KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Lance E Sloan (lsloan-imdb-com) Madeleine L'Engle's fantasy works are in part highly expressive of her Christian viewpoint in a manner somewhat similar to that of Christian fantasy writer C. S. Lewis. She was herself the official writer-in-residence at New York City's Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, which is known for its prominent position in the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church. L'Engle's liberal Christianity has been the target of criticism from more conservative Christians, especially with respect to certain elements of A Wrinkle in Time.

jarolley So I saw this movie in school and it sucked. All I heard was laughing from my classmates. My friend and I were just trashing this movie the whole time. First off this movie makes no sense. You start off with a family with a single mom, old daughter, the somehow smart son, and the two twins that you see for 5 seconds. Then there is the dad that is in trouble for no reason and the random boy that the girl likes. I'll give you 5 reasons why this movie sucks. #5: The acting. The acting was awful. The smart kid especially. I couldn't even watch it, thats how awful it was. They couldn't act for there life. The script did not help either. That's #4: The script had terrible dialogue and made no sense. There is no reason of why the kid is so smart. Then there is the weird town that also makes no sense either. #3: Special effects. This might be a made for TV movie but this is just so sad. I saw better special effects from movies in the 1950's. From the stupid horse lady to the teleporting stuff. It looked terrible and it was just so sad. The crew probably didn't even try to make it look good. #2: The Characters: Here we go. I did not feel any sympathy for any of these characters they were just awful. Some just pop up like a punch to the face. One of the creepiest characters was the lady that looked like Chewbaccas sister. Others just are plan old stupid. #1 The Plot. There pretty much is no plot, or it is too stupid to exist. Literally the plot is that there is a smart kid that tries to take down an evil bad guy that has no back story. This movie sucked and thats all I have too say. Thank you for reading this review and don't watch this movie it sucks.

m wills A Wrinkle in Time is one of my favorite books of all time. It's incredibly intelligent, interesting, creative, emotional, and complex. The movie, on the other hand, is anything but. I know that a movie is unlikely to capture everything about a book. However, this movie goes beyond discrepancies between film and novel - it completely destroys everything that was good about the novel and turns it into a cheesy, simplistic, poorly-CGI'd nightmare. The character development is completely absent. Relationships that are interesting in the book are creepy at best in the movie. There are unnecessary departures from the plot of the book, and many good, complex, interesting scenes are deleted and replaced with strange episodes of physical violence, knife-throwing, and shouting. The animation is beyond atrocious - it's distractingly blurry and unrealistic, to the point of being comical. Seriously, do not, under any circumstances, waste your time.

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.