A wrinkle in time movie

[Ausmumof3]

Did anyone go to see it?  We're doing the books for school read aloud and promised we'd watch the movie but a lot of reviews are fairly negative.  Is it worth going to?  Or should I try to convince them to see something else?

[Tree Frog]

We saw it. It's been a long time since I read the book, but there was very little character development and, though I can't tell you what was missing, it felt like they left out a lot of things. The 3 of us who saw the movie didn't like it. I don't think it's even one I would want to watch at home.

[Heatherwith4]

We read the book this year as well.  We will probably be waiting for redbox at this point, because I haven’t heard a lot of positives about it.  

[Angie in VA]

I saw it only b/c my dd wanted to spend time w/ me and that was the most appealing movie. I would have seen anything w/ her. She's my dd! I haven't read the book, so I can't compare the book and film. It was so-so. 

You might want to check the Current Movies thread for reviews. 

[Cinder]

I haven't seen it myself, but dh took mil to see it and she walked out after 30 mins. Dh didn't get details on why she hated it, though. He hasn't read the book and just wanted to see how the story unfolded, but I guess now he'll just wait for the video release. I guess the rest of us will too.

[three4me]

We went to see it and really enjoyed it. While there were many things that were very different from the book, we thought it followed the spirit of the book. A few things bugged me (Oprah’s character especially), in general I really liked the producer’s interpretations. 

 

I will I’ll add that we read the book about a year ago, so many details weren’t fresh in our minds when we went to the movie. We also went in with open minds. We knew this was a modern interpretation of the book, not meant to copy it exactly. 

[alisoncooks]

I loved the book when younger, and DD just read the book last month. We went to see the movie last night with friends.

DD enjoyed it. I thought it was pretty awful. The changes they made from the book were strange/unnecessary, and I didn't like the movie representation of the "Mrs." characters. Our friends actually left early because the ending is pretty intense/dark/scary - more than the book feels. 

[mytwomonkeys]

We saw it. All nine of us really hated it & several people left the theater. I would wait until redbox or an amazon rental. 

 

ETA - there is another A Wrinkle in Time  movie (older) that my kids really enjoyed. It was on Netflix for a long time & may still be there 

 

[Ausmumof3]

Ok I'm appreciating all the replies!  I think we will watch it but will try to get the kids to wait till we can watch it at home as we aren't all great with dark/weird/scary.  Any suggestions for another good kids movies to substitute?  I hear Peter rabbit is good but that might be hard sell to the oldest!

[Heatherwith4]

17 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Ok I'm appreciating all the replies!  I think we will watch it but will try to get the kids to wait till we can watch it at home as we aren't all great with dark/weird/scary.  Any suggestions for another good kids movies to substitute?  I hear Peter rabbit is good but that might be hard sell to the oldest!

 

 

My kids saw Peter Rabbit with my MIL and really enjoyed it.  My oldest is 12 (not sure how old your kids are.) 

[Lecka]

I really enjoyed it, and so did my 9yo dd.

I read a review saying the target age range is 8-12.  

I’m sure we will watch it again when it comes to Redbox.

I can see why teenagers don’t like it, but I enjoyed it with my daughter.  It is more of a kid movie.  If I compare to Hunger Games, which my nieces loved when they were 11/12 and up, I think Hunger Games is much more for the next age group up, and Wrinkle in Time for the younger age group.

But for the younger age group, I really liked it!  

My daughter loved a part that I know has been mocked in reviews.... she’s just younger and it appealed to her.  She still plays with stuffed animals all the time, I think she relates to some imaginary things in a younger way, that will seem stupid to older kids.  My nieces would have really been rolling their eyes I am sure, and maybe even felt insulted — but they are older and more mature and well into liking stuff like Hunger Games.  

[Lori D.]

More glitter and blowing scarves than I would have believed possible for a single movie. LOL! (:D

Which visually sums up my overall review of "sparkle (and special effects) over substance". (Although, "special FX over substance" is true of so many blockbuster films, lol, so that probably doesn't tell you much.)

We covered the book earlier this year with my Lit. & Comp. co-op class, and as an optional extra, one of the students set up a time this week for us to go. It was me, three 13-yo girls from class, their moms, and 1 older sister. One student really loved both the book and the movie; the other two students loved the book, and while they were frustrated with the changes between book and film, said they were glad they saw the movie. The older sister and moms and myself ranged anywhere from "it was okay" to "meh". I would have been fine with changing the book if they would have actually used it as an opportunity to explore some contemporary issues and ideas... From the preview, I was esp. excited to see the changes in ethnicities/races of characters and all of the potential doors that could open for this film and audiences to explore. But the film really dropped the ball there, and just made changes to the book in a number of places for the reasons of... ??

Based on the reaction of my students, I think the glitter and "girl power" aspects of the movie might make it very appealing for 9-12yo girls, so if your children fall in that category, you might enjoy seeing it when it hits your local bargain theater. As an adult viewer going with kids, it wasn't the worst movie I've ever sat through; just disappointing and rather boring.

Reviewing through adult eyes:

Overall, I as an adult was disappointed that so much of the already short book was cut, which made for a film with no depth at all, and even very little "surface" -- a lot of the movie felt like everything came to a standstill so we could just watch the special effects. I was also disappointed (but not surprised) that the strong specifically Christian images and ideas of the book were removed, and replaced with more vague ideas of dark vs. light, which were more about emotions (feeling love vs. feeling bad about yourself/others) rather than a spiritual dimension.

There was no explanation of what "light" or "good" specifically IS, or where it comes from, or even why it's important. There were images that suggested "feeling love" and "the importance of family" are good things, but no direct connection. There was just the call by Glenda the Good Witch of the North -- er, I mean, Oprah/Mrs. Which -- to "be a warrior" and fight the dark, but with no idea of how to do that, or how one can be equipped to do that. 

Dark was explained as a specific "IT" entity existing out there in the universe that was wrapping tendrils around the Earth and entering peoples' hearts to make them fearful or angry, which hurts them, and in turn makes them do hurtful things to others. That was probably the one moment I saw that could be a useful talking point with children, esp. with tween/teen girls who can bully with words/relationships -- there was the added scene early on of a girl at Meg's school who leads 3 other girls to bully her, and later we see that the darkness "IT" has the bully girl twisted up about her looks/body image and dieting, which she takes out on others by bullying Meg.

Wrinkle in Time is a Disney-release movie, and I think a FAR stronger Disney-release movie that deals with the theme of absent fathers/good men who stand in the place of absent fathers, and the theme of a young person persevering and developing "grit", has a black tween/teen girl protagonist, and is directed by a female director (from India in this case), is the 2016 film Queen of Katwe. It's your standard sports sort of story, but with chess -- and portrays the real life of Phiona Mutesi, living in a Ugandan slum, who became a 3-time Ugandan chess champion. There is nothing surprising in the way the story arc unfolds, but the acting is so strong, and the visualization of the story really sets this one a cut above others in the "sports-rise-to-fame" stories. It's on Netflix.

[LauraBeth475]

My girls loved it.  I give it mixed reviews.  Visually stunning and with a strong cast, but the script had an obvious lack of depth compared to the book.  Though, I will say that I enjoyed the audiobook my girls put on last week a lot more after I’d seen the movie and had the images in my head.

[Targhee]

It was a big let down. There were some lovely visual touches, but it strayed so far from the themes of the book.  Charles Wallace’s character was especially short changed of its complexity. Some critical decisions/actions/themes  were altered.  If I hadn’t read the book it would have been hard to follow because editing was poor and development was non existent. 

It isn’t a horrible movie, but it isn’t a well done movie on its own, and it falls incredibly short of the book.

[Lady Marmalade]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Ok I'm appreciating all the replies!  I think we will watch it but will try to get the kids to wait till we can watch it at home as we aren't all great with dark/weird/scary.  Any suggestions for another good kids movies to substitute?  I hear Peter rabbit is good but that might be hard sell to the oldest!

 

I haven't seen Wrinkle, so can't comment on that, but we went and saw Peter Rabbit and it is a great for all ages movie.  I definitely wouldn't consider it a "kids movie" but more a "family friendly kids and adults can watch together and completely enjoy" movie. 

[SKL]

My kids wanted to see it, so we went.  I had heard it was really bad, so that probably affected my opinion.  It wasn't that bad.  Certainly not a great movie.  It departs from the book in a variety of ways, but loosely follows the theme.

We read the book last year, so my kids had some expectations.  I'll say none of us really loved the book.

I had one kid who disliked the movie for straying so much from the book.  One kid who said she liked it fine.  One adult friend who read the book and liked the movie.  One who didn't read the book and didn't like the movie.  Me - meh on the book and meh on the movie.  :P

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I thought it was beautifully shot (especially if you like glitter). 

They modernized the science, and simplified the story and the characters.  For instance, instead of being a large, pink, throbbing brain, "It" was made of a forest of neurons.  Of course, the book is better, but I enjoyed this movie.  We saw it at a second run theater for $1.50 each.  I'm glad we didn't pay full price, but I wasn't terribly disappointed. Perhaps my expectations were lower than some.

[Terabith]

Here is the review I wrote on Facebook a few weeks ago after seeing it:  

Just saw A Wrinkle in Time. The characters are rather two dimensional, but part of it is that it would have been hard to have developed Meg especially, compared to a novel toward mostly from her point of view. Though they could have done a better job. Calvin feels more like an add on and sort of "Why is he even here?" in the movie, but even in the book, there is some of that. The no Christianity thing pisses me off still, and I don't think Madeleine L'Engle would have okayed the "The only thing that travels faster than light is darkness" line by any stretch. It rang especially hollow on a Sunday with the gospel coming from John. I don't like the way they had the father abandon the family as opposed to working for the government in the book, but whatever. My two biggest complaints are Mrs. Whatsit was almost like a grown up Veronica. She was MEAN and doubting Meg. She comes across as less eccentric and more well, mean. There is no way I can picture her love sustaining Meg in any way. They certainly don't seem angelic. My other objection is to how they played Camazotz. In the book, it isn't over the top special effects that make it evil. It's BANALITY. It's conformity and sameness. IT is found in a room of computers. There's that incredibly touching and moving scene of all the children bouncing the balls in unison in the book, but there's one boy who is out of sync, and the mother's hysterical concern for him. They removed that. They made the evil a series of special effects. The Mrs. W's did not warn Charles Wallace about pride in the movie, and the kids really don't resist IT at all in the movie. In the book, there's those scenes where they shout nursery rhymes and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence at IT, and Charles Wallace makes a conscious, prideful decision to go in in order to get more information. In the book, Meg makes a conscious choice to go back to save Charles Wallace, and while I don't like that they left out Aunt Beast and that whole planet, I understand why they did. A planet without vision would be hard to portray in a movie. And they did an okay job of showing that Meg chose to stay to rescue Charles Wallace. The kid playing him did a really good job. I also didn't really like that they made Meg able to tesser beautifully at the end. It made her less herself, but whatever. I thought we lost something by leaving out that at least Mrs. Who had been a star who had sacrificed her life fighting the darkness. She was less mysterious and just liked to speak in quotes in the movie.  Part of what makes the book so interesting is all the thought experiments....the discussion about dimensions, and a tesseract being a wrinkle that happens when you square time. What would it feel like to be on a two dimensional planet? How would you describe vision to a species that doesn't have sight? The movie leaves those out, but again, they wouldn't translate well to that medium. But it loses something. I also don't like that they left out the twins, but if they aren't going to do any of the other books (and they shouldn't), it doesn't really matter. They were not really important characters in the book.   I also don't like that Principal Jenkins was essentially a sympathetic character in the movie. In the books, he's almost a low level version of IT, a person obsessed with conformity to the point of banality, who while not exactly evil, is certainly not good by any stretch.  My expectations were pretty low once I saw the preview with the line, "The only thing that moves faster than light is the darkness," which is almost anti-thetical to the Christian principles of the book.  I DID like the multi-racial part. And I was cool with multi-racial Mrs. W's. What I'm NOT cool with is Mrs. What being a gussied up mean girl bully.  

[Ausmumof3]

Thanks to the Hives recommendations we went to Peter Rabbit and the whole family loved it including dh who definitely wouldn't have liked wrinkle in time.

you guys are awesome from curriculum to medical crises to movie recs! Got it all covered.