A Wrinkle in Time

Oh man, if I'd at any point ever had any faith at all in _A Wrinkle in Time_? I would have been **sorely** disappointed. Which is a shame on both counts, because it would be great if a film targeted a... Oh man, if I'd at any point ever had any faith at all in _A Wrinkle in Time_? I would have been **sorely** disappointed. Which is a shame on both counts, because it would be great if a film targeted at young people with both complex ideas **and** multiple women of colour in lead roles could have been like... Good. _Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Sweet enough. Just a shame it doesn't finish as great it starts. <em>'A Wrinkle in Time'</em>, I think, starts off very nicely. It gives a satisfactory background to the main character, while it bu... Sweet enough. Just a shame it doesn't finish as great it starts. <em>'A Wrinkle in Time'</em>, I think, starts off very nicely. It gives a satisfactory background to the main character, while it builds the intrigue well. Unfortunately, it does drop off as it goes on - but not to the point that it hindered my enjoyment, it is a noticeable step down though. I really like the special effects, I think they look terrific throughout. Onto the cast. Storm Reid does a respectable job as Meg, her performance arguably gets better as things progress - which is the opposite to the film overall. Chris Pine is underused in his role, but the casting of Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon and Mindy Kaling is good - Zach Galifianakis too. I didn't actually find Deric McCabe's character, Charles Wallace, annoying like most seemingly did. Surprised to see that this has a low rating across the board. I've never read the Madeleine L'Engle novel so perhaps that has something to do with it? I do agree the writing isn't necessarily great either. Each to the own, but I genuinely enjoyed it I can't lie.

Wow, this was out of all of a second wasn't it? So, I am going to more or less focus first on the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the book. Why even carry the same title if you are going to d... Wow, this was out of all of a second wasn't it? So, I am going to more or less focus first on the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the book. Why even carry the same title if you are going to diverge so much from the source that it is unrecognizable for the fans of the source? But that IS the new trend isn't it? That is the new Hollywood formula. 1) Take an established book or franchise 2) Remake it to not at all resemble the source material 3) Have it flop 4) Blame the fans of the source material for the bad reviews 5) Tell the fans of the source material that it wasn't made for them, but rather for the people that were never fans of it and don't want to see it. 6) Wonder why it failed. But that is not really the ONLY reason. I mean I grew up in the 80s, I saw made for TV movies, geared at children, that looked better than this. Seriously, it looked like an NBC Saturday Morning cartoon made for kids under 10 in the 90s on a shoestring budget. When you cast so many big names that you have no budget left to make the film...it's going to look horrible.

Definitely a movie for kids. There's a lot of cool cgi stuff in this movie, but it's just a lot of nonsense and unnecessary things that go on in the movie which makes it pretty dumb.... Definitely a movie for kids. There's a lot of cool cgi stuff in this movie, but it's just a lot of nonsense and unnecessary things that go on in the movie which makes it pretty dumb.