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.

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.

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.

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.

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.