A Wrinkle in Time

[Free]

Why A Wrinkle in Time Will Change Hollywood

I highly doubt Time's claim. Even so, I finally bothered to watch A Wrinkle in Time, expecting to turn it off after 15 minutes or so. And...I liked it.

The storytelling felt rushed, especially the introduction of the Mrs'. This is definitely a film made for kids, so it's not like I expected to be grabbing my chair during the scary parts, but even so the dangers I remember from the book didn't feel all that fearsome. And I could have done without the near emotionless, bookending pop tunes that opened and closed the film. Putting that all aside, I enjoyed myself. I didn't have any serious problems with the characterizations (even Charles Wallace, that little twerp, worked well on-screen). The visuals were a bit cartoony but still enjoyable and occasionally eye-catching.

I was expecting to have a problem with the look of the Mrs', which a lot of people seem to. I quickly forgot about that. Oprah played Mrs. Which as a patient overlording mother figure, which worked for me, and Reese Witherspoon looked like she was having a ball as Mrs. Whatsit. Poor Mindy Kaling...she did fine as Mrs. Who, but not a lot to play with there.

Storm Reid (what a name!) did a fantastic job playing Meg. She actually pulled on my emotions towards the latter part of the movie. I admit, I was tearing up a bit during her struggle at the end.

So, a pleasantly positive, not great but not bad movie for me. I was thankful another one of my childhood treasures hadn't been trampled by Hollywood.

 

[danielravennest]

I liked the made-for-TV version. It was a three-parter (4h 11 m), so it had more time to flesh out the story. Special effects are much better in the 2018 film, but SFX can't carry a story on their own.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Thing is, the books were written for kids too; and were among the only american written kids books I'd read because they, like british kids fiction, didn't talk down to me. I liked the Animated version from like the 70s or 80s? I remember it coming out when I was in school, and they gave us this newsprint sort of guide for it and everything.

My mom did say it was a beautiful movie and that if I do watch it and hate it, to not tell her.

 

[Kara Spengler]

A lot of people were panning it but you had to view it as the intended audience: kids. Particularly the ones that existed at the time the books came out. If you expect to see modern stories or something like the Avengers you will be disappointed. There were a couple changes to the story I am not sure I agree with but they kept to the spirit of the books if not always following them to the letter.

 

[Khamon]

Having not read the books, or seen the movie(s), which do y'all recommend doing first?

 

[Kara Spengler]

Having not read the books, or seen the movie(s), which do y'all recommend doing first?

I would vote for reading at least the first book. It was written for kids so is a fast read. Not that it will fill major plot points but because it will put you in the right frame of mind for what to expect.

 

[Nika Talaj]

Read the first book, it's short and awesome.

I'll see the film eventually, but while I have faith that they will get the delights and tendernesses in the book right, I think getting the scary parts would be very delicate. Somehow L'Engle did it in such a way that there were really bad terrors, but when all was done, you were left stronger for it.

I also liked that the Christian message in the book is pretty muted, and could almost be just inspirational spirituality.

 

[Free]

you had to view it as the intended audience: kids.

I find that's something easy for me to do.

Having not read the books, or seen the movie(s), which do y'all recommend doing first?

I would vote for reading at least the first book.

Read the first book, it's short and awesome.

Just be aware that it's the first in a series of five. Even so, I could not tell you a plot point about any of the other 4, even though I remember reading them.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Just be aware that it's the first in a series of five. Even so, I could not tell you a plot point about any of the other 4, even though I remember reading them.

Same here. It especially futzes with your memory that later books do not always have the same characters as the earlier ones.

It is like remembering the sequels to 2001. Clarke is tied for my fave author. I know there were books after 2001 and 2010 (wiki says 2061 and 3001). Most (or all?) of the series I keep in hardback and near my desk at home. I even remembered that they played around with different realities in some of them. Could I tell you the general plot of any after 2001 and the related 2010? Nope.

 

[Ava Glasgow]

the dangers I remember from the book didn't feel all that fearsome.

I watched it just a few days ago. I mostly liked it, but I was extremely disappointed by the changes to the scene in the suburban neighborhood on the dark planet, the one where everyone does everything identically, even kids bouncing their balls in time to the omnipresent pulsing noise.

Spoiler: Details about the scene in the movie vs. the book

In the movie, everything on Camazotz is an illusion. It's scary because the IT can trick you, so you never know what's real.

But in the book (assuming I remember it correctly), the neighborhood and the people are real. They conform out of fear, as evidenced by the mother who freaks that her son dropped his ball.

To me that was far more disturbing because (a) it showed the insidious nature of their oppression, looking so pleasant but based on terror, and (b) being real made it clear that this was our own destiny if the IT was not defeated.

I think the movie showed the IT as having evil intentions and some powers, but the book portrayed the IT as an expansive and powerful evil that had already conquered at least one planet and demonstrated its desire to turn all life into its mindless slaves.

 

[Robert Jung]

This was my favourite book as a kid.