Simply A Masterpiece

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Disapointment

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The story at times felt rushed and unexplained. The special affects, granted, are a decade and a half old, but the tesseract scenes, which were nearly entirely CGI, sadly underwhelmed me. Sometimes the soundtrack felt out of sync with what was happening on screen. Specifically when they were entering CENTRAL Central Intelligence, the orchestra was overstated and the set, action, and camera was understated.The main characters were lovable, but outside of those I barely understood the place and roles of the supporting cast. David Dorfman as Charles Wallace shone. He was lovable, relatable, and real. Alfre Woodard as Mrs. Whatsit was captivating, if sometimes a little awkward. Gregory Smith as Calvin was charming, and Katie Stuart was decent as Meg, though I felt her acting was sometimes lackluster.Even though the movie isn't in my watch-again list, it's inspired me to read the original novel series on which it's based.

So I saw this movie in school and it sucked. All I heard was laughing from my classmates. My friend and I were just trashing this movie the whole time. First off this movie makes no sense. You start off with a family with a single mom, old daughter, the somehow smart son, and the two twins that you see for 5 seconds. Then there is the dad that is in trouble for no reason and the random boy that the girl likes. I'll give you 5 reasons why this movie sucks. #5: The acting. The acting was awful. The smart kid especially. I couldn't even watch it, thats how awful it was. They couldn't act for there life. The script did not help either. That's #4: The script had terrible dialogue and made no sense. There is no reason of why the kid is so smart. Then there is the weird town that also makes no sense either. #3: Special effects. This might be a made for TV movie but this is just so sad. I saw better special effects from movies in the 1950's. From the stupid horse lady to the teleporting stuff. It looked terrible and it was just so sad. The crew probably didn't even try to make it look good. #2: The Characters: Here we go. I did not feel any sympathy for any of these characters they were just awful. Some just pop up like a punch to the face. One of the creepiest characters was the lady that looked like Chewbaccas sister. Others just are plan old stupid. #1 The Plot. There pretty much is no plot, or it is too stupid to exist. Literally the plot is that there is a smart kid that tries to take down an evil bad guy that has no back story. This movie sucked and thats all I have too say. Thank you for reading this review and don't watch this movie it sucks.

This movie is quite possibly the most atrocious book-to-film adaptation I've ever seen.A few decades too late, I finally got around to reading A Wrinkle in Time. It was beautiful. So magical, so moving, so touching, so brilliant. And because it was on Netflix, I decided to give it a watch not even an hour after I finished reading the book. What a horrible decision I'd made. I mean, if you're reading this, take this as a sign of God to not watch the movie. Stay away. Away, away, AWAY. It will ruin everything for you. I don't know who in the hell thought it was a good idea to put things in this sad excuse of a movie that never happened in the book. Things were taken out of order. Not even the decade is the same! I'm so upset I could cry.You have been warned. This movie is nearly nothing like the book. Watch something else. I need to binge watch The Office now to forget I ever watched this garbage.

I read "A Wrinkle In Time" in 1963 when I was in fifth grade and loved it. I always thought it would make a marvelous film if it could be realized like my mental image of it. This adaptation came very close to what I saw in my mind's eye. The drab world of Camazotz and the imposing CENTRAL central intelligence were almost exactly as I pictured them. The performances by the principal actors were all fine, and the special effects were adequately realized. The basic storyline followed the book probably more closely than most film adaptations of famous books. The many negative reviews on this website had me scratching my head. Every one of these picked apart some small facet of the teleplay that strayed from the original vision of the author. The fact of the matter is that there are very few films, successful or not, that hew faithfully to the original text. Examples that come to mind include "Mildred Pierce", "Valley of the Dolls", "Show Boat" (1951 version), "From Here to Eternity", and yes, the beloved "Wizard of Oz". The one film I can think of that does try to stay, almost line for line, to the original is the 1974 version of "The Great Gatsby", a film I happen to like, but many feel that the dialouge in this is artificial-sounding. The reason this film was considered to be a failure was precisely because the screenwriter tried so hard to film the book faithfully. I was very satisfied after viewing "A Wrinkle In Time" and consider it to be a fine adaptation of a true classic.