Download Free A Wrinkle In Time

I was absolutely horrified within the first 15 minutes of watching the
abomination they called "A Wrinkle in Time". I've been such a fan of the
book and the other two that followed that my book has worn away from 20
years of reading it over and over again. Disney DID NOT capture the true
essence of this book and it's obvious that the director was neither a fan
nor sat down and tried to understand the entire story.

I could go into a huge list of what was wrong with the movie - besides the
fact that the story was told out of sequence, major flaws developed out of
the lack of characterization and the actors that were casted for the
children were completely wrong. The actress who portrayed Meg was like a
cardboard cutout - she lacked emotion and I felt nothing for the character
(unlike the empathy and compassion I felt for Meg in the book). Did the
actress even read the book? Meg was supposed to be an ugly duckling -
with
glasses and braces and a very ordinary/awkward look about her. I didn't
see
any of that portrayed in the movie Meg. That's the entire being of the
character!!! It's because of what Meg is on the outside that it becomes
so
important for her to learn that it's truly what she has on the inside that
counts - on top of that, Calvin is able to see the real her through the
glasses, braces and supposed ugliness. That's what helps to create the
bond
between Calvin and Meg. Don't even get me started with the lack of
understanding for the true character of Charles Wallace.

The themes were skimmed across, important characters where hacked apart or
changed all together and IT (who is a very main character of the story)
was
cut down to 5 minutes in the movie. WHAT?!?

Since I am losing comment space, I will sum it up by saying that I truly
hope Disney doesn't get any bright ideas about filming either "A Wind in
the
Door" or "A Swiftly Tilting Planet" - but if they do, I would highly
recommend hiring a director who is such a fan of the work (like Peter
Jackson and the Rings trilogy) that they do the stories
justice.

I think I am going to open up the book one more time and relish the beauty
of the writing in an effort to wash away that pathetic effort they called
a
movie last night..

a wrinkle in time was a really good book but im hoping to see the movie cant wait .

This is a good web.

awesome movie this is the best! .

like time movies loving it.

DDDDDDDDDDDDDD GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

sssssssssssssssssssss jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

Princess and the Pony was so good! My sister loved it! :D.

very fantastic and imaginative movie .

very impressive .

It's great, unbeleavuble.

Flawed, but far from awful- this adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's 1962
'A Wrinkle in Time' is highly compelling. I suspect this may have been
a labor of love for director John Kent Harrison.

This film still retains much of the books sense of wonder and
philosophy. The characters, plot and milestones are all still here, and
as a blueprint the movie follows the book faithfully. Even some of the
books famous lines 'Wild nights are my glory', 'There is such a thing
as a teserract', and 'We are here' remain.

However, if you are one of those people who look to a literary film
adaptation to be a letter-by-letter recount of the book then you'll
probably hate this film. Many scenes and locales vary and shift, and
screenplay writer Susan Shilliday invents some L'Engle-esque touches of
her own (flower storms, glow worms, etc.) Her dialogue is also quite
different; it's subtler (though sometimes a bit awkward.)

All of the actors are relatively faithful to their literary
counterparts. David Dorfman has a wonderfully subtle touch as Charles
Wallace, and he's especially effective in his mind control scenes. He
has great skill in allowing us to see both rage and indifference-
sometimes in the same sentence! Gregory Smith is a far move handsome
Calvin that I would have imagined, but he finds his own unique way to
the character with deadpan humor.

The biggest acting burden falls on the shoulders of Katie Stuart- her
Meg has been re-imagined as a introspective tomboy (I kept thinking of
a gentler Nancy McKeon from 'The Facts of Life'). Her performance
serves this movie well, though it sometimes conflicts with the
occasional reference to Meg's passion or impatience.

Frankly I don't understand the hubbub about the casting of the three
Miss W's. If they can take any shape they want then why all the concern
about the actress' being of a certain age? Alfrie Woodard and Alison
Elliot do fine, thank you. And I liked Kate Nelligan, though her take
on Mrs. Which sometimes harkened Shakespearean stage acting (which
rarely works on film- see Kenneth Branagh's performance in 'Hamlet' for
reference.)

Rounding out the principles are Chris Potter and Sarah Jane Redmond as
Jack and Dana Murry (if the screenwriter had read 'An Acceptable Place'
she would have discovered their REAL names are Alex and Kate.) Both are
fine, though I would have liked to have seen Potter express more angst
as Mr. Murry.

Speaking of which, the sequence on the planet Lxchel perhaps reflects
the harshest edit. 'A Wrinkle in Time' was originally supposed to be a
four hour miniseries, but was cut down to three. If what was cut is at
all reflective of the book, one would presume most of Potters'
emotionally charged scenes as Alex fell on the editing room floor.
Actually the whole sequence on Lxchel does not work well in this film.
Clunky editing aside, the ideas writer Shilliday imposes fall flat
here.

The two trips to Camazotz might be the most radically re-written aspect
of the film. Most work; the planet has been visually remained as a
George Orwell 1984 kind of society. And the marvelous work of sound
designer Kris Fenske creates an impressively oppressive rhythm for this
place not unlike earth. Very scary.

SPOILERS: If you're going to update a book written in 1962 you HAVE to
make some translative choices to reflect both contemporary setting and
sensibility. 'A oversize brain- just larger enough than normal to be
completely revolting' on a dais simply doesn't have the impact it once
had in 1962. What the film does instead works quite well.

The solution to beef up the role of The Man with Red Eyes (deliciously
played with dark comic sensibility by Kyle Secor) was a nice touch.
Keeping IT hidden under the city, and catching glimpses of the large
writhing brain protruding through cracks in the floor was nicer still.
For me the original ending of the book has always been too sudden, so I
really rather enjoyed the films embellished ending. And having Meg free
Camazotz was a bold, heady idea.

The visual effects are largely a marvel. However, Miss Whatsit's
transformation to a marble horse with rainbow wings looks like bad CGI
circa 1987. Aunt Beast also registers poorly, not so much for the
costume as the decision to have the actress constantly sway. This only
serves to remind us we are looking at an actor moving awkwardly in a
suit.

Nitpicks aside, a special mention must be given to the effects provided
for the tesseract. This does not disappoint. It astounds. The three
children and Miss Whatsit clutch hands on the Star Gazing Rock.
Suddenly Misses Whatsit transforms into her purest self: a mass of
light and energy. Meg looks at her and Misses Whatsit looks right back
with eyes peering through her transparent, organic form. Then the earth
falls bellow their feet, the landscape flattens and waves of energy and
matter course though them in visual sheets. They are tessering, and all
to the glory of Patric Caird and Jeff Dana's ethereal score. This
brought me to tears.

A blink and you might miss it moment also happens here: Charles
Wallace, ever so briefly, sees the model of the tesseract in the
skyscape. A glorious touch, and a touching gesture to the fans of this
book.

I suspect this was held off the airwaves for two year NOT because of
quality but because of content- this story makes some strong demands on
young readers, and as a movie it makes equally tough demands. The last
half of the film is indeed dark- which probably made The Wonderful
world of Disney a little nervous. Too bad. Only through great darkness
can the light of day be truly appreciated, and I think most young
viewers will find the journey most worthwhile. Again though, not a
perfect film but a highly recommended one nevertheless..