The movie is based on a children's series by the same name. Meg and Charles Wallace are aided by Calvin and three interesting women, Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who in the search for...
See full summary »
The movie is based on a children's series by the same name. Meg and Charles Wallace are aided by Calvin and three 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. Written by
Originally produced as a two-part television miniseries, but re-edited and broadcast in a three hour time slot. See more »
(at around 9 mins) At the beginning of the movie when Meg and the schoolboys get into a semi-fight, the black boy is behind Meg when they're mocking her and then appears next to her in the next shot when the fight starts without time for him to have moved. See more »
There where somethings that where left out (mostly for timing I would guess), and something changed, most notably *IT* wasn't a personality the same way *IT* was in the book. Instead the Red Eyed Man's role was beefed up, and he was more or less the mouth piece of *IT*. Frankly, (and I'm soooo sorry for saying this) I think *IT* having it's original role from the book would not have translated very well at all. Somethings work in a book, some on TV show, some on a TV movie, and some on a BIG SCREEN movie, but one will not inherently translate to the other.
Granted, the CGI wasn't ILM quality, but hey, special effects are just a tool to HELP tell a story, if it does the job, fine with me, photo quality CGI isn't what makes a movie/story great (coughs *Star Wars: Episode II*) it's the writing. In particular the characterization of the people in the story.
Katie Stuart, Gregory Smith, and David Dorfman all played the role's of Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace extremely well. Which is why on the whole I give it a 9 out of 10.
The only REAL low point was with the Happy Medium. Sorry, but that part just didn't fly well. I don't know if it was the directing, the acting, the fact somethings just don't translate well, or whatever, but this part just left a bad taste in my mouth.
So is it as good as the book my 3rd grade teacher read me 16 years ago? Well, no but I'll stand by it as being as good as a story adaptation like "A Wrinkle in Time" can be given how unique and boldly original of a story it is. IMHO it does justice to Madeleine L'Engle.
24 of 28 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this