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.
Add a Review
-
lklmail10 August 2007I 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. -
This TV production at least stuck much closer to the book than the recent Wrinkle in Time directed by Ava DuVernay. I'm 98% certain Ms. DuVernay's version would have been more successful if they had left in all of the plot from the book. This TV production is great with the cast. Gregory Smith makes an excellent Calvin! David Dorfman is an excellent Charles Wallace. Only thing that isn't right is Meg...they didn't give her glasses and messed up hair like in the book.... Anyway, this TV version is good for what it is. Oh and one last thing...I hate that they didn't remaster this on DVD in its original aspect ratio.....I have this feeling I'm not seeing the full picture in each shot.
-
ricknorwood12 May 2004The 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.
-
As adaptions go, this movie is adequate. It captures much of the spirit of the original book, and it makes good use of some excellent casting (the three child regulars are exceptional, especially Katie Stuart). Unfortunately, things are bogged down by too much uplifting music, and the modifications to the ending will have L'Engle purists fuming. You can see the evil hand of Disney in the final speech to the people of Camazotz.
Not an actively bad movie, but it's just there. Personally, I'd rather read the book.
But I will keep my eye out for the next project Ms. Stuart is involved in. -
agent_raptor1310 May 2004I 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.
-
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. -
I didn't like that most of the characters changed a bit I felt that they could have portrayed a little more to the story but did have great acting. I would recommend over the 2018 version but I would strongly recommend reading the book and prefer the book over this.
-
The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.
If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.
I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"
I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind. -
Writer_Commentary11 April 2013Rarely does a book get turned into a movie and the movie does the book justice. But this movie actually accomplishes what is normally nearly impossible. I read this book and thought that it was good. I think that the movie was a good interpretation of it as well. Nothing is really changed that much from the book and it is hard to say that anyone could hate this if they read the book. I've love to own this movie and watch it over and over again. The book is pretty good and creates a great story. This movies does it justice. I know it seems like I'm repeating myself, but hey, I have to get to ten lines somehow (even though it won't read like that on the site). So, if you didn't get that: the book is good and so is this movie. I recommend it.
-
aetrevino882 April 2006True, L'Engle's book was far better. The movie itself wasn't so bad. I was quite pleased to see that Mrs. Whatsit was portrayed as the winged creature in a very satisfactory way. It was almost as though they pulled the image from my mind! Alfre Woodard was excellent as Mrs. Which, but then she's excellent in EVERYTHING. I was disappointed by parts, such as the Man with red eyes and Aunt Beast... and the end was slightly unsatisfactory as well. While I was a little upset by the changes, I would be pleased to see the other three of the Time Quartet (A Wind in the Door, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, Many Waters) be put to film. Maybe it would be better if New Line did it instead of Disney, though...
-
shellmail6817 August 2020Better by far than the big budget one done recently.
-
gpeevers19 June 2009Based 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. -
Kar_mc18 July 2004I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen.
As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary!
I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created!
Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed?
I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task! -
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.
-
desertrain-12 June 2004I first read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was seven years old, and since then it has been one of my all time favorite books. I read it several times, though in recent years I hadn't picked it up. When I heard that a TV movie was being made, I was excited. I thought, "Hey, TV, that means that they can do a miniseries or something, get the story right!"
How wrong I was.
The acting, I must admit, was good. If I totally disassociate the movie from the book, it's fine. But the fact is, as an adaptation, the movie really sucked. There's not much of better way to put it. I was watching the movie tonight, for the first (and last) time, and spent the entire time thinking to myself "That didn't happen", or "Why did they change that, of all things!" I started re-reading the book, and tried to keep a list of changes.
When I had filled up a page with writing before hitting page 30, I stopped keeping the list.
Disney did a fine job of movie making in this instance, but again, I have to really forget that the book even exists to much enjoy the plot of the movie.
They had a chance to make something wonderful: The actors were well chosen (even though Mrs. Murray should have had bright red hair, the actress did a fine job), and they did a good job with what they were given. The witches were a bit off from the book descriptions (especially Mrs. Which, who should have been a more stereotypical witch in black robes with a pointy hat), but they were fine actresses, and I could have overlooked it. But it was about when they introduced the man with red eyes that the story took a major turn from the plot of the book. One MAJOR point of contention for me was Mrs. Whatsit's centaur-like form. What in the world was that, anyhow? It was supposed to look like a centaur, but not. And what they did was stick a head on a horse - no human torso, and the proportions were all wrong, and it was not nearly the beautiful creature it was supposed to be. Bah.
Here is my recommendation: if you have read and loved Madeleine L'Engle's books as much as I have, don't watch this movie. If you haven't read the books and plan to, watch the movie beforehand so you aren't as disappointed as I was. If you don't plan to read the books, it's safe. If you've seen the movie and plan to read the books, you are in for a real treat.
I give this 1.5 stars out of 5, for the actors playing the kids, the father, and props to the rest for trying with a screenplay that butchered the story.
I feel bad for them. -
lukefan17 April 2018This adaptation was more faithful to the book than the recent Ava DuVernay version. They left all of the best bits in pretty much, except Calvin didn't get to kiss Meg! The young cast were pretty flawless and had good chemistry together!
-
xjustincasex11 May 2004(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.
A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.
I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.
I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.
Overall an artistic disappointment. -
I had great fear when I heard that Disney was planning on making a TV Miniseries out of the classic "A Wrinkle In Time," because I knew just how awful most Disney TV movies are, and just how many liberties they would try to take for the sake of a TV audience. When ABC continued to postpone the airing of "Wrinkle" for almost two full years, I had even greater fear, because, more often than not, the reason for a very long delay in release is because the product is nigh-to-worthless. When I heard that the original 4-hour Miniseries plan was cut down to a 3-hour movie, that fear doubled. And then, ABC announced it would air beginning at 8pm, when most kids wouldn't be able to stay awake for the whole thing. All of this didn't bode well, and gave me the feeling that ABC didn't want anyone to see this movie.
After all is said-and-done, "A Wrinkle In Time" greatly exceeded my expectations. Sure, liberties were taken, but the majority of the items that were changed for the film were changed in a logical fashion, and would only be cited by die-hard L'Engleites.
THE GOOD:- The casting. They didn't go for the pre-fabricated Hollywood ideal. Meg is pretty, but not a stunning supermodel with huge "assets." Calvin is kinda weird-looking. Charles-Wallace is a cute kid, but gives off an unexpected creepiness. And, despite my initial reservations, Alfre Woodard didn't annoy me at all.
- The acting. Top notch performances from all. Meg and Calvin had all of the chemistry and depth that the book demanded. Charles-Wallace, while occasionally slipping into cheese-mode, gave one of the creepiest performances I've seen since the original "Bad Seed."
- The set design. Specifically, the Murray house, and the planet Camazotz. Both were exactly what I had pictured when reading the book, and in my own screenplay adaptation attempts. The long streets lined with precise, grey tract housing was especially dead-on to my own vision.
- The cinematography. Jon Joffin, you deserve a cigar. Finally, a TV movie that isn't completely flat! There's shadow, depth, and mood dripping off of nearly every scene in this film. But, what more do you expect from the man who lit "Home," by far one of the creepiest and darkest episodes of "The X-Files." Kudos specifically to Meg's arrival on Camazotz, lit only by a slight backlight and lightning flashes. Fantastic work.
- The score. Great work by Jeff Danna, who also wrote the moody, diverse score for "Boondock Saints." (His brother is Mychael Danna, of "The Ice Storm" and "The Sweet Hereafter.") Of course, I do feel there were missteps, particularly the occasionally cartoony incidentals, but on the themes and backgrounds had a mood and depth that echoed the feelings exemplified in the book.
- The teleplay. Susan Shilliday certainly did change quite a few things, but the most important aspect remained, and that is the spirit of the book. The film displays the same sense of wonder and purpose that L'Engle infused into her novel. That, coupled with some well-placed snarky humor, made this adaptation one of the better ones I've seen.
- The very end. Call me whatever you want, but, I never cared for the end of the book. Sure it's creepy, but it's ridiculously sudden. The movie wrapped things up nicely while still providing a necessary bridge toward the book's sequels.
THE BAD:- The Happy Medium. Egad, what a horrible decision that was. Please, next time, make sure characters are laughing at things that are actually funny.
- The visual effects. Granted, it's a TV budget. And granted, the effects are probably over a year old now. But still, it could've been much better. The winged horse was laughable, the landscapes were plastic, and "IT" was... well, not very much at all, was it? I did like the Tesseract effects, though I think that the film dwelled on too many of them. The final Tesseract effect was fantastic, and obviously the one that the most money was spent on. If more effects looked like that, I'd be happier.
- "IT." This was one change that really bothered me. Those of us who read the book know exactly what "IT" is, and showing such obscure sections of "IT," and having the climactic battle with IT's representative rather than IT itself, I feel, was a poor choice.
THE UGLY:- The direction. Sometimes, the film was very well-done. At other times, the direction was very clumsy and confusing. This could be attributed to how much had to be cut out of the 4-hour version to fit into its 3-hour timeslot, but nonetheless, there were some scenes that just didn't work at all.
All-in-all, "A Wrinkle In Time" is a very enjoyable film, and, despite a few wrong turns, is a good adaptation of a great work of literature. If it is ever released on DVD, it will likely join my collection. -
eeyorechica6 October 2005"A Wrinkle in Time" is my favorite book. I have loved it since I was inelementary school, and as a 25 year old, love it even more. I grew up hoping that this book would someday be made into a movie, so I was very excited to hear about Disney taking the project on. My excitement faded when I heard it was not coming out in theaters, but instead, would go straight to television. For a TV movie, it's about what I'd expect it to be. I must admit that there is much to be desired with this adaptation. It's not nearly as faithful as the book as it could be, and there are some parts in the movie that I find to be unnecessary and out of place. My biggest disappointment was that many of the Christian elements of the book were excluded, making the story into merely just another (albeit brilliant) fantasy. I'd say that, generally speaking, the movie did a fair job of keeping the fanciful essence of the story. There are some things I didn't like, but I wasn't completely devastated. The acting was not anything brilliant. I was annoyed by the portrayal of Ms. Whatsit, but I thought Ms. Who and Ms. Which were pretty good. Meg didn't have glasses, which irks me, but I can overlook it. She wasn't bad, just oddly unemotional at times. Charles Wallace was portrayed well. He was very believable. The biggest disappointment was Calvin. The actor didn't seem to show much emotion at all. His dialogue seemed forced and rigid. There was chemistry between him and Meg, but I was left wanting just a little more. Overall, I do enjoy this movie, but my advice is, read the book if you haven't already. The movie was OK, but the book is absolutely phenomenal.
-
luckier_charm10 May 2004This book was, and is still, one of my all-time favorite children's books. I wasn't expecting much when I saw the movie, and so was not too disappointed. (Spoiler) The book itself is fairly short and sparse; the scene where Meg wins Charles back was, I thought, much more dramatic in the novel than in the long, drawn-out movie scene (and what was with all those snakes in that scene?). However, it was entertaining enough, and a good enough tale of love winning over hate, individuality winning over conformity, and, as I like in Disney movies, a good showcase for kids exemplifying the traits of loyalty, courage, and family togetherness. So take the kids; they'll like it. But do have them read the book too!
-
deeell29 October 2007In 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.
-
arkofthekundert8 April 2005... 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. -
bethgood-129 May 2005I saw this with two of my kids (8 and 6) and they enjoyed the show. They are interested in reading the books with me now. I LOVED the books when I was a kid but hadn't read them in years. I thought there were some things that were different in the movie, but wasn't sure because it had been so many years since I had read the books. Having gone back I definitely prefer the books. There is a flow that never seems to take off in the movie and it doesn't have the same feel as the books, but it is a good story. As the other reviewer said, if you don't mind a few changes (especially easy to overlook if it has been a while since you read the books) the movie is pretty good as a stand-alone.
-
robert-bitgood11 May 2004I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.