A Wrinkle In Time Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
To rescue their father, they must save the universe.
The movie is based on a children's series by the same name. Meg and Charles Wallace are aided by Calvin and 3 interesting women, Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who in the search for their father who disappeared during an experiment he was working on for the government. Their travels take them around the universe to a place unlike any other. They must learn to trust each other and to understand that everyone is different.
| Katie Stuart | Meg Murry |
| Gregory Smith | Calvin O'Keefe |
| David Dorfman | Charles Wallace Murry |
| Chris Potter | Dr Jack Murray |
| Kyle Secor | The Man With Red Eyes |
| Sean Cullen | Happy Medium |
| Sarah-Jane Redmond | Dr Dana Murray |
| Kate Nelligan | Mrs. Which |
| Alison Elliott | Mrs. Who |
| Alfre Woodard | Mrs. Whatsit |
| Munro Chambers | Sandy Murry |
| Thomas Chambers | Dennys Murray |
| Ellen Dubin | Aunt Beast |
| Guy Fauchon | Bingo Man |
| Alexander Pollock | Eric O'Keefe |
| John Kent Harrison |
6.00 out of 10 (485 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A most interesting film
posted on 26 Jul 2009I haven't read the novel, so this film has been an eye-opener. Three children jumps through the space-time fabric to rescue their father, who disappeared six months before when he stumbled upon a scientific discovery. The film was interesting, better than I expected from a made-for-TV one, and is suitable for children eight and above.
"A Wrinkle in Time" Brilliantly Brings Classic Novel to Life!
posted on 07 Apr 2009I have waited a long time for "A Wrinkle In Time" to be released in the USA, but it was worth the wait. I remember reading the book when I was in Middle School and enjoying the exciting, adventurous tale of self-discovery, courage and determination. The cast does a superb job. Katie Stuart makes an excellent Meg, as well as Gregory Smith an excellent Calvin O'Keefe. The main reason I wanted to see the movie, though, was because of the extremely handsome and talented Chris Potter. Chris does a great job. It was great to see him rightly cast as Dr. Jack Murray. The great cast and wonderful special effects bring the classic story to life. A must see!
I Could Just Cry Over This Horrible Adaptation
posted on 20 Feb 2009The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.
Failed to reach my expectations, but enjoyable movie...
posted on 08 Dec 2008I had heard a lot about how amazing the book was, so i had quite high expectations for the movie.Many times throughout the movie (it was shown in Australia as a one part movie rather than a mini-series) i found myself either bored with the dialogue or with the way the characters were delivered. Granted, the performances from Kate Nelligan, Alfre Woodard and David Dorman were brilliant, but i was disappointed with the performance that Katie Stuart put in. It seemed that her character was forced and failed to envoke any emotion in which i sympathised with her character.The look of the movie; the set design, character wardrobe and special effects; were surprisingly good, especially for a mini-series and i was pleased with the use of colour in the alternate universes (their names elude me at the moment). And what was with the government agents? I found that plot element extremely strange, out of place and distracting to the main storyline.Overall the movie was enjoyable but some points dragged it down. I wouldn't say it was a roaring success but i also wouldn't say it was a complete waste of time.I give it 6 1/2 out of 10
Excellent!
posted on 27 Sep 2008I really liked this movie a lot. When a doctor named Jack Murray disappeared without a trace, a geeky girl named Meg, incredibly smart Charles Wallace, and their neighbor Calvin O'Keefe have to find the missing doctor. They travel through hundreds of planets along with three women, Mrs. Watsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which. They run into some trouble along the way and have to work together to find Jack and try to get back home. I won't spoil it for anyone by telling any more, but there is adventure, action and some comedic moments. There are a couple of slightly scary spots, but this is a family film. I recommend it to anyone.
A Wrinkle in Time does its written origin no justice
posted on 17 Jun 2008This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwaivering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece.This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.
Terrible Terrible
posted on 10 Feb 2008This novel is my absolute favorite book. I was excited to discover that they made a movie so tuned in to watch it. Within the first thirty seconds I discovered a crucial mistake. The writer of this screenplay must of skimmed the novel, because otherwise she would have remembered to give Meg glasses, since she needs the glasses to save her father. They have the old women completely wrong, the kids wrong, the animals wrong, and they put in magic where it doesn't belong. Don't watch this movie if you want to understand the novel. You'll be terribly disappointed. Go read the book, you'll discover one of the greatest novels of all time. Don't rely on this movie for real entertainment.
A delightful and meaningful fantasy
posted on 02 Feb 2008A Wrinkle in Time deserves recognition as one of the great fantasy films ever made. The content of the story is well, classic--L'Engle's book is still delighting readers over 40 years after its initial publication, and no wonder! Extraordinarily imaginative, and no sense mincing words--filled with wisdom on the one hand, gripping action on another, and characters that have resonance on a third (this is fantasy after all)! Caring about the characters is a necessity for a fantasy adventure to rise to memorable status. In this case, we care deeply, partly a function of the performances of the likes of Kate Nelligan, Alfre Woodward, and Kyle Secor (of the late, great, Homicide series), and the superb performances by the child and adolescent actors. The Meg character is one of the most heroic yet human adolescent characters I've encountered in film or literature. The cosmic conflict that we must individually struggle with was convincingly brought to life in the story and in Meg, and in an inspirational fashion that gains traction through its pragmatism, even though a fantastic fantasy plot propels the story. A TV production with movie qualities in setting, special effects, scope, and performances.
Didn't Like It
posted on 16 Dec 2007I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!
Terrible adaptation of book, but not too bad in itself
posted on 10 Dec 2007In staying true to the book, this movie gets a 2. I have read a Wrinkle in Time and went over the text several times, and I noticed many differences between the book and the movie, some being extremely obvious. They even changed the names of the characters: in the book An Acceptable Time (1989), the scientists' first names are revealed to be Alex and Kate Murry. Also, the time period is noticeably different (with Mrs. Murry The filmmakers obviously did not take that into consideration. There're more differences, way too much to list here. If you haven't read the book yet, you can find this to be worthy of watching, but if you have, don't bother; it'll ruin everything good that you got from the book.
Read the book.
posted on 02 Nov 2007The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.
Exceeded my expectations...
posted on 17 Oct 2007To start off I would like to say I am a huge fan of the book and was dying to see the TV movie but was preparing myself for a huge let down, especially when I saw Meg wasn't wearing the braces/glasses that I had come to associate with her. But guess what? I wasn't let down at all. It tremendously exceeded my expectations. The acting was phenomenal, David Dorfman was the perfect Charles Wallace and Katie Stuart was a brilliant Meg, and Gregory Smith was a gorgeous Calvin (In more ways then one *Drool*) the only thing that I didn't like was Mrs. Murry she looked the part but that was about it. The way she handled Mrs. Whatsit's arrival in the middle of the stormy night threw me off, and I also didn't like how they didn't develop her character at all. No Bunsen burners cooking dinner no physics genius mothers were portrayed. I know they could only put so much but I was tad dissaponted.Also the physical appearances of both Meg and Calvin were completely different from the original story but I'm going to take a leaf out of Aunt Beast's book and say "It's not how things look but how they are"Any fans of the book will adore this movie, people who haven't read the book will adore this movie, but please read the book first!
Starts out well.....
posted on 19 Sep 2007I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating. The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.
Disney: Now Butchering Novels as well as Fairy Tales
posted on 18 Aug 2007When I was a child I loved this book. It's a classic, people who hate it still recognize that it's somewhat of a landmark. So when I found out that it was made into a movie, I was overcome with nostalgia. Hazaa, someone finally did it. Unfortunately, that someone was Disney. If I were Madeleine L'Engle, I would cry. Disney's patent cheesiness, coupled with hilariously cheap and garish computer animation and the overwhelming desire to make their movies reflect cliché popular culture, have created an abomination. So look out, they've let loose yet another Frankenstein in desperate attempt to save their rapidly decaying company. Steer clear of this film, unless you want a laugh. But really, bad acting and the rape of literature is nothing to laugh at.
OK enough for the younger set
posted on 13 Jun 2007This book was, and is still, one of my all-time favorite children's books. I wasn't expecting much when I saw the movie, and so was not too disappointed. (Spoiler) The book itself is fairly short and sparse; the scene where Meg wins Charles back was, I thought, much more dramatic in the novel than in the long, drawn-out movie scene (and what was with all those snakes in that scene?). However, it was entertaining enough, and a good enough tale of love winning over hate, individuality winning over conformity, and, as I like in Disney movies, a good showcase for kids exemplifying the traits of loyalty, courage, and family togetherness. So take the kids; they'll like it. But do have them read the book too!
If Star Wars and The Neverending Story had a yard sale...
posted on 22 Apr 2007If 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 horsey 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 *****
Boooooooo Hisssssss!
posted on 13 Feb 2007I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.
OK for a TV Movie
posted on 11 Feb 2007"A Wrinkle in Time" is my favorite book. I have loved it since I was inelementary school, and as a 25 year old, love it even more. I grew up hoping that this book would someday be made into a movie, so I was very excited to hear about Disney taking the project on. My excitement faded when I heard it was not coming out in theaters, but instead, would go straight to television. For a TV movie, it's about what I'd expect it to be. I must admit that there is much to be desired with this adaptation. It's not nearly as faithful as the book as it could be, and there are some parts in the movie that I find to be unnecessary and out of place. My biggest disappointment was that many of the Christian elements of the book were excluded, making the story into merely just another (albeit brilliant) fantasy. I'd say that, generally speaking, the movie did a fair job of keeping the fanciful essence of the story. There are some things I didn't like, but I wasn't completely devastated. The acting was not anything brilliant. I was annoyed by the portrayal of Ms. Whatsit, but I thought Ms. Who and Ms. Which were pretty good. Meg didn't have glasses, which irks me, but I can overlook it. She wasn't bad, just oddly unemotional at times. Charles Wallace was portrayed well. He was very believable. The biggest disappointment was Calvin. The actor didn't seem to show much emotion at all. His dialogue seemed forced and rigid. There was chemistry between him and Meg, but I was left wanting just a little more. Overall, I do enjoy this movie, but my advice is, read the book if you haven't already. The movie was OK, but the book is absolutely phenomenal.
It was so good a few things had to be added to make 3 hours.
posted on 12 Jan 2007I was crying before I saw this movie because the book is one of my favorites. The few updates (CDs and the Internet) were necessary because some of these concepts weren't around in 1962. I'm glad it wasn't done with an over-the-top cast. Alfre Woodard was perfect as Mrs. Whatsit. One of the scenes I liked was when one of the Camazotz boys decided to do fancy basketball dribbling, as opposed to the book when the boy only drops a brown ball. The movie did remain very faithful to the book, but since it was three hours instead of two, they actually had to add some extra scenes into it. I found myself crying throughout the movie because one of the characters mentioned how important it was to take risks in life. Also, Meg's courage and determination to find her father and rescue her brother from the influence of IT was a source of inner strength for me. And Meg being different from the norm matches who I am, as I follow the beat of my own drum. This movie was great, period, and here's hoping it comes out on DVD so I won't have to deal with the irregular commercial breaks.
Not the books, but ok anyway.
posted on 26 Jul 2009My sister and I were ecstatic when we found out that they were finally playing this. We took time out of our busy finals week to sit down and watch the whole thing. And while it kept us entertained for the whole 3 hours, there were a lot of times we were like "Was that in the book? Where are they getting this stuff?"So I guess my advise is, if you're a book purist, try to forget this is based on it and enjoy it for the cute fluff piece it is. The book is a whole different (and better) experience.On to the movie. I think Gregory Smith was good as Calvin (even though he isn't a redhead) and the little kid was good too. Meg was a little forced I thought. Maybe it's the inexperience of the actress, but she didn't feel like the stubborn but warm Meg of the books.All in all, it was a pleasant experience.