User Reviews (856)

Add a Review

  • I ignored the bad reviews and went anyway. Disappointing is probably an understatement. This movie is a disaster. Not only is the acting incredibly awful, especially from some otherwise accomplished cast members, but the original storyline was all but abandoned. I read the book several times, and even I was confused what was going on in this film. There was no explanation for any of the concepts, character development was nonexistent, special effects were plentiful but meaningless. The most fascinating parts of the book were eliminated, or only presented so quickly that it was difficult to understand why they were happening and how they related to the story. This movie could have been SO great - there was incredible potential here, and Disney and the director literally wasted it all.
  • I HIGHLY recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys flying lettuce, terrible acting, giant Oprah in a mermaid costume, or awful confusing plots with terrible direction. Disney - as someone who had to sit through this film I respectfully request that you use your Marvel money to build a time machine and give 2 hours back to any audience forced to see this abomination.
  • I was excited when this was announced as this was one of my favorite books growing up and I still enjoy re-reading this series. However, I also kept saying "I hope Disney doesn't screw this up again," after the travesty TV version they made in the early 2000s.

    Lo and behold, they managed to screw it up again.

    Let's start with the few bright spots (and calling them bright spots is even generous). First, I did enjoy the visual depiction of the tesseract. Also, the casting was pretty good. Storm Reid was well cast as Meg, and Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which were also portrayed well, despite that they drastically downplayed Mrs. Which's character.

    Now, the bad (and there is a lot of bad). Mrs. Whatsit was changed into a completely negative character who seemed completely inept and pessimistic. Important points in the book (Ixiel and Aunt Beast, for example) were completely ignored and given only cursory mentions so fleeting that you barely even notice it. The Man with Red Eyes is turned into marionette who literally collapses on screen. I get that in the novel he was a "puppet" of IT, but the depiction in the movie was laughable. The ridiculous storm scene when they first arrive on Camazotz came out of nowhere and was so ridiculously portrayed. First, they're struggling to find Charles Wallace, then they go through this ridiculous storm sequence, and when they make it over this wall (which again, was nowhere in the source material), that concern for Charles Wallace is completely gone until he pops out of nowhere saying "here I am." And are Meg and Calvin relieved to see him? Nope. It's more like "meh, okay." The movie completely left out how Calvin and Dr. Murray got back from Camazotz. All of a sudden, they're just back. Poof, no explanation.

    I get that certain stories require work to adapt: I didn't get particularly outraged with some of the changes "Prince Caspian" and "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" made in the Narnia series because those were short novels whose structure required adaption to make them cinematic. I wasn't necessarily pleased with all of them, but given the structure of the books, it was understandable that some work had to be done. "A Wrinkle in Time" was different. It's a very linear story which already was very cinematic and could easily translate itself from page to screen. But instead of a faithful adaption, the filmmakers decided to ignore 90% of the source material.

    Strike 2, Disney. You've now screwed this same story up twice.
  • I do this review justice when I say shark-nado had a better story line.
  • This movie has nothing to do with the books I enjoyed as a child. In fact it was so poorly adapted that to even call it A Wrinkle in Time is an insult to the original book. If only I could fold time and go backwards to get my 2 hours back and the $$ it cost!! Save your money and your time it's not even worth renting!
  • By the time "Wrinkle" reached its climactic scenes, where the stakes are highest and the resolution hangs in the balance, it carried so much forward momentum that I had to keep waking myself up so I wouldn't snore and bother the other theater patrons.

    Yeah...it was like that.

    Look, I'll admit: I've never read the book (shame on me, I guess, as a lifelong lover of SF and general metaphysical weirdness), so I can't judge DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time" as an adaptation of L'Engle's literary favorite. But I CAN measure it as a film that wants to tell a story, and on that scale...um...

    ...

    Uy. Never is there a real sense of conflict with which to engage: the tone and mood are so lovey-dovey, from stem to stern, that the film never feels like it's progressing in any meaningful way. The galaxy-gobbling threat doesn't, and isn't. Good performers are wasted on one-note characters (be they whimsical space-nymphs or oh-so-precious baby geniuses) in puzzling costumes and -- were those hairdos? I think they were hairdos. I mean, they were where hair is supposed to be. Expensive FX fill the screen in service to a plot that *drifts* through its paces instead of *advancing*. If there was variance in the musical score, I missed it (but I think I didn't, because I think there wasn't). Michael Peña is asked to leave his "Ant-Man" charm at home and put on a goofy mustache and some red contacts for like a few minutes, and Captain Kirk (the new one, anyway) has a beard and is interesting, but doesn't really do anything and OPE what nope I'm awake not snoring sorry no.

    This is going to be someone's favorite movie, and that's a beautiful thing; art needn't be categorically *good* to be *effective*, after all, and I love the hell out of "Xanadu", so I should know. But a film that wants to tell a story should be equipped to tell a story, and if it can't do that, then...it's doing something else, I dunno, I'm...

    ...

    ...huh? No, no, I was just...just resting my eyes. It's nice, maybe you should do the same.
  • FanMember22 October 2018
    Watched it on NETFLIX last night with my four grandkids (13, 11, 8 and four). When it was over, I asked "did y'all like it ?" In unison all said NO.

    My husband and I thought it was a complete waste of our time with the kids. It's the first Disney movie I can say "I hated it."
  • I was speechless after the credits started rolling. The women next to me asked what I thought. I told them some of the crucial, pivotal aspects they had so obviously left out of the film version by choice. It was a fatal mistake and I believe they did it for reasons that directly contradict L'Engle's reason for writing the book in the first place. "Sounds like we should go read the book." That was the best message I could offer to anyone else who wants to know about the movie. Forget it. Go read the book. The movie is a hundred-million-dollar backstreet rape, bereft of all magic or joy. This film was made by the creatures of Camazotz and offered at the altar of IT.. Such a shame. I really was looking forward to this one. What we got is smply dreadful.
  • I very rarely walk out in the middle of a movie. But I did last night about one hour into "Wrinkle In Time"--and I was glad I did. This film had everything wrong with it, direction, acting, scripting. About the only aspect I found somewhat rewarding was the special effects, which kept me in my seat for at least those 60 excruciating minutes. Ava DuVernay's direction bordered on amateurish. Her framing was uncomfortably tight in a number of shots. And I've seen more of Oprah's inside of her nose with DuVernay's camera looking up at the giant actress than I care to remember. The pouting Storm Reid, playing the 13-year-old Meg Murry, was unrelatable as the heroine of the film. And most irritating was her younger brother, Deric McCabe, whose high-pitched voice was barely intelligible. Walt Disney Pictures should be ashamed of themselves releasing this complete waste of time. I've seen film school studio projects better produced than this. I hope the paying public avoids this film and sends this film quickly into the trash dump.
  • What a trainwreck, terrible acting, preachy storyline and a poor adaptation of a decent children's story. Recommend this movie to your worst enemy, if revenge is your game.
  • I had been looking forward to this movie because the trailers made it look like it had potential to be a lot of fun. Unfortunately it lived up to none of that potential. Horrendous acting, insultingly cheesy special effects, confusing directing, and a clumsily written screenplay made for a punitive moviegoing experience. My nephew was bored five minutes in, and I was cringing. I am shocked that Disney released this in theaters. They usually have more respect for their customers.
  • This movie is so bad that I felt compelled to write a review. I did not see any review or trailer and had moderate expectation due to Chris Pine and Reese Witherspoon. Unfortunately, the movie turned out to be a huge NONSENSE. I am sorry but the three kids just don't know how to act. Meg Murry was like"huh......ah......hmm......huh......I don't know... I am not sure....AHAHAH" throughout the movie; the little boy who acted Charles Wallace was fine but overacting for the most of the time; the teenage boy was just showing "I am so conscious of my good-looking and I am seducing you". What the heck?! More importantly, the plot is all over the place and filled with cliche. I am for girl power but this is just so cynical and use girl power as a selling point and nothing else makes sense. Witherspoon and Pine are fine but were eclipsed by this bad screenplay. I am so annoyed even though I watched this movie using Movie Pass. A total waste of 2 hours.
  • I was excited to watch this movie. High expectations based on all the marketing given to it. It ended up being extremely boring, too slow. No action or great parts at all. The story starts and develops so slow and with nothing exciting to tell. There were moments (if not the entire movie) in which all the magic could be seen as fake and special effect only. The acting for the main character is bad. Very bad. I could tell it was too acted. Really, sad too see such a beautiful story brought too life to become so boring and say nothing at the end of it all.
  • After seeing all the hype by Disney I was looking forward to seeing the movie. It didn't take long for me to wonder why I was still sitting there. I kept waiting for something good to happen. I had gone with a friend and we agreed, waste of money for the ticket and time we couldn't get back.
  • kylexile17 March 2018
    This is probably the worst Disney movie I've ever seen. It's also probably the worst movie I've seen this year. The movie for starters is flat out BORING. The majority of the film is people standing around talking, and they aren't talking about anything interesting or that advances the plot in most cases. There's some beautiful imagery here, but then there's also too much green screen and CGI going on that it just loses it's luster. What is the deal with this director also? There were probably 70+ shots inches away from each actors face. It didn't look pretty and was extremely distracting to me. Somehow this director had all of these great actors and couldn't even get anything out of the majority of them. Chris Pine was about the only person that did a good job here. I would not recommend this to anyone. It's unbelievable that this is a film with a budget over $100 million. They should have never even released this travesty.
  • vkb-mech11 March 2018
    This must be the most excruciating 2 hours at the movies i've endured in a long time. I've seen my fair share of bad movies, but this one .. oh boy ..is shockingly bad.

    This is from a studio that's historically churned out box-office smash hits, and has rarely, if not never, made less-than-stellar "moolah" off of its movies. So it's all the more perplexing that someone actually green-lit the finished product here.

    This is a disney movie, after all. Let's break it up -

    The story - has taken a break. Don't know where it is right now. The actors - are wasted. Everything is cringe-worthy. The colors - Well, that's all it has. Colors. The script - i doubt if there was one. If there was one, it probably was proof-read by an high-on-lsd hippie. The "moral" of the story - That's on a break too, along with the story.

    Ava DuVernay's last movie, Selma, was good. It had a purpose. It had a story to tell. This one, has no story. There is no reason for this movie to exist.

    You can tell the audience is being taken for a ride, and has taken them for fools when a $100 million movie has simply laced Ms. Winfrey with ultra-tacky sparkly make-up that was bought at the last minute from the local grocery story, and expecting that the audience (kids and adults alike) will throng to watch it.

    I shelled out $18 for this garbage (and i felt it was $18 too many). I suggest you don't. At the risk of pulling your hair out, i suggest watching it when you have none left to worry about.
  • Wow. Something went wrong here. For a movie with the backing of Disney and all the resources that they poses, they must have turned a blind eye to this film, or they must have tried to manipulate and control it super tightly. This movie shocked me with how bad it was, and how Disney would release a movie this bad. They don't do it often. From start to finish, this movie is disorderly, and confusing. Maybe because I didn't read the book, but I shouldn't have to read the book in order to enjoy the movie. The actors all seemed to lack chemistry and understanding of the role. The three children just couldn't carry the plot along. It was a disaster around every corner. A Wrinkle in Time could easily be turned into a rated R film in my opinion, the one thing holding it back was the fact that it was kids and Disney. But had this been Tim Burton like Alice in Wonderland, well it would have been better directed, but it would have set in on a specific style and flow. A Wrinkle in Time never really planted its feet into a specific feel. It seemed to take itself super seriously, but what was happening on screen didn't match up. The score really didn't help. The movie was scored as a dramatic, serious, epic, however, on screen it was kids running around to "save the world". The effects were beyond cheesy. I countlessly had flashbacks to the fantastic hit "Spy Kids 3: Game Over" and its partner "Shark Boy and Lava Girl". In all regards, this movie could rival those movies on the Disney Channel, but this one is too messed up and twisted for kids to even enjoy it. They managed to make a movie that both adults and children could dislike. Disney seems to achieve first still today.
  • Wow, I am so disappointed in Disney right now. I was expecting so much from this, but sadly it was absolutely terrible! The movie and acting was so cheesy and cliché, I couldn't help but cringe throughout the movie. Chris Pine deserves a much better role than this, especially after his great performance in Wonder Woman. I mean, how could Disney release this kind of rubbish? Did they even watch it before they release it? Did the director even try? 'Cool' visual effects that made the film look like a compilation of advertisements DOES NOT equal to a good movie! Wow.
  • steve-8435418 March 2018
    Great actors with very poor script. Rendering poor performance. Even my 10 yr old daughter was bored and wanted to leave early. We wondered why we were the only ones in the theatre. A real disappointment
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After 50 years of waiting to see one of my favorite childhood books brought to the big screen, I am back to waiting. While the name of the movie was A Wrinkle in Time, the movie itself was something that had died a horrible death, strangled by the need to be diverse and carrying a "powerful message" that was hidden in shocked disbelief. The scriptwriter and director clearly did not care about the plot or power that existed in the book (the final battle between Meg and the brain ran chills up my spine in the book, but was actually boring in the movie), but instead focused on a message...and such a message that the "MESSAGE" (caps courtesy of the interviews) was more important than the plot, actors and actresses, CGI, conflicts, resolutions or anything else. If you want a "MESSAGE" and don't feel like spending time in the religious institution of your choice, I might raise my rating tp 2 stars for you.

    By the way, if you have never read the book, I suggest you watch the movie, then read the book (that way giving the movie every chance) and then rate the movie.
  • Only a movie this bad could move me into writing a review. I have seen many bad movies but this was the prize winner. A nightmare to watch and unbelievable bad in every respect possible. I just wish I would have seen the reviews before taking my kids to damage their brains and mine.
  • What do you get when you take, horrid visuals, terrible acting, some of the worst direction you've seen in a film complete with awful shot composition and a hundred foot tall talking Oprah? You get the worst film of 2018 so far, Disney's A Wrinkle In Time, of course!
  • psifi87226 March 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    The main problem with the movie is it so very unfaithful to the book. It doesn't even attempt to remain true to what the book is truly about.

    First of all, the book is a Christian fantasy, written by a Christian author, Madeleine L'Engle. The movie ignores L'Engle's faith to the point of mockery. To add insult to injury, the movie doesn't even try to add in something that might satisfy in it's place. Not that anything could, but an attempt would have taken away a bit of the sting. Instead, we're left with banal generics about "light," "darkness," and the "universe," with some daytime pop psychology mixed in.

    For an example, the movie has Mrs. Which, played by Oprah Winfrey, say "The only thing faster than the speed of light is the speed of darkness." What rubbish! I genuinely hate that line. Theologically, even just morally, it's garbage. Light doesn't have to outrun the dark. Good is not weaker than evil. The smallest speck of light is enough to brighten the most encompassing darkness. That's the message we should be sending children, not some banal quip that makes evil seem stronger than it really is.

    The movie's fatal flaw is shown mainly in the characters, but also a bit in how the plot was handled. I'll start with the characters, but I want to say something first. I don't agree with those who say the acting was bad. The diverse cast was mostly wonderful! But, even the most talented actor can only do so much, with a bad script. The cast did the best that probably could be done with what they were given. Sadly, what they were given was trash. That isn't their fault though.

    Chris Pine played Alex Murray, a character horrible misinterpreted by the movie. In the book, Murray is a renowned and VERY well-respected scientist, not some outsider on the fringes of his field. This is a man who is consulted by the President, at times! His work with the tesseract was a group effort with other scientists, not just his wife.

    The movie utterly trashed his motives for developing the tesseract. He didn't want to "shake hands with the universe," whatever that means. Murray in the book was a man of faith, working for the good of his fellow men. The tesseract was supposed to help people, not just fulfill some personal agenda. Murray in the book took risks, yes, but as part of his responsibilities to his team and country.

    Equally flawed was the movie's version of Mrs. Whatsit. In the book, Mrs. Whatsit is, frankly, an angel, who used to be a star, before sacrificing herself in a battle against evil...a battle she won. She was a fun character, though, playing a game at being human. She dressed as an old tramp and stole sheets. The sheets in the book, though, weren't stolen to create some magnificent robe for her to look beautiful in, for her vanity. Nope. In the book, she took the sheets to make cheesy ghosts, in order to scare people away from the haunted house.

    The worst thing about the movie Mrs. Whatsit was how she treated Meg. Consistently and frequently through the movie, Mrs. Whatsit bullied and belittled Meg, showing intense dislike and openly wishing she wasn't there. What an incredibly terrible message to send! This is supposed to be a wise leader, teacher, and guide, but that's how she treats a child? Compare that to the book, where Mrs. Whatsit is playful and gentle, where Mrs. Whatsit's assurance of her love is instrumental in Meg defeating It. I'm a fan of Reese Witherspoon, but she was so wrong here. Frankly, Kathy Bates would have been a much better choice.

    Another character who should have been happy, playful, and kind was the Happy Medium. Zach Galifianakis played the role as a grump, for whatever reason. Frankly, this is the role Michael Peña should have played. His comedy style would have been perfect for a well-meaning seer trying to show the kids comforting things, their mothers, and instead showing them scenes of pain, as it was in the book. I don't know why they got rid of this bit of character development in favor of CGI crap about balancing on rocks. It's just one time of many, where something deep was replaced with something shallow.

    Zach Galifianakis could play the Man with Red Eyes, if he can pull off legal evil, a creepy bureacrat, with a deep sense of menace, highlighted by a fake cheerfulness.

    Finally, we get to Charles Wallace. And, yes, he should be called that, not Charles or Charlie, no. He's Charles Wallace, because it shows he's not ordinary. In the book, Charles Wallace is a gentle, thoughtful child, who very often knows what his sister is thinking and feeling. He's a boy who listens. This is a very important part of his character. He has a wisdom to him that is far beyond his years. He's not a typical kid who screams and yells, when someone is being mean to his sister. Charles Wallace barely talks in front of other people at all! There should be something otherworldly about the boy. Instead, McCabe was directed to play him as a bit wild and mouthy and Charles Wallace's wisdom, understanding, and intelligence were barely shown at all. Not only is this a sad waste of his character, but makes the sequels impossible to get right. They made the classic mistake of telling us Charles Wallace is special, instead of showing us.

    Poor Calvin. They didn't so much get his character wrong, as fail to give him character at all. He was just undeveloped. Of course, they ruined the possibility of a good adaptation of A Swiftly Tilting Planet, the third in L'Engle's trilogy, by changing his home life from a poor family, with lots of kids, to him being an only child with just a dad. The only character treated worse was Aunt Beast, who was left out entirely, which is shame. Well, they also left out Sandy and Denys, the Murray twins. A single scene with them would have been just fine.

    As for the plot, I think a single example will highlight how wrong the movie went. In the book, the children arrive on Camazotz. They walk through a suburban neighborhood and see children "playing." The boys are bouncing balls and girls and skipping rope, all simultaneously to a certain "rhythm." Yes, the movie almost gets that much right. The children see that one child alone is out of rhythm, dropping his ball and unable to keep in sync. When the mother's call the children in, the errant child leaves his ball behind. They try to return the ball and the mother is terrified. She assures Meg and the others that there haven't been any "incidents," in a long time. The reader sees that although everything looks neat and tidy, no one is really happy. Submission to evil brings terror and pain, not joy.

    This deep, potentially moving scene is reduced to make room for a shallow, unnecessary scene where a CGI forest attacks the kids.

    Speaking of out of character, the entire planet of Camazotz is exactly that. There would not a beach scene like that on Camazotz. Camazotz is legal evil, all the way. The evil of Camazotz does not play those sorts of mind games. It doesn't so much try and confuse you, as try to get you to confuse yourself.

    In the movie, the children are given a meal, by the Man with Red Eyes. They are given some sort of nutrient base, but the Man can create the illusion of a turkey dinner. Charles Wallace, however, can't be fooled, and knows the meal is shapeless and tasteless, like sand. They weren't actually given sand to eat. The meal did what a meal should do, at least on the surface. It provided nutrition, but without real joy. It was body fuel, with everything better about it drained away. For me, that's the perfect metaphor for this movie, as opposed to the book. The movie tells the story and kills some time, but with all the real joy of the story neglected and ignored.

    I really wished they had done a good job. I wanted to like this movie, so much. When you make a beloved novel into a movie, you have an automatic audience in the fans of the book. Integrity demands you give that audience what you are promising them. This movie fails to deliver.
  • chearn-0973920 March 2018
    I have very little good to say about this movie. Granted, I'm not the target market. I'm a 44 year old male. We took the kids to see it. They liked it well enough. I loathed it. What a terrible, terrible film. I haven't read the book, but I think I will now. The underlying story was good. i liked the idea. But the execution was terrible. Bad acting all around, even by Chris Pine. And Oprah, especially, was horrid. There was this bizarre desire by the director to fit in pop songs that had seemingly no connection to what was going on in a scene. That was annoying. Everything was over emoted. I think the director thought she was creating a brilliant, deep movie. It wasn't at all. Shallow as all get out. I feel that if I had read the book it might fill in a lot of the stuff it appears to have missed. It just kind of skimmed through the story. Too much time spent on trying to make it look cool and be emotional over actually making the story work. I was thoroughly disappointed. I wish I could tell people to go see this because it is wonderful that it is directed by an African American woman. But...I can't. It's just...bad.
  • Terrible, ew. Bad story, bad acting, bad visuals, horrific idea. What an ugly movie. I saw this flop coming right wen the first trailer was released. It doesn't even deserve a 4/10. It deserves a 1/10. The only reason it gets a 1 is cause I went to see it just to prove my point.
An error has occured. Please try again.