Own the rights?
19 out of 21 people found the following review useful: See if You Are Not Afraid of a Few Modifications, 12 May 2004 Author: amabiliscasa
A Wrinkle in Time - where do I start? The book, in itself, is one of the most fabulous, imaginative, fantastical stories ever penned. Madeleine L'Engle is a writing genius. The book opened up whole new worlds for me, and taught me (in the forth grade) that it was all right to have imaginings beyond anything ever heard of. Now, close to graduation, I watched this, excited, but prepared to be disappointed. I rarely was. This was a fine production - the child actors quite good, I thought - no gorgeous child actors were cast, and I noticed no huge personality changes. Meg doesn't wear spectacles, and there are other similar changes. The end is a bit altered, but it didn't bother me too much. This is a good adaptaion, but not for L'Engleites. You need to be flexible - one form is a novel, one is a film. A book can be directed toward a small group of people, but a film has to be marketable to everyone. See it if you like fantasy and enjoy Madeleines books.
13 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Read the book., 12 May 2004 Author: ricknorwood (f.norwood@att.net) from Mountain Home TN
The 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.
12 out of 14 people found the following review useful: A most interesting film, 7 November 2003 Author: bsch4504 from Sydney, Australia
I 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.
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Very true to the Book..., 8 April 2005 Author: arkofthekundert from United States
... 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.
13 out of 19 people found the following review useful: Destruction of Classic Novel!, 10 May 2004 Author: agent_raptor13 from Utah, USA
I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Why So Many Changes?, 10 August 2007 Author: lklmail from Tennessee, USA
I too am a big fan of Madeline L'Engle and especially the Murry family time-travel series; so I was both excited and trepidatious to see a film version of this well-known first book in the series, especially since it was produced by Disney (I love Disney, but I don't always love their adaptations of stories that were perfectly fine to me to begin with).However, I rented it and was mostly pleased -- although Meg, Calvin & Charles didn't exactly fit my picture of them in my head (based on L'Engle's descriptions in the book) the acting was great and they got the "feel" of the characters mostly right (I missed the "fierceness" of Meg from the book and the glasses & braces, but she was still very well portrayed). The scenes from Camazotz are chilling, and gave me the same creepy feeling as I get when I read the book. And the plot stayed generally around the same place as the book, most of the time; it didn't veer as far as Disney's "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" did. Allison Elliot is a great actress (loved her in "The Spitfire Grill") so it was nice to see her as Mrs. Who, pointy hat or not. Most of the scenery really helped me feel a part of the story; as for the look of the characters, I can be open-minded and accept that, like Aunt Beast says, "it's not how things look, but how they are." However, I just don't understand some of the little changes they made that seem completely unnecessary and really annoyed me as a fan of the books. The biggest one is WHY did they change the names of the Murry parents? I've grown to feel almost a part of this family, so imagine my shock when dedicated father Alex and loving mother Kate suddenly became "Jack" and "Dana"! I'd love to know the reason for this, because it seems pointless. It totally ruined the first 20 minutes of the film for me, because I kept ranting about it until my husband began rolling his eyes. And it didn't make sense to change the breed of Fort (the dog) either; as someone else said, "how hard was it to find a black Lab?" Bigger changes, like replacing most of IT's role with The Man With Red Eyes, make more sense (IT was creepy enough in the book, I did NOT want to see IT on the screen!) but the aforementioned minor character changes ticked me off. I'd love to hear someone from Disney explain the choices they made.I recommend the film to fans of the book and non-fans alike; but be warned if you cherish the book as much as I do, and try to separate the film from the book and enjoy it for what it is, not what it should be.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Terrible adaptation of book, but not too bad in itself, 29 October 2007 Author: derekli04 from Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In 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.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: enchanting, 15 May 2004 Author: Charles Herold (cherold) from United States
I read this book when I was a kid and remembered it fondly enough to read again as an adult (when I discovered it has a strong streak of Christianity in it). I don't recall any details (except for a couple not in the movie, including a 2D world and a little on Charles Wallace's development), so I don't know how much has been changed in the movie. But for me this feels very much as I remember the book feeling. It's a fascinating, magical story. The acting is good, it has a nice pace, and while the special effects are tv movie quality it is still a very effective presentation. I think the people most likely to dislike this are huge fans of the book, because huge fans of books almost always hate the adaptations, but on its own it's a marvelous production which I rate 8/10.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Read the book. Do NOT waste your time on this B flick, 9 May 2008 Author: wgrolfson1 from United States
Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: A Wrinkle in Time does its written origin no justice, 27 March 2008 Author: (JoeyD0211) from United States
This 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.
Add another review
