A Wrinkle in Time (2003) (TV)

Director:

John Kent Harrison

Writers (WGA):

Madeleine L'Engle (novel)
Susan Shilliday (teleplay)

Release Date:

10 May 2004 (USA)

Genre:

Family | Fantasy | Adventure | Sci-Fi

Tagline:

To rescue their father, they must save the universe.

Plot:

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...

Plot Keywords:

Father | Time Travel | Supernatural | Journey | Space Travel

Awards:

5 nominations

Cast

Katie Stuart	...	Meg Murry
Gregory Smith	...	Calvin O'Keefe
David Dorfman	...	Charles Wallace Murry
Chris Potter	...	Dr. Jack Murry
Kyle Secor	...	The Man With Red Eyes
Sean Cullen	...	Happy Medium
Sarah-Jane Redmond	...	Dr. Dana Murry
Kate Nelligan	...	Mrs. Which
Alison Elliott	...	Mrs. Who
Alfre Woodard	...	Mrs. Whatsit
Munro Chambers	...	Sandy Murry
Robert Wisden
Thomas Chambers	...	Dennys Murry
Ellen Dubin	...	Aunt Beast
Guy Fauchon	...	Bingo Man

Also Known As:

Un raccourci dans le temps (Canada: French title)

Runtime:

USA:128 min

Country:

Canada

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.78 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Australia:PG | USA:TV-PG

Filming Locations:

Richmond, British Columbia, Canada

Company:

BLT Productions

Trivia:

Originally produced as a miniseries.

Goofs:

Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Mrs. Whatsit says, "if this insect wanted to travel across my left hand to my right hand..." the insect is actually sitting in her right hand, pointing towards her left hand.

Quotes:

Meg Murry: You know what? I think I liked it better when you didn't talk.
Charles Wallace Murry: Calvin likes me talking to him.
Calvin O'Keefe: You know, I'm not sure why, but I kind of do.

Movie Connections:

References The Delta Force (1986)

Very true to the Book...

... Well, for a TV adaptation of a book that is.

First off, I'm a BIG fan of "A Wrinkle in Time".

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.