| 
| Actors: Martin Sheen, Kristen Bell, Michael York, Tony Hale
Studio: Flat World Productions, LLC
Category: DVD
List Price: $29.95
Buy New: $26.75
You Save: $3.20 (11%)
New (2) Used (5) from $26.75
Avg. Customer Rating:  16 reviews
Sales Rank: 14539
Format: Ntsc
Languages: English (Unknown), English (Subtitled), English (Published)
Platforms: Windows Xp, Windows Vista
Rating: G (General Audience)
Edition: DVD
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 36
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Operating System: Windows Vista
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 5.3 x 0.6 x 7.6
ISBN: 1604615370
Dewey Decimal Number: 813
EAN: 9781604615371
ASIN: 1604615370
Publication Date: 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Two reviews in one April 8, 2008
36 out of 43 found this review helpful
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 4 and the Travis film a rating of 3. 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... ;-)
 Flatland: The Other Movie February 29, 2008
10 out of 17 found this review helpful
I'll assume that the reader has alreay enjoyed Abbott's classic short novel. Perhpas you read it as a mathematically oriented youth, or perhaps as a mature reader dipping into a Victorian parody of Victorian gender and class politics. Either way, you'll find a flattened, two-dimensional version of the story you loved.
Although much more professionally done than Flatland the Film and with some big name voices, this strays far from the original story. Females, for example, are geometric and social equals of the males, and an Area 51-style conspiracy theory appears at the center of the story. Overbearing overlords of the society come across as petty tyrants - too obvious to be at all threatening, at least to any viewer in a multi-digit age group.
The mathematical commentary survives, with a pleasant "extra" from an Ivy League math professor, but that's about all that's left of Abbott's original points.
-- wiredweird
 FLATLAND: THE MOVIE January 21, 2008
6 out of 16 found this review helpful
Flatland: The Movie
I HAD TO GIVE 1 STAR, THE SYSTEM WOULD NOT LET ME GIVE IT NONE. THE BOOK IS NOT ONLY A GEOMETRY TEXT BUT A SATIRE AND COMMENTARY ON VICTORIAN ENGLAND AND ITS RELEGATION OF WOMEN TO SUBORDINATE LEVELS AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. THE DVD IS NOT ONLY A MEDIOCRE GEOMETY LESSON WITH POOR GRAPHICS AT BEST, BUT IGNORES ABBOTT'S SCHOLARLY TREATISE AND SUBSTITUTES A MODERN AMERICAN PSYCHO BABBLE ABOUT "FOLLOWING YOUR DREAM". THE COPYRIGHT MUST HAVE EXPIRED ON THIS WORK. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYONE OWNING THIS PROPERTY APPROVING THE TRAVESTY THAT THE SCRIPT FOR THIS 25 MINUTE DVD IS.
 Best Choice January 10, 2008
8 out of 9 found this review helpful
As a mathematician I was thrilled to learn that the classic novel Flatland had been made into 2 different movies, so I purchased and watched both. This version is far superior!
My non-mathematician wife and I watched both movies and both agree this version is far superior.
The graphics are amazing! The film even shows what a hypercube might look like.
The plot is fun and helps a non-math person comprehend dimensional geometry and the possibility of a geometric 4th dimension. This film brings Edwin A. Abbott's classic book to life and makes it fun and easy to understand for anyone.
Professor Banchoff's commentary is thought provoking and insightful. The commentary really finishes off the film perfectly.
I highly recommend this movie for anyone regardless of their level of math experience.
a review for the personal edition December 6, 2007
8 out of 9 found this review helpful
I reviewed the "educational edition" before, but meant to put this down for the personal as well...In my opinion this is the best treatment of the book to be put on film. It's smart and funny. It explores not only mathematical concepts but larger political and philosophical themes. It also touches on very real concerns of state authority dissent while avoiding partisan pandering that would freeze it too much in our own time and place. Ultimately kids (and adults) who watch this version of Flatland are prompted to think more not just about math but about how they exist in the world they inhabit.
|
|
|
