A Wrinkle in Time (2003)

Absolutely the worst movie.

Blistering performances.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

A Wrinkle in Time tries hard to be a thoughtful, original, family- friendly science-fantasy. But so hard does it try, it ends up self- aware, genre-confused and slow. Hindered by poor acting, the film will satisfy only the most patient and simultaneously uninvested of viewers.While I applaud any film confident enough to take its time setting a backdrop and building characters, this film just takes its time. Largely this is down to the wooden acting, even though the source material (it is based on a book) must also bear some of the blame.With character names like Mrs. Whotsit, it's clear the story wishes to be charming and maybe even childish. But this is then mixed with extended, shallow expositions about human nature or the Universe, ridiculously precocious (and arrogant) youngsters with a budding but lacklustre mature romance, and quotations from classical literature (plus a splattering of pop culture). It's hard to see who the story could appeal to.So much time is spent trying to establish an emotional connection, if they'd even spent a fraction scouting for decent lead actors and rewriting the script, they might have succeeded. As it stands, it's simply painful to watch the lead actress rattle off pretentious speeches, inane colloquialisms and emotional exclamations each with the same expressionless face and measured voice. Against stirring piano and violin.I don't know whether it's the filmmakers' or the original author's fault, but infecting a mediocre kid's plot with an adult's intellectual indulgence - or is it an adult's intellectual indulgence wrapped in a mediocre kid's plot? - can only result in the dilution of each part with the other: the dull smudge that results from the child's fallacy of a more exciting hue created through colours smeared together - which, coincidentally, is the visual image on which the film ends.

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.

I've never any of the "A Wrinkle in Time" books, though they are on my "To read" list, and still this movie felt homogenized/cleaned up to me. The acting was rather good (Alfre Woodard and her wig were pretty fabulous) and the SFX were as expected for what is essentially a TV movie. But the whole thing just seemed OFF. It seemed as though remnants of scenes and plot points were all over the place, orphaned by the need to create a mass appeal movie. Of course the good thing is I want to read the book sooner, rather than later! So, watch the movie, it's a good bit of fluff. Kids may go glassy eyed at the "love" stuff and philosophizing, but it's good family fare.Still, READ THE BOOK!

I absolutely hated how there was basically NO dialog with "aunt beast", also i was laughing at how pathetic they looked, i was expecting special effects not a chewbacca looking costume!I also hated how Camazotz looked dystopian, the way they described it i imagined a bright, beautiful and TOO perfect planet(it's creepier and adds suspense and suspicion, also CENTER center intelligence didn't follow the description and looked cheesy)...the characters in the town were nothing like the book, they seemed to actually be individuals, when in reality IT is in the consciousness of every being(which is why prime controller knew so much) and the citizens were robots, but when asked questions they turned pale(prime controller see's through them and his panic shows through the citizen)