Flatland (2007 Video) User Reviews

Two reviews in one

[rbsjrx · 8/10 · 8 April 2008]

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... ;-)

fun, thought-provoking, dimensional hybrid animation

[thepza · 8/10 · 25 March 2007]

For the Limited Edition DVD-R. This film was leagues more interesting that I expected it to be--my girlfriend REALLY wanted to see it, though.

Lay back, sort of sleepy, watch the film. Some early on-screen direction annoyed me but it didn't last far into the film.

I'm not familiar with the book, but this film is a helluva lot of fun and it brings about some great self-questioning about the perception of consensus reality.

The creativity expressed in the various worlds was quite amusing. And it's mostly a family film but there's some language kids might repeat the next day at school (and get in trouble) and there's some very strange violence :)

Well worth a shot, though.

A welcome departure from the special effect extravaganza that Sci-Fi is usually associated with

[Perception_de_Ambiguity · 8/10 · 21 September 2008]

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.

Thought-provoking... and funny at times!

[fmartinezcalvo · 22 March 2008]

This is, undoubtedly, one of the most innovative and bizarre films I've seen lately, and I can tell you I see a few every week! The graphics are just wonderful - probably not so high-tech as you can see in some stupidly expensive Hollywood productions, but who needs those when the beauty is in what those flat characters say and show us! Well, maybe those who don't have anything to say...

The use of the different dimensions and the explanations that the characters use to make us understand are of the highest level -- lucid and intelligent, it's a really thought-provoking film, one of those few left out there! ...And what's more, it's even funny at times!

Surprisingly poiniant

[yevonwm · 7/10 · 14 March 2009]

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.

Nice start, but I'm missing some depth

[pyndan · 6/10 · 2 November 2008]

I've been looking forward to this movie for quite some time. A movie about the basics of multiple dimensions targeted at a somewhat broader audience could be quite intriguing, even more since the general public at least has heard about something named string theory.

Ignoring some basic inconsistencies within the displayed universe(s), of which most can be seen as elements of style or expression, the focus is lost between a pseudo plot and some 'funny' takes on differently-dimensioned lifestyles. While probably most people interested in the movie in the first place will get a few laughs or at least smiles out of it, nobody familiar with the generic topic will be challenged in any way, nor will anyone watching it for more than fifteen minutes.

In addition to the not to well written and acted to plot, the three dimensional visuals are somewhat pathetic. First day animation students are capable of producing more pleasant work, since most stuff looks like somebody wanted to prove one can make a movie using povray.

So, even while the possibly intended final 'point' of the whole thing is lost within the final minutes, and in contrast to everything else not really directly present and repeated about half a dozen times, I'm surprisingly disappointed. I got _much_ more out of a few minutes long, even more simply animated introductory film about 'imagining the 10th dimension'.

The interested viewer having children, or those who will be teaching a class about the subject, especially for younger ages, this film will quite do the trick. Just keep in mind to show/watch it before learning/teaching anything about anything, or simply don't expect to much. Everybody else, well, the two and one dimensional stuff combined with the silent narrator implementation is entertaining.. for about forty minutes (when the third dimension enters). Oh, and somebody please write an accompanying game, the 2d graphics and world is _perfect_ for an actionscript something.

This is why independent films are better than standard Hollywood fare.

[godzilla179 · 9/10 · 19 January 2008]

If I had a dollar for every time I walked out of a movie theater griping about how Hollywood has run out of ideas, I'd be a rich man. Lately I have been on a spiritual search if you will, to find some truly unique movies and Indie films seem to be the grail. Flatland was an impulse buy for me and I must say that this was the most unique movie experience I ever had. Nothing I'm aware of is more thought provoking for people who like discussing UFO's and Inter-dimensional travel. I can't think of a genre this film fits into. This is a thinking person's film and since I've seen it, I've been trying to explain to my cat what a solid is. I've also named her "Pea Brain". You can bet this film will get some serious looks from the big movie houses.

Solid

[Cosmoeticadotcom · 6/10 · 11 September 2008]

This version of the tale tries the most to update the film to a modern audience, and that is its chief failing. The original tale was called a Romance, and this updating removes that very concept from the story. While it follows much of the novella's narrative- in describing the way Flatland works (although the original's King is replaced by a President- who oddly still wears a crown), it departs severely from the original at its most crucial moment, once A Square is visited by A Sphere from Spaceland. In this version, instead of a mystical guide, along the line of the Three Ghosts Of Christmas from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, A Sphere is CEO of Messiah, Inc. OK….if the mere mention of that plot point has you rolling your eyes, you are not alone. And the attempts at satire only go downhill from there.

Instead of Sphere's lifting up of Square into Spaceland being a religious experience, in this film it merely serves as a 'wow' moment used to lead into some cheap gags, jokes, and a display of Ehlinger's animative chops. The story dissolves. Then there is some cheap and rather predictable satire of consumerism and the current Iraq War, which will severely date the film in coming years, as well as a not so funny portrayal of a Spaceland Senator Cube who sounds very much like Ted Kennedy. In the novella, the satire, while based in Victoriana, dealt more specifically with human foibles grafted onto the polygons of Flatland. Here, the polygons of Flatland and the solids of Spaceland are almost total caricatures- such as the gay sounding Flatland Senator who leads the dissenting Chromatist movement, and is assassinated by President Circle's henchmen.

The film is best when sticking to the book's original points…. The DVD comes with an autographed thank you from Ehlinger, but the disk itself has only the film and a brief trailer. Even though the film is low budget, couldn't Ehlinger have included a commentary by himself and others? It would have at least made the DVD, if not the film, worth a bit more, on a level of interest. In this day and age, not doing so is a bit of a ripoff- small budget or not. On a real world note, the slim case DVD package the DVD comes in also has a bad holder for the disk. The disk is far too small and the disk cannot stay in its holder. While a worthwhile effort, Flatland: The Film takes on too much, misses where the book succeeds, and its ending is just bad. But, Ehlinger does show a flair and unique style. If he continues in animation, here's hoping his next film is about the same quantum leap up from this one that Spaceland is from Flatland. If it is, then we'll have a film truly worth all the praise this one has gotten.

Watta ya mean, upward?

[benoit_diamond · 10/10 · 20 March 2007]

This independent film has everything to become a big hit... a solid storyline, driven from the book by the same name, that leaves you both amused and disturbed at times. A good soundtrack that leaves it's mark, but doesn't overpower the art and dialogs. Amusing characters that you can't help but sympathize with, and finally, beautiful artwork that has nothing to envy to Hollywood productions, as it doesn't distract your attention from the story itself.

Reading the book beforehand is not necessary, but will definitely help you catch on to the story faster, as you will not sit there wondering what's up with these wacky Flatlanders while an important part of the plot is revealed.

A must see! I highly recommend it.

Very flawed, but interesting

[Rectangular_businessman · 7/10 · 6 January 2024]

Not exactly the most faithful adaptation of Flatland, but certainly the most interesting, despite its fair share of flaws.

It's undeniable this version has plenty of good ideas, giving an existential angle to the source material; and I personally liked the rather unusual way in which Flatland and its inhabitants are depicted, almost as if they were some sort of microorganisms, an approach no other version has done before.

On the other side, the way in which the three-dimensional Spaceland is depicted is rather goofy-looking, with characters that almost seem to belong to a Discovery Kids show from the early 2000s. The same goes for the soundtrack; at first I though the unfitting happy tunes for rather serious scenes was intended to be ironic, but considering this was a low budget production I started to wonder if it the royalty-free tracks were simply chosen at random.

There is also a certain indecisive tone, switching from seriousness to silliness in a somewhat uneven manner, and the rushed way the movie reaches its conclusion isn't exactly very satisfying, leaving more question than answers.

That said, I do appreciate a lot the creativity and ambition displayed here, disregard of the technical limitations. It might be very flawed, but interesting anyway.

6.5/10 (Discount two or three stars if you are bothered by outdated CGI)

A travesty of film making

[kaylakaze · 2/10 · 28 August 2007]

Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.

That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's "Reboot" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with "people" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.

Review of Flatland: the Film

[king-154 · 9/10 · 6 March 2007]

Back when I was in the 6th grade my Dad gave me a copy of the book. I've read it 2 or 3 times over the years and always enjoyed it. I ordered your movie and recently watched it. I totally agree with the reviews you have received from Film Threat magazine and SciFi.com. You did an excellent job of updating the book to be more relevant for today's audience. The movie was incredible. I loved the character design, dialog, action, and music. Great job! The animation is engaging and completely different than the typical CGI films today. I would highly recommend this film to anyone. I wish you great success on this and future projects. I'm looking forward to your next one. Thanks and good luck!

Flat out annoying.

[voyou-703-655350 · 3/10 · 9 July 2014]

Flatland won't get any flattery from me.

It looked like it was going to address some interesting political matters, but I had to give up after 20 minutes despite my passion for animated films. I have no problems with visual minimalism but,first of all, this piece seriously overuses text insertions, half of which we don't even have time to read entirely. If one is incapable of telling his story through drawings, one should seriously consider using a narrator.

Secondly, what I found really, really upsetting was the sound. The acting is uniformly terrible, and some of the voices are painful, plain and simple. Unbearable. I'll never know if a good story was told here, for it was unwatchable due to the poorness of its delivery.

On an irrelevant side-note, I couldn't help but think there's a simple mistake in the design: women are lines while men are shapely. I would have imagined the opposite. And I wonder why everyone had to be so straight. As if 2D wouldn't accommodate curves...

Don't get too comfortable in your own space!

[callmomrad · 10/10 · 17 April 2007]

Literally. Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott was a little gem of a book which could not be pigeon-holed into a specific genre over a hundred and fifty years ago and as a result ended up on Science Fiction shelves. Combining Geometry and Philosophy (and even Religion), it was an allegory on the human condition, describing a very rigidly-structured Society where square pegs aspired to fit through round holes.

The plot focuses on A. Square, who is led to a series of epiphanies on the Nature of Reality itself to the realization that not only is there an existence beyond his two-dimensional plane in the form of a 3-dimensional universe, but that further dimensions are implied. He learns that appearances are not necessarily all they seem.

Difficult to conceptualize in its reading, Llad Ehlinger, Jr. has managed to graphically express this evolution of the mind. Despite these worlds being populated exclusively by geometric shapes, we are drawn into the story and feel A. Square's transformation as though it were our own, which it hopes to be. Flatland itself is appropriately extremely two-dimensional, yet has endearing qualities. From our hero's perspective, he is at first confused, then exhilarated as he is lifted into the three-dimensional world. We are taken along for the dizzying ride. This is only the beginning for A. Square, who then postulates other worlds with both less and more dimensions. Ehlinger has a sequence which can only be an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey as multi-dimensionality is explored.

As if this were not a big enough task to tackle, Ehlinger expands the storyline by applying some of the original concepts of Governments to their logical path to War. Flatland, both the book and the movie, can be appreciated at many levels. By adding an extra layer, Ehlinger has actually simplified the book.

I enjoyed this movie. It is mind-bending and thought-provoking, with a graphic element integral to its message. A potentially too-heavy treatise is lightened by very humorous details, such as the warbled battle cries of female lines in Flatland, who need to both sway and make noise at all times in order to be seen when not approached from their sides, so as not to pierce unobservant polygons! There is more than meets the eye to this unusual independently filmed and marketed movie. One viewing may not be enough.

How soon is Flatterland coming out then????

[siss400 · 10/10 · 20 March 2008]

flatland has always been a magic book for me, as math itself although I was never VERY good at it. My average ability as an engineer to comprehend the mysteries of both the world of science and the social sphere, were given a true boost with this magic allegory. I purchased the film two times so far, one for my husband and one for a friend, and each time I watched it it revealed something new. The animation, I find it superb and the storytelling brilliant. Just brilliant.

I only wish there were subtitles to it, as English is not my mother tongue and I struggled enormously at first with all these terms and the peculiar accents. I shall definitely jump to buy the subtitled edition too when it comes out! Not to mention I am truly looking forward to the sequel!!! Flatterland - my last summer reading I mean. How does this sound Sir Ladd?

A bit flat

[david-5160 · 20 September 2008]

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.

Flatland Fell Flat

[boldscott · 1/10 · 21 December 2023]

The concept was very interesting but the execution was awful. Basic writing accompanied by misdirected voice actors.

In any production, the audience should forget (even for a moment) that they're watching a production. Never did I "fall into the story", all I kept hearing were people speaking inauthentically into a microphone.

I'm sure the people who made this gave it their best possible efforts, so I don't like to give these types of reviews, but this was terrible from start to finish. I forced myself to watch from beginning to end, hoping at some point to find some enjoyment or wisdom but it failed miserably.

I would encourage the people who made this to learn from their mistakes and try again, but creative writing isn't for everyone. People with the passion to write should keep exploring different avenues and branches of the craft.

I know several passionate writers personally, who have tried and failed at multiple writing mediums until they found their niche.

So, to the writer of this cartoon I say "If your pen refuses to stay in its inkwell, then release it in every direction until it finds it has landed on the proper parchment".

Wonderful Adaptation, Unlike Anything You've Ever Seen

[nopuppy-1 · 9/10 · 18 March 2007]

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.

Awesome film, fun for the whole family!

[cootdog · 10/10 · 10 March 2007]

I have to say, I love this film. I bought is as soon as the special release was available and my DVD is numbered #11! The detailed animation in this film is very impressive. The intricate inner workings of the Flatlanders blew me away. I mean with a bunch of characters on the screen you could see all of their eyes blink, hearts beat, etc. I was simply amazed at the level of detail. I never read the book but the story is really great. It really makes you wonder what's beyond our 3D world. My kids loved this film also. They keep asking if they can watch it again. It's really cool to see the different things the kids pick up on, and how they interpret the film. The film is deep on many levels. The music was spot on and fit each scene just right. I would highly recommend this film to anyone! I'd love to see this in the theater. FLATLAND THE FILM RULES!!!

Flatland the Film it's great and I love the hidden things within it keep up the great work.

[puffnspott · 10/10 · 17 March 2008]

As a person that is interested in Math and when I heard about Flatland the Film I had to obtain a copy. The first time I watched Flatland the film I found it very interesting with great 3D animation. As I watched a second and third time I began to notice hidden things within the film, which must have been placed within the film on purpose, and I did not notice them the first time I watched. In addition, every time I watch it the question comes to mind… how many things did you guys hide in this film and is it your trademark??? I found the film was very true to the book and have recommended this Film to many and the response has been great. We have planned some viewing parties to see if we can find more hidden things. This film is great keep up the good work. When is your next film coming out and what is will be hidden in it?

"You people certainly like your shiny things."

[missstephie · 10/10 · 5 November 2009]

There's not much I can say about this work of art, but I admire the depth and complexity of the film. There's so much information and logic throughout, I almost felt as though I had gained knowledge by watching it.

I'll put it simply.

It's about a character, known simply as A Square, who lives in a 2 Dimensional world known only as Flatland. Why? Well, because it's flat of course. All the people are squares, circles, hexagons, etc... but all of them are equally as flat as the other. They have no idea of 3 Dimensional space. That is, until A Sphere appears from Spaceland and takes A Square on a whirlwind journey of discovery and intrigue where he learns all about the 3rd dimension and his own purpose in life.

It's all rather confusing and irregular in it's general presentation, but it's also one of the best animated films I've seen in a long time. I'm left with a distinct feeling of wonder and deep thought that I've not experienced in years. It feels amazing. So overall, it's an excellent film that I highly recommend.

great animation - very thoughtful

[sub-primitive · 10/10 · 24 March 2008]

I had not read the book that this was based on. There was even a sense that this would be a waste of time.

I realized I was very wrong. As others have mentioned in their comments: this is no Hollywood canon fodder intended for the spoon-fed masses.

Some interest in mathematics or science is not essential but more than likely contributes to ones viewing of the film.

I found the story very thoughtful and entertaining at the same time. The film is well executed and easy to watch.

(Two dimensional characters do not have facial Tiks - just my thoughts)

Excellent film, stays mostly true to the book.

[botanydan · 8/10 · 25 May 2008]

This movie is a great portrayal of the Abbott book. The graphics are very well done and shows what can be done today with some determination and a home computer. I think someone who didn't understand the concepts of the universe and how our perception of dimensions controls what we believe will have their eyes opened to the possibilities raised if dimensions we don't know about exist.

The weaknesses I see in this film were in the one-dimensional voices. There was little emotion and passion. It sounded like something I would hear in an elementary school production. Some of the transitions between scenes seemed awkward and occasionally it was unclear exactly what was supposed to be happening, though I find many films based on books have this problem.

All in all the movie is a success. I highly recommend it as an entertaining and educational experience and a nice change from the standard Hollywood fare.

Basically a Film Version of The Allegory of the Cave by Plato

[calzonesylvia · 8/10 · 20 May 2022]

After watching Harlan County U. S. A., I wanted to watch something tonally lighter, so I viewed this film, expecting something of typical early YouTube. What I saw instead was something much more profound.

The first 40 minutes are a slog, with simplistic graphics that do indeed look like something from 2007-era YouTube, text that is used as a narrative crutch, at least one unnecessary conflict and some admittedly important exposition. After those first 40 minutes, however, this film greatly improves, displaying the difficulty if not impossibility if introducing someone to something he or she has never experienced; imagine trying to explain any color to a blind person or a any noise to a deaf person.

Despite dragging for much of its runtime, the insight Flatland provides makes it worth watching. A 9/10 for that insight and a 7/10 for entertainment value, which greatly increases during the film's last hour.

Perfect abstraction

[fatiyerikli · 10/10 · 18 August 2021]

I think we need more animation movies like that. We are missing a lot of details when we get into the details of visual effects and animation. The animation itself can express a story as well.