sunriseandsunset Disappointing some good acting but story just lacked prob some children would enjoy but it was meh for me

Virgil Ierubino (Aquillyne) A Wrinkle in Time tries hard to be a thoughtful, original, family- friendly science-fantasy. But so hard does it try, it ends up self- aware, genre-confused and slow. Hindered by poor acting, the film will satisfy only the most patient and simultaneously uninvested of viewers.While I applaud any film confident enough to take its time setting a backdrop and building characters, this film just takes its time. Largely this is down to the wooden acting, even though the source material (it is based on a book) must also bear some of the blame.With character names like Mrs. Whotsit, it's clear the story wishes to be charming and maybe even childish. But this is then mixed with extended, shallow expositions about human nature or the Universe, ridiculously precocious (and arrogant) youngsters with a budding but lacklustre mature romance, and quotations from classical literature (plus a splattering of pop culture). It's hard to see who the story could appeal to.So much time is spent trying to establish an emotional connection, if they'd even spent a fraction scouting for decent lead actors and rewriting the script, they might have succeeded. As it stands, it's simply painful to watch the lead actress rattle off pretentious speeches, inane colloquialisms and emotional exclamations each with the same expressionless face and measured voice. Against stirring piano and violin.I don't know whether it's the filmmakers' or the original author's fault, but infecting a mediocre kid's plot with an adult's intellectual indulgence - or is it an adult's intellectual indulgence wrapped in a mediocre kid's plot? - can only result in the dilution of each part with the other: the dull smudge that results from the child's fallacy of a more exciting hue created through colours smeared together - which, coincidentally, is the visual image on which the film ends.

Kyle Hodgdon I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.

gpeevers Based on the Newberry Medal winning, children's fantasy novel by Madeleine L'Engle.Story of an awkward girl named Meg who longs to have her missing father returned to his family. Both of Meg's parents are scientists and her fathers disappearance may be related to his research. The adventure begins when Meg's incredibly precocious younger brother Charles Wallace tells her he believes he can find their father. Meg finds herself drawn to the quest along with a popular school athlete named Calvin. Guiding them on their way is a trio of mysterious women named Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who and Mrs Whatsit.The approach by Disney is a simple retelling the story in a fairly straightforward style. There is nothing special or remarkable about the visual or stylistic approach, the essence of the production is the story.The fairly impressive cast includes Alison Elliot (Wings of the Dove), Kate Nelligan and Alfre Woodard as the three mysterious women. The other standout cast member is the young David Dorfman who plays Charles Wallace, he's probably best known as the son from "The Ring" and its sequel.The special affects are sufficient to tell the story and little more. While some may find them a little lacking (probably due to budget) it's worth mentioning that just a decade or so earlier and it would have been technically impossible or prohibitively expensive to achieve the effects necessary to tell this story.As with most Canadian produced efforts the quintessentially Canadian flavor of the production fairly quickly became obvious. Whether it's the British Columbia locations (where it was all filmed) or more likely the extensive Canadian cast (even though their origins may not be immediately obvious) its derivation quickly became apparent at least to me.