Gefangene der Zeit

I 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.

I 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.

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.

My sister and I were ecstatic when we found out that they were finally playing this. We took time out of our busy finals week to sit down and watch the whole thing. And while it kept us entertained for the whole 3 hours, there were a lot of times we were like "Was that in the book? Where are they getting this stuff?"

So I guess my advise is, if you're a book purist, try to forget this is based on it and enjoy it for the cute fluff piece it is. The book is a whole different (and better) experience.

On to the movie. I think Gregory Smith was good as Calvin (even though he isn't a redhead) and the little kid was good too. Meg was a little forced I thought. Maybe it's the inexperience of the actress, but she didn't feel like the stubborn but warm Meg of the books.

All in all, it was a pleasant experience.

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.