A Wrinkle In Time
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.49 You Save: $17.50 (88%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.46 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of A Wrinkle In Time
Movie Review: Disappointment after the book...
Summary: 2 Stars
I remember sitting up with my mom and dad watching A Wrinkle inTime air on tv. I had been looking forward to it ever since the first preview. I knew there was a book but I'd never read it, I preferred to read action-adventure and historical fiction, but I loved watching fantasy. (Today the opposite is true.)
Anyway, watched the movie and loved it, so I read the book and thought it was totally awesome. Several years later, and after devouring Madeline L'Engle's other books, I found the movie again at the library and checked it out remembering how much I'd enjoyed it. Big mistake. I spent the movie cringing and being annoyed that the characters were 'doing it wrong'. Charles Wallace was the biggest disaster in my opinion. In the book he is a charming, yet highly intelligent little boy, he seems like any sweet kid. In the movie he comes off as an arrogent prick.
Maybe someday a remake will be done that does justice to the book, but know it seems like the project should never have been attempted at all.
Movie Review: Once Again Disney Insults the Public
Summary: 2 Stars
While it has been ages since I read the wonderful book this film was based on (so I don't have as much awareness of the changes made to the story), there is one major issue I take with the DVD: it is released in fullscreen.
While watching the behind the scenes material, it is clear that this was filmed widescreen. Heck, the deleted scenes in the extras are IN widescreen. But how does Disney release the movie itself? 1.33:1.
That is an insult to the movie-buying public: to hack off over 1/3 of the visuals that were filmed prior to the public release. Directors and cinematographers have reasons for including, or not including, certain things in the film frame. To tamper with that by chopping the film up shows no respect whatsoever for the source material.
If Disney doesn't respect the film or the viewer, I certainly will not be buying this DVD. Nor do I recommend others buy this film.
Movie Review: A Wrinkle in Time
Summary: 2 Stars
My students read this book in class and were very eager to see the movie to compare it with the book. There are many differences between the book and the movie, but the students seemed to be content with the movie. I can't image how some of the images the author described would be created for the screen, anyway. The story was altered a bit. I would suggest reading the book before viewing the movie. The book is better than the movie.Movie Review: A Wrinkle in Quality
Summary: 1 Stars
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.
Movie Review: If Star Wars and The Neverending Story had a yard sale......
Summary: 1 Stars
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 *****