Les aventuriers des mondes fantastiques

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

True, 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...