Director John Kent Harrison's imaginative film adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's 1963
A Wrinkle in Time may not be able to fully satisfy the immense expectations of those decidedly loyal to L'Engle's book, yet delivers a family thriller impressive enough to stand on its own merits. Katie Stuart plays Meg Murry, the introverted, intelligent oldest child of Dr. Jack Murry, an astrophysicist who has suddenly disappeared without a trace. As Meg struggles with her father's absence and her own coming-of-age awkwardness, she tightens her bond with Charles Wallace (David Dorfman), her brilliant, eccentric 6-year-old brother. When a trio of celestial beings summons them to find their father, the children are joined by neighbor Calvin O'Keefe (Gregory Smith) to embark on a dangerous journey of time travel. They "tesseract" onto the planet Camazotz where Dr. Murry is being held prisoner by an evil force. The film retains the essence of the novel, and deftly employs its 128-minute running time to build viewer affinity for the heroic children. The special effects will not disappoint, though the climatic last battle should have held closer to the book. Stuart is exemplary as the understated and deeply reflective Meg, while Dorfman dazzles as conflicted Charles Wallace. (Ages 8 and older)
--Lynn Gibson
Madeleine L'Engle's best-selling and beloved Newbery Award-winning novel bursts to life in a spectacular family film that TV Guide calls "a charming and imaginative film." When astrophysicist Dr. Jack Murry disappears without a trace, his children, Meg and Charles Wallace, and neighbor Calvin O'Keefe embark on a cosmic quest to find him. Guided by Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, the children travel to a distant planet and encounter a society controlled by an evil force. They must trust themselves and one another if they are to rescue Dr. Murry and return home safely. Enjoy the nonstop excitement and adventure of A WRINKLE IN TIME, starring Academy Award(R)-nominated actress Alfre Woodard (1984 Best Supporting Actress, CROSS CREEK) and teen idol Gregory Smith from TV's EVERWOOD. It's an amazing journey your family will want to take over and over again.
1 Excellent!
I really liked this movie. The actors for the movie were well picked. (I think the boy who played Charles Wallace is in the ring 2) It may be alittle slow in some parts, but if you're fasinated about other worlds(like me) you're bound to like the movie. The graphics were really good and the parts in the book that were supposed to be scary really stood out in the movie, especially if you were watching it at night. Anyways, you should try it out to see if you like it.
2 What Happened? Terrible , Butchered and Boring
I have fond memories of reading this book as a youngster. It is a wonderful book and about time I read it again. The movie is another story entirely. The movie starts out very slowly. You are introduced to Meg and her family. I found the actress who played Meg to not be very likeable. The rest of the characters were very flat and I felt no connection to any of them.
I forced myself to watch in hopes it would get more exciting. Nothing really seemed to make sense or fit together. i only made it thru 20 minutes. I have little recolection of the real material from the book, but this at best was a very butchered mess.
I advise those who think of viewing this to pick up the books. They are very fun. If you have to view a movie try the Harry Potter films or even the Lion the With and The Wardrobe. The Harry Potters are very well done and the Lion was pretty good.
3 This movie was wonderful
I loved this movie!! The story was wonderful and refreshing.
The kids in this movie protrayed how all children feel with growning pains. This movie allowed me to believe that there are so many possiblities if we want to believe.
Great movie - must see
4 There is no god.
On the cover of this movie's box, there's a picture of Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace riding atop a great pegasus over a castle gate. Where this location is, is beyond me, as it never shows up once in this movie. And where the pegasus ran off to in the finished product is a mystery in its own. It probably read the script and saw the actors it had to deal with, and hung itself in the studio basement to "Don't You Forget About Me" from The Breakfast Club's soundtrack. Yeah, I read the book. Granted, it was in 5th grade, but it was one of my favorites, and as a field trip, our class even went to see the play-version of it. And you know what? That play in its own, had better production values than this thing did.
The book started with that classic line: "It was a dark and stormy night". Here, it starts out with an explosion in the sky, and the camera zooming through a Xena-quality space scene. This leads into a conversation between Meg and her dad, talking about how stupid she is. Yes, this is quite a self-conscious kid we have on her hands. Where in the book she didn't make too big a deal out of not being that smart or good looking, here it's pratically all she talks about it. We're then introduced to her abnormally young family. I'm serious, her mom looks like she's in her early 30's. But this goes into a scene where she corrects her science teacher, and is sent to the principal's office. Sure, we can see she's independent here, but by correcting the teacher on misnamed parts of the brain? Please. On her way home, some other kids make fun of her brother: Charles Wallace, and she tries to fight one of them. Keep in mind, these kids are like 8 years old, and one manages to push her down. Calvin comes to the rescue, and calls the kid a loser, making him run away immediately. Bored yet? I sure as heck was. Charles Wallace takes a liking to Calvin, actually talking to him, where he normally only talks to those in his family. Charles is a "special" boy, able to read minds. Later that night he sets up a dinner for 4, where Mrs. Whatsit (which he pronounces "wotzit") comes into their home, uninvited, and the mom doesn't have any actual problem with it. A stranger just...waltzes in, and she's perfectly ok. Yeah, that's how it usually goes in real life, doesn't it? Mrs. Whatsit leads Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin on a journey to rescue their dad from wherever it is that he was taken to. Cut to the obligatory plot about the power of believing in yourself and you've got yourself an after-school special. Something that the book was anything but.
There are so many problems with this movie that it would require a seperate review just to list them all. I'll do my best to only key out the main ones that bugged me. First is the plot. This is so loosely based around the book that it's sad. We get the characters, and that's about it. The movie takes place in modern times, complete with the internet, where Meg's mom constantly looks up info on Tesseracts. If this is the modern world, why does everyone dress like it's the early 90's? Next, is the acting. In the book, you cared about the characters. Each one had their own distinct personality. Meg was the heroine, independent, but not some stunning piece of work. Charles Wallace was the smart child character, but still easily manipulated in some ways. And Calvin was the perfect kid, great in sports and schoolwork. Here, they don't have personalities. It's established that Calvin is a good basketball player, but that's all we really get about his lifestyle. And Meg, oh my god can you get any more generic? She has this blank Jenny Jones look on her face whenever she talks to people. How about some of the CG used in the movie now? Most of the movie was CG. It's painfully obvious that the actors are being shot against blue/green screens, and not on location. The only time they are, is when they're in Meg's home, and at school or outside. Other than that, almost everything else is CG. But the one that did it in for me, was when Mrs. Whatsit transforms into a half-horse/half-human. I was laughing to the point where I couldn't breathe. If any of you remember the cover for the book, there was a beautiful drawing of a pure white creature with long hair and a muscular structure. What do we get here? A horse's body, with a human head in between the front legs on its back, sans-neck. This is a horses body, with a human head just sitting there. And the wings sprouting out of the sides, causing for what should be unbalanced flight. There is nothing beautiful about this creature. I wish they had used this on the cover instead, just so I could get a kick out of seeing it whenever I check my Reviews section. Equally bad is Aunt Beast, a major character in the book, that was almost indescribable. Here we get a Wookiee on Paxil wandering around Alaska for one whole scene. Finally, they forget some plot elements. Early on, we learn that Calvin has an abusive mom. That's it. It's never touched upon after that scene. And wait until you see It.
The visual quality is very poor. Presented in full-screen only, the picture is often blurry and there's pleanty of grain to go around. Blacks aren't solid, and there's too many problems going around that had me shaking my head. The audio is equally bad. I had trouble hearing a few lines here and there, and some off-screen voices are too muffled to make out.
I'm surprised they even gave this disc special features. First are deleted scenes, none of which add anything to the movie. Most of them involve Meg's dad in the workshop, doing nothing. One that should've stayed to make the movie even more humiliating was one between Meg and Calvin, when she walks in on him playing basketball in the ice cavern without a shirt. The obligatory embarassment comes over her, but they soon argue over little things, and she leaves yelling predictable lines. A Conversation With Madeleine L'Engle is somewhat creepy. At first, she gives us some cool info on the book, and how it was "too controversial" to publish at the time. Near the end though, she mentions how she gave the book to a dying child and says (and I quote) "it's a perfect book to die by". I hit rewind and listened to it again. Yes, she said what I thought she said, and says much more. Things like how it's good to die without knowing all the answers. If I ever had a Lewis Black "if it weren't for my horse..." moment, this was it. There's also a featurette running just barely over 10 minutes on the actors. It's making me laugh to use the term "actors" with these people. The only one who had even the slightest bit of talent was Ms. Who. And I'm pretty much just saying that because she was pretty. There's also some footage of them filming behind the scenes. One of the sets is no bigger than my kitchen. No joke.
Normally, I can find something good in a movie. Here, I can't think of a single thing that warrants a rental or purchase. Thanks a lot movie people, you ruined any nostalgia I might've had remembering a great book. Now, I'll picture drugged up Wookiees and human heads on horses. I can only imagine how kids will react to seeing that thing. If you're a parent and show this movie to your kids because you read the book when you were younger, I hate you.
5 Horrible!!!!!!!!
Okay first off I think this is such a weird movie that didn't make alot of sense. Also it was real freaky and I know this sounds weird, but it scared me! Charles Walsh's actor was a weird boy and why did everyone ALWAYS say his full name when speaking to him? Why didn't they ever just call him Charles? When they met those weird white yeti things that really disturbed me! The graphics and acting were horrible! I didn't even finish it because it was soooooo horrible and(I know i keep saying this)weird! Also when the kids entered the magical world they kind of acted as if they do it everyday. I'm sorry you have to listen to my complaining and bickering but i have to get it out! I'm sorry disney but this movie was very weird and freaky!
6 Horrible!!!!!!!!
Okay first off I think this is such a weird movie that didn't make alot of sense. Also it was real freaky and I know this sounds weird, but it scared me! Charles Wallace's actor was a weird boy and why did everyone ALWAYS say his full name when speaking to him? Why didn't they ever just call him Charles? When they met those weird white yeti things that really disturbed me! The graphics and acting were horrible! I didn't even finish it because it was soooooo horrible and(I know i keep saying this)weird! Also when the kids entered the magical world they kind of acted as if they do it everyday. I'm sorry you have to listen to my complaining and bickering but i have to get it out! I'm sorry disney but this movie was very weird and freaky!
7 Great screenplay and casting
This movie actually improves on the book in some ways. The movie's rendition of the ending is a superior dramatization to the book's ending. I think the screenplay writer deserves great credit here. I also liked the casting. I think they found the essence of each character in each actor, and I especially liked the normality of everyone's looks. Oops - except the Dad, who is a too hunky. This was a difficult book to bring to film because it is much more profound than most children's stories. A job very well done. It might not suit the sci fi junkie as much as the book, but it captures the story extremely well.
8 If Star Wars and The Neverending Story had a yard sale......
If Star Wars and The Neverending Story had a garage sale and Disney was the first one to arrive for the good prices, that would only half explain the problem with this film. I have never seen more disrespect for a book than I did with Disney's release of A Wrinkle in Time. From the horrible, cheap-ish acting to the video game styled CGI, there was nothing in this film that appealed to me or would for anyone that was a fan of L'Engle's work. There were moments when I swore that I was watching a poorly made After-School special about the loss of a family member, but reality caught hold and I was forced back into A Wrinkle in Time.
Where to begin ... well, how about the acting? Did they pull these child stars out of the dollar bin, or are they generally this horrible? Katie Stuart (Meg) seemed like she didn't even care about being in the film. There was no emotion behind any of her character's lines leading us down a path of apathy towards any big moments in this film. She was our leader, she was the one that was supposed to bring us up in arms about the events that were happening, instead she just spoke the lines given to her and stepped where she was supposed to. No originality, no excitement, no enjoyment could be seen behind Stuart's eyes and ultimately it hurt this film. Well, it was one of the bigger elements that hurt this film. Gregory Smith needs to stay on the WB for a bit longer because it is his best work to date. I am a fan of Everwood and I don't understand how he could be so good in that, yet horrible in this. It was as if he was simply looking for the paycheck to buy that new car he can finally drive. It was ... for lack of a better word ... pathetic. I was also a bit disappointed with the choice of the kid from The Ring as Charles Wallace. He couldn't embody the character at all, and it became obvious that the only reason he was involved with this film was because he was in a blockbuster film. He was not Charles Wallace, just an actor trying to get paid. The same can be said for everyone else in the film that really didn't put any emotion or emphasis on their characters. The motions were done, but it just felt that nobody cared. For those that have read the book, the characters will probably be a big hurdle to overcome. The parents of these children looked like they had Meg at the ripe age of 16. They truly did not embody the vision that L'Engle gave us in the written word.
How about that cheap CGI? Disney forte, so to speak, is animation. It is what they built their foundation on, so why was this CGI so horribly bad? I couldn't tell if I was playing a video game or watching a film half of the time. When the children arrive to the planet engrossed with darkness, I couldn't help but laugh. Nothing seemed real, nobody cared, and the film was quickly going down the toilet. I was literally rolling around on the ground when Alfre Woodard transformed into the horsy creature. It was visually horrible to look at and made me happy that my imagination could create a better representation in my mind when I read the book. Also, what were the Wookies doing on the planet that somewhat resembled Hoth? Frustration was just boiling out of me by this time. I felt cheated and hurt all at the same time.
The story didn't help my frustration either. I felt I had walked into my local butcher shop and watched director John Kent Harrison go at it with a butcher's knife. He showed no sympathy to the original story by L'Engle and, to be honest, didn't even seem to care. Why do films like this get made in Hollywood? It only hurts the story because if I had seen this film first, I would not have wanted to go back and read the book. L'Engle should not have allowed this travesty to occur, but as everyone showed in this film, sometimes you gotta get paid.
Normally, I would go further into why I disliked this film, but I am just so angry that there is no point. This was the worst film that I have seen this year and do not suggest it for anyone that enjoyed the written work of L'Engle. She was creative, original, and developed some amazing imagery for young adults to grow into. I wish I could say the same about this film, but (as you can see) I cannot. There was nothing redeemable in this film at all. Not even the ending credits were any good. No money was spent on them. I still cannot grasp the understanding on how a multi-billion dollar company like Disney can create films like this without giving it the proper budget. It was a disgrace and I shan't see it again!
Grade: * out of *****
9 As good as the book!
This movie I have to say is that it was great!!!Yes, there were some bad thing in "IT" but first the good.
The good was the story line. I love it, they did what the book had in it and sticked with it. The one tesseracting scene was the best graphics in the movie.The thing I liked the most was how they set the setting, it looked real.
The bad was the graphics, they were poor.I know they were on a tv money situation. But there were others, like how they the charicter acted to things.
Over all the movie was good and I loved it!
10 Why this format???
Why oh why does Disney do such a lousy job with transfers?
It's 2004, Disney... there is NO reason to release a DVD in Pan and Scan only.
It really is a shame, because the film was MUCH better when shown on Satellite in 16x9.
11 Decent but not outstanding adaptation of a stellar book
I saw this film with deep apprehension, having heard very ominous rumors. I came out thinking, well, that wasn't very bad, but it wasn't very good, either, was it?
The three young actors are excellent, particularly Meg. The three ladies are not at all faithful to L'Engle's conception, but on the whole entertaining (especially Woodard) and dramatically effective (especially Nelligan). The other adults are, frankly, boring, except the Happy Medium, who's unwatchable. Nice smirky presence from the Man with Red Eyes, though.
Judging from the deleted scenes included on the DVD, the editing process that shortened the film by a full hour actually improved the screenplay. By cutting the earlier sequences focusing on Dr. Murray's experiments, the film was brought much closer to L'Engle's original plot structure and effectively restricts its point of view to that of the child protagonists. While largely well staged and shot, the extraneous material is mostly unnecessary filler (and removing the already-dated "Star Trek" and "The Matrix" references was a wise move).
The effects are disappointingly low-budget; much of what we see even on TV is better produced than this, let alone on the big screen. The production design of Camazotz is creepy, but doesn't even attempt to convey the deliberate, oppressive banality of L'Engle's description. Aunt Beast and her race are, well, embarassing, as is the flying centaur. The music is pretty, but unmemorable.
Until a really top-notch production of this book emerges, this will have to do. I'm not holding my breath, though. It would take a screenwriter and a director of absolute genius to distill L'Engle's tricky blend of coming-of-age drama, science fiction and cosmic philosophy into a play that doesn't condescend to either its audience or its content. Harrison's version is earnest, but teeters perilously close to committing both errors.
And that flying centaur really is embarassing.
12 Sure to disappoint -- stick with the book
Warning: This is a frank, honest review of the movie, and it's only my opinion, but I've seen the movie twice and have read the book many times, and therefore I believe myself qualified to give it.
After receiving 'A Wrinkle in Time' as a Christmas present, I eagerly popped it in my DVD player, ready for the ride of my life. The book, by Madeleine L'Engle, is one of my favourites, and I was interested to see how Disney made the movie.
While some scenes reach a very high level of entertainment, for a Disney B-movie, and you can tell that a lot of thought was put into many of the characters, the movie, in my opinion, fails to reach the heights that L'Engle intended and achieved with the book. It's hard to tell what Disney's target audience is supposed to be -- while trying to attain the intellectual, thought-provoking storyline of the book, the movie attempts to appeal to both infantile and teenage audiences.
David Dorfman as Charles Wallace is not a miscast, but he definitely misinterprets the character development of CW. Indeed he doesn't do much throughout the whole movie, except look like the loser everyone tries to make him out as being. Katie Stuart makes for a far too boring Meg, and I felt no real reason to cheer her on when she tries to win her brother back from The Man with Red Eyes. Gregory Smith is a handsome Calvin O'Keefe, and does give the movie a hot dynamic that it lacks with Meg and her boring family alone, but after the second viewing, it becomes apparent that his voice never changes at all in the movie. His declarations, exclamations and questions all sound the same to me. Meg's twin brothers are miscasts: they are the different, "common" boys that L'Engle makes them out as being, but Disney makes them too young and immature to matter at all.
The witches, however, work together to save the movie from being a total bore, even if they are further examples of the movie straying too far from the book. A black Mrs. Whatsit? A little out there, but it works! Kate Nelligan as Mrs. Which is also a great choice. Aunt Beast is also well done. The Happy Medium is not at all how I imagined him -- he's supposed to be neither a man nor a woman, but just looks like a very feminine man -- but his character is not entirely a flop. The Man with Red Eyes is, however, totally unconvincing.
The first half of the movie, in which Meg and her family, and Calvin are introduced, is a bit of a snooze. I'm not convinced that Meg is anything but ordinary, even though everyone's constantly saying that she's different. It's almost as if the movie is trying to give hope to mediocre girls that they might appeal to guys like Gregory Smith. (I know, that's a very, very mean thing to say, but probably true.) If you've read the book, you can easily fast forward to the second half. Camazotz isn't at all like the Camazotz in the book. Instead of being an almost complete mirror of Earth, the people are even more spaced out than in the book and the atmosphere is red. (?) The ending is decent (spoiler here), but Disney does not employ the L'Engle technique of the witches leaving without saying where they're going or if they'll ever come back. Boo!
I give this movie two stars because Disney tries, and Gregory Smith and the witches kept me watching. Some scenes, such as the phony Meg's family scene that is shown to her on Camazotz, were well done and should be praised. All in all, however, don't get your hopes up. It's a rental. Do, however, buy the book.
13 Terrific Book, but Film Doesn't Capture It
I wanted to see a film version of A Wrinkle in Time so badly that I was rooting for this film all the way. However, it must be difficult to capture a book of this imagination if you do not have a big budget like the Harry Potter films or do not have a script that matches the book. The acting by the children are fine, but not stellar, and the beloved characters Mrs. Whatsit & Company were too bumbling and comical for the story. Perhaps a darker, less comical version would have been better.
14 Deserves A Better Treatment
Before there was Harry Potter and Lemony Snickett, there was Meg, Calvin, and little Charles Wallace. "A Wrinkle In Time" was the beginning of one of the best fantasies for older children and, yes, even adults. This film based on the first book in the fantasy is okay, but I feel as if the entire series was cheated when compared to such juggernauts as Potter and Lemony. I enjoy the Potter films and books as much as anyone, but I think that more attention should have been paid to "A Wrinkle In Time." Not only was it the first "big" book that I ever read, it was also the first fantasy that I had ever read. I fell in love with it immediately and it encouraged me to read even more books. A couple of years ago, at the age of twenty-six, I read "Wrinkle" again, because I loved it so much.
Alfre Woodard is great as Ms. Whatsit, and Who and Which are also excellent. The little boy chosen to play Charles Wallace was fantastic, he looked really creepy when It took over him. The rest of the cast is superb as well, but that isn't where my complaint lies.
My complaint is with the production. When the children travel throught the tesseract, fly on Ms. Whatsit, meet the Happy Medium, etc., the production looks like something off of Sci-Fi channel. Also, something is lost in the translation to the screen, and the story comes off slow, plodding, and uninteresting at times. Money is always an issue with films of this sort, but you'd think that Disney would have plunked down a little more dough on this picture. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Instead, the actors are forced to drudge along through the story in an attempt to make the best of what they've been given.
Hopefully someone will come along and give this brilliant story the proper treatment it deserves. It triggered the imaginations of many generations, and it should be given the same care and respect as Potter, Snickett, and all of the others that I'm sure will come along.
Three stars go to the actors in this film. They do a brilliant job given the fact that they had so little to work with. I recommend this one with reservations. It's fun to finally see some great childhood heroes on the screen, but I just wish they would have been treated better. Read the book first, then watch this movie.
15 "It's Like A Wrinkle in Time"
Full Disclosure on my Biases:
1) I have disliked the Walt Disney Company ever since they dared to release Hunchback of Notre Dame with a singing main character and a happy ending.
2) I would have been disappointed with anything less than a "page one: film that. Page two: film that...Page 212: film that, roll credits" adaptation.
Accepting those two biases in myself, I tried to keep an open mind as the film began. For the first three chapters, the movie was not totally unrecognizable from the book. The actors and actresses shown could have been Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin. Of course the scenes had to be updated for 2001 (when the movie was actually filmed: references to the Internet, CDs, etc.), and certain scenes were borrowed from the first chapter of A Wind in the Door (Charles is in first grade, age 6, not 5 as in the books.) After the first half hour I thought "maybe I was wrong, they might be...."
Then the filmaker takes us off-world (Chapter 4). Major changes start appearing. Characters and sequences begin to be condensed or deleted entirely. Mrs. Which does not carry a broom not does her voice reverberate throughout the area. I'm thinking "ok, there are budgets to consider. It's still ok."
Then we get Meg and Co. to Camazotz (Ch. 6 and thereafter). The plot is suddenly ripped off its axis and sent spinning end over end into Disneyification. The plot is changed radically and what scenes do exist from the book are seen out of order.
The acting itself was decent. The special effects were bad, and incidental music was completely inappropriate in some places. The producer, who still claimed pride in this film's lack-of-quality, told a National Public Radio interviewer "It's like a A Wrinkle in Time. If you loved every word on every page of the original, I hope you can understand the differences between the two mediums and appriciate both."
To summerize my thoughts on this mistake of a production: If you loved the book: you will hate this movie. If you read the book, you won't recognize most of this movie. If you haven't read the book and see this first, you might enojy it, but then go read the book and realize how good the film could have been.
16 A Wrinkle in Quality
We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering.
The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shone from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.
Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become...a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, the took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" who likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only two people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).
The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil.
I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way they are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.
17 Really should be 0 stars
This was a spine-tinglingly bad movie - I had been anticipating it for years. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. There were so many things "off" with it, I don't know where to start. All I can say is that when Madeleine L'Engle, the creator of this amazing book, says the "I expected it to be bad, and it is."that is a telling remark!
Don't waste your time.
18 Good movie, better than the book
I loved this movie. I am a big fan of the two sequal books, but I didn't like this one much. I loved the movie. It changed most of the things I disliked. The kid who plays Charles Wallace is great. Meg I loved too. They didn't make her gorgeous. I am so happy about that. They did go a little too pretty, but hey, this is hollywood. Calvin was pretty good as well. I love Alfre Woodard. She was excellent, as were the actresses for the other women. I liked that they updated the quotes. It made it interesting.
19 terrible movie.. save your money and buy the book instead.
Madeleine L'Engle is, without a doubt, one of the most prolific writers of our time. A Wrinkle In Time is probably considered her finest work. This movie has turned it into a low-budget mess.
I sat in my home and watched it with hopeful eyes, and all but cried during the entire movie for the sheer tragedy of it all.
I believe Madeleine L'Engle, in a Newsweek article dated May 7, 2004, sums up the movie in the best way possible:
NEWSWEEK: So you've seen the movie?
Madeleine L'Engle: I've glimpsed it.
And did it meet expectations?
Oh, yes. I expected it to be bad, and it is.
20 A disappointment
I read Madeleine L'Engle's novel "A Wrinkle in Time" back when I was in elementary school. I heard of the movie release a VERY long time ago. I waited and waited and searched forever. When it finally came on, I was so excited. While watching the movie, I was highly disappointed. The casting was terrible, especially for Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Which. The happy medium was ridiculous as well as IT. The book was SO much better. Nothing was like I imagined it.
AND, the cover of this DVD doesn't even do justice to the movie. It looks plain stupid.
21 Much better than expected (minor spoilers)
I had great fear when I heard that Disney was planning on making a TV Miniseries out of the classic "A Wrinkle In Time," because I knew just how awful most Disney TV movies are, and just how many liberties they would try to take for the sake of a TV audience. When ABC continued to postpone the airing of "Wrinkle" for almost two full years, I had even greater fear, because, more often than not, the reason for a very long delay in release is because the product is nigh-to-worthless. When I heard that the original 4-hour Miniseries plan was cut down to a 3-hour movie, that fear doubled. And then, ABC announced it would air beginning at 8pm, when most kids wouldn't be able to stay awake for the whole thing. All of this didn't bode well, and gave me the feeling that ABC didn't want anyone to see this movie.
After all is said-and-done, "A Wrinkle In Time" greatly exceeded my expectations. Sure, liberties were taken, but the majority of the items that were changed for the film were changed in a logical fashion, and would only be cited by die-hard L'Engleites.
THE GOOD:
- The casting. They didn't go for the pre-fabricated Hollywood ideal. Meg is pretty, but not a stunning supermodel with huge "assets." Calvin is kinda weird-looking. Charles-Wallace is a cute kid, but gives off an unexpected creepiness. And, despite my initial reservations, Alfre Woodard didn't annoy me at all.
- The acting. Top notch performances from all. Meg and Calvin had all of the chemistry and depth that the book demanded. Charles-Wallace, while occasionally slipping into cheese-mode, gave one of the creepiest performances I've seen since the original "Bad Seed."
- The set design. Specifically, the Murray house, and the planet Camazotz. Both were exactly what I had pictured when reading the book, and in my own screenplay adaptation attempts. The long streets lined with precise, grey tract housing was especially dead-on to my own vision.
- The cinematography. Jon Joffin, you deserve a cigar. Finally, a TV movie that isn't completely flat! There's shadow, depth, and mood dripping off of nearly every scene in this film. But, what more do you expect from the man who lit "Home," by far one of the creepiest and darkest episodes of "The X-Files." Kudos specifically to Meg's arrival on Camazotz, lit only by a slight backlight and lightning flashes. Fantastic work.
- The score. Great work by Jeff Danna, who also wrote the moody, diverse score for "Boondock Saints." (His brother is Mychael Danna, of "The Ice Storm" and "The Sweet Hereafter.") Of course, I do feel there were missteps, particularly the occasionally cartoony incidentals, but on the themes and backgrounds had a mood and depth that echoed the feelings exemplified in the book.
- The teleplay. Susan Shilliday certainly did change quite a few things, but the most important aspect remained, and that is the spirit of the book. The film displays the same sense of wonder and purpose that L'Engle infused into her novel. That, coupled with some well-placed snarky humor, made this adaptation one of the better ones I've seen.
- The very end. Call me whatever you want, but, I never cared for the end of the book. Sure it's creepy, but it's ridiculously sudden. The movie wrapped things up nicely while still providing a necessary bridge toward the book's sequels.
THE BAD:
- The Happy Medium. Egad, what a horrible decision that was. Please, next time, make sure characters are laughing at things that are actually funny.
- The visual effects. Granted, it's a TV budget. And granted, the effects are probably over a year old now. But still, it could've been much better. The winged horse was laughable, the landscapes were plastic, and "IT" was... well, not very much at all, was it? I did like the Tesseract effects, though I think that the film dwelled on too many of them. The final Tesseract effect was fantastic, and obviously the one that the most money was spent on. If more effects looked like that, I'd be happier.
- "IT." This was one change that really bothered me. Those of us who read the book know exactly what "IT" is, and showing such obscure sections of "IT," and having the climactic battle with IT's representative rather than IT itself, I feel, was a poor choice.
THE UGLY:
- The direction. Sometimes, the film was very well-done. At other times, the direction was very clumsy and confusing. This could be attributed to how much had to be cut out of the 4-hour version to fit into its 3-hour timeslot, but nonetheless, there were some scenes that just didn't work at all.
All-in-all, "A Wrinkle In Time" is a very enjoyable film, and, despite a few wrong turns, is a good adaptation of a great work of literature.
As an aside, Amazon does list the wrong running time for this item. According to Disney's official site for the DVD, the running time is 128 Minutes.
22 What's With the Cover Art?!
I agree with just about everything that "m. Salidas" wrote- I am a HUGE fan of the original book, but I realized that the film would need to update certain aspects of it and it did not dissapoint me (if the original mini-series from which this was edited had aired, however, I might have been dissapointed based on what I've read of it- the Prime Cordinator (man with red eyes) was Dr. Murry's lab partner? Come on.)
In any case, my issue is with the Cover Art! I saw this a few weeks ago on another site and simply assumed this was just preliminary. Certainly this cover art which has nothing (except the three actors being the same) to do with the book or movie couldn't POSSIBLY be the cover art. But as it's showing up on Amazon, I become afraid that it is. What the heck?! I mean, the kids are riding a PEGASUS! Not a "centaur-like creature" as both the book and the movie presented, but a PEGASUS! And they're flying over . . . . a castle?! Um- WHAT?! Maybe I read a different book or saw a different movie, but there were no CASTLES anywhere I could see! This cover art quite simply does not accurately reflect the film!
(...)
someone that likes pegasus and puts them in his promotional art just for kicks and studio bosses that approve the work don't even care- they just approve it. I mean what, did this guy (or girl) watch the movie on fast-forward, fall asleep and have a dream about castles, vaguely remember some kind of flying creature and THEN make the cover art? Absolutely stupid. Had I not seen the movie (and with ABC's minimal advertising, few did), and saw this cover art with having a love of the book so much, I would assume that FAR more changes were made from the original movie and simply avoid it at all costs. As stated, the movie itself was good. Don't judge a movie by it's cover.
When the movie first aired on ABC I recorded it onto DVD and since I am a graphic artist by trade, I created cover art for my disk. If this IS in fact the final cover art (and I'm still hoping against hope that it isn't), I'll just throw it away and use my own cover art.
Movie: 4 stars Cover Art: 0 stars
And I pray that the designer of this abomonation reads this. You may have money but your "art" has no soul. Take that to the bank.
23 I'm anxiously awaiting the release of the DVD
I heard the original release of the movie was three hours long. The details for this DVD say it is only 88 minutes in length. Can anyone confirm the length? Will the full version three hour version be released anytime soon?
24 A Wrinkle in Time highly compelling
Flawed, but far from awful (which is what many readers of the beloved novel feared), this adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's 1962 `A Wrinkle in Time' is highly compelling. I suspect this may have been a labor of love for director John Kent Harrison.
This film still retains much of the books sense of wonder and philosophy. The characters, plot and milestones are all still here, and as a blueprint the movie follows the book faithfully. Even some of the books famous lines "Wild nights are my glory", "By the way there is such a thing as a teserract", and "We are here" remain. Many scenes and locales vary and shift, and screenplay writer Susan Shilliday invents some L'Engle-esque touches of her own (flower storms, glow worms, ect.) Her dialogue is also quite different; it's much subtler though sometimes a bit awkward.
If you are one of those people who look to a literary film adaptation to be a letter-by-letter recount of the book then you'll probably hate this film. And if you're the kind of literary stickler that gets into the whole minutia of hair color I can only further urge you to stay away. It's NOT the book; it's a film and an updated re-imagining and re-invention of the story in a different medium. I found the changes compelling, but others may find them more than they can bear.
The book is and always will be a classic, a revelation and a pioneering milestone in the field of great children's literature. Like the works of JK Rowling and CS Lewis, Mrs. L'Engle's gorgeous and superior series will always be near and dear and untainted by ANY film version good or bad. Their written words have and WILL always stand the test of time. I doubt this film has the power to ever change that.
Moving on. In this adaptation all of the actors are relatively faithful to their literary counterparts. David Dorfman has a wonderfully delicate touch as Charles Wallace, and he's especially effective in his mind control scenes. He has great skill in allowing us to see both rage and indifference- sometimes in the same sentence! Gregory Smith is a far move handsome Calvin that I would have imagined, but he finds his own unique way to the character with deadpan humor.
The biggest acting burden falls on the shoulders of Katie Stuart- her Meg has been re-imagined as an introspective tomboy (I kept thinking of a gentler Nancy McKeon from `The Facts of Life'). Her performance serves this movie well, though it sometimes conflicts with the occasional reference to Meg's passion or impatience which isn't always apparent acting wise.
Alfrie Woodard, Alison Elliot and Kate Nelligan do fine as the three Miss W's, thank you. They achieve an otherworldly manor with great human zeal.
Rounding out the principles are Chris Potter and Sarah Jane Redmond as Jack and Dana Murry. A minor gripe is in this detail- if the screenwriter had read 'An Acceptable Time' she would have discovered their REAL names are Alex and Kate.
Yeah, okay. Sometimes I can be a literary stickler too. So there.
Actually my biggest gripe about the film is the whole sequence on planet Lxchel; clunky editing aside, the new ideas writer Shilliday impose simply fall flat here.
The two trips to Camazotz might be the most radically re-written aspect of the film. The planet has been visually reimagined as a dark George Orwell 1984 kind of society. And the marvelous work of sound designer Kris Fenske creates an impressively oppressive rhythm for this place not unlike earth. This time the sheer LOOK of the planet is just as scary as its principals and ideals.
If you're going to update a book written in 1962 you HAVE to make some translative choices to reflect both contemporary setting and sensibility. "A oversize brain- just larger enough than normal to be completely revolting" on a dais simply doesn't have the impact it once had in 1962. I don't want to spoil the surprise, but what the film does instead works quite well.
However, I will divulge that the role of The Man with Red Eyes has been beefed up. He's deliciously played with dark comic sensibility by Kyle Secor. Another nice touch.
The visual effects occasionally disappoint, and you'll immediately spot the poor ones when you see them. However a special mention must be given to the effects provided for the tesseract. These sequences do not disappoint. They astound. The three children and Miss Whatsit clutch hands on the Star Gazing Rock. Suddenly Misses Whatsit transforms into her purest self: a mass of light and energy. Meg looks at her and Misses Whatsit looks right back with eyes peering through her transparent, organic form. Then the earth falls bellow their feet, the landscape flattens and waves of energy and matter course though them in visual sheets. They are tessering, and all to the glory of Patric Caird and Jeff Dana's ethereal score. This brought me to tears.
A blink and you might miss it moment also happens here: Charles Wallace, ever so briefly, sees the model of the tesseract in the skyscape. A glorious touch, and a touching gesture to the fans of this book.
I suspect this was held off the airwaves for nearly two years NOT because of quality but because of content- this story makes some strong demands on young readers, and as a movie it makes equally tough demands. The last half of the film is indeed dark-which probably made The Wonderful World of Disney a little nervous in its apprehension in airing this on TV. Too bad. Only through great darkness can the light of day be truly appreciated, and I think most young viewers will find the journey most worthwhile.
Again though, not a perfect film but a highly recommended one nevertheless.
NOTES ON THE DVD EDITION...
`A Wrinkle in Time' was originally supposed to air as a four hour miniseries, but was cut down to a three hour allotted Sunday airing. Interestingly enough, the DVD release of 'A Wrinkle in Time' comes with a bonus of 18 minutes worth of these deleted scenes, featuring Charles Murry at work in his lab with a new character called Hank (again played by Mr. Secor, who'll eventually become The Man With Red Eyes.) Some lovely scenes in a maze, additional scenes on Lxchel and (YES!) a couple of noteworthy moments where Meg has some harsher outbursts (which was an initial problem I had with Katie Stuart's performance as directed.)
The DVD also include a brief but profound interview with Mrs. L'Engle discussing getting `A Wrinkle in Time' published and some of the profound I impact it has since had. It's very powerful, and worth looking into.
I must confess, I too am baffled by that DVD cover art. Is that, like, The Wonderful World of Disney castle they're flying over? Yikes!
25 Best Movie Ever!
I have never seen a better or more touching movie in my life! Charles Wallace is super adorable! I recomend this movie any day!
26 Wrinkle in Time!!!!!! A movie???? I'M IN HEAVEN!!!!!!!
I love the book, now a movie is the best thing that ever happened to me! The only changes that the movie has is that Meg does not wear glasses and Charles Wallace is around 7 years old not 3. I love the way that this movie is directed. The graphics in this movie are amazing! The only way it could be better is for Meg and Calvin to kiss at the end of the movie when they are on the Star watching rock.
27 Joyce-A wrinkle in time
I think this DVD will be the best one yet! I can't wait to get it. everyone is saying that a wrinkle in time is 3 hours long and also think it will be worth it!! well i think this will be a DVD that will take a spot in my collection of all time classics!!
