own unique style that extends further than such basic geometry and reflections. The actors voice overs are quite good, the film isn't amateur and there is a lot of narration to help the story along.

My main criticism of the film would be an excess of narration - sometimes its useful but other times its downright patronising and by the end you end up sighing every time you see narration.

It basically is a teaching play about this two-dimensional world. How it functions physically, which teaches about physics. How its society works, which is a satirical parable of our own society, of course. And then there is a little science fiction, mathematics, philosophy and somewhat TRON-ish fantasy.

About half-way into the film a 3D character appears in Flatland. He tries to explain the movie's star, "A Square" (That's his name. He's the brother of "B Square"), that there is a dimension beyond him. But since it is hard to explain the 3rd dimension to "A Square" the 2D character and the audience are transported into the 3rd dimension inhabited by spheres, cubes etc. It happens what has to happen: "A Square" concludes that when there is a dimension beyond his there must also be a dimension beyond the 3rd one. A theory which the 3D character can only laugh at...

The approach is rather comedic, but the film is hardly kids stuff. A noteworthy stylistic decision is the unusual narrative. Instead of a voice-over it constantly switches to intertitles just like in a silent picture. At least during the first half when the audience needs to get a grasp on the basics of the two-dimensional universe. It gives the film an odd pacing but it worked quite well for me, simply because it's a fresh approach. The animation is crude, which becomes especially evident when the film switches into the 3rd dimension (Spaceland). But as simply animated as it might be it was done with a lot of attention to detail and most importantly the world that was created is a consistent and functional one.

It gives a very good understanding of the several dimensions and how it might be if a living entity could exist within only two dimensions. It's comprehensible, but not oversimplified. One purpose of the film, of course, is to make you think about the fourth dimension - what it could be like, the possibilities, and even how certain unexplained phenomena in the world might be explainable with the existence of another dimension. It is a Sci-Fi film that is all about ideas. A welcome departure from the special effects extravaganza that Sci-Fi is usually associated with. More theoretical than most Sci-Fi films, but not as purely theoretical as it might sound from my descriptions. There is plenty of fun to be had as well.

The film is based on a genre-grossing novel written in the 19th century, which you may or may not know. It's said to be popular amongst mathematics, physicists and computer science students. Another adaption of this novel has been made in the same year, a 34-minute short called 'Flatland: The Movie' which appears to be targeted towards a younger audience.

If you find the basic premise even only mildly intriguing then this is a highly recommended watch.

This is what independent work is all about. The animation is beautiful, yet not like any animation you've seen. This is no slick rip-off of successful style with smarmy pop-culture references; no Disney/Pixar wannabes here. The director has a vision of his own and makes it happen. It's a very, very good adaptation of the Abbott novel, witty, with good voice-work and very good music. There are some mind-blowing sequences towards the end, but the most impressive quality is the originality of the vision.

If this is the director's first feature, there are big things in store for him. Don't lose that vision! A film like this gives me hope.

The premise had me gripped, as did the opening five minutes. But execution is disappointing and I can't help feel that here is a film of potential genius wasted by bad voice talent, bad script editing and a lack of proper characterisation.

Flatland, let's be brutally honest, is a film for geeks by geeks. The idea just appeals to nerds and if you're a nerd, chances are you'll love this film. The whole mathematical purity will just hit the right buttons and you'll enjoy telling your friends all about the innovative 'angles' (excuse the pun) and clever 'parallels' with modern philosophy. But truth is, nerds don't write good scripts because they forget that behind every great story idea is a driving engine called character. And in Flatland, it ain't just the graphics that are two dimensional.

There are other reasons you can tell there are nerds at the steering levers. The producers just don't know what to do about women. Nerds see. Women are dangerous, incomprehensible, flat lines with no substance. When they get in the way of the plot, the women eat themselves. When the men in the movie display chauvinism its dismissed with a knowing wink and a few lines of humour.

Then there's the plot. Politics, oppression and war wrapped up with a Messiah prophecy. It's not exactly ground breaking.

Visually the film is interesting. But there's just too many dimensions missing to make this as good as the other reviews suggest.

As a cheap, badly voiced, badly directed indy attempt its good for a look-see. But you'll go away wondering if, out there somewhere in a parallel universe, there's another version of you enjoying a much better, more 'rounded' film where women actually have active roles, the characters have personalities instead of plots to further and there's a bit more to the whole thing than just 'oh wow, lets have fun with dimensional space'.

A missed opportunity. But possibly worth a look simply because it's so... different.