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.
What did you think of this review?
Fun to Read
About the reviewer
Kendall Fontenot (kfontenot)
Despite looking extremely cool, I have to admit that I'm a dork. I grew up on the outskirts of the small town of Oberlin, LA. I have since relocated to the Lake Charles, LA area.I love my home state … more
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.
Director John Kent Harrison's imaginative film adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's 1963A Wrinkle in Timemay 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