NOTE IMDb
4,3/10
49 k
MA NOTE
Après la disparition de son père scientifique, trois êtres particuliers envoient Meg, son frère et son amie dans l'espace pour le retrouver.Après la disparition de son père scientifique, trois êtres particuliers envoient Meg, son frère et son amie dans l'espace pour le retrouver.Après la disparition de son père scientifique, trois êtres particuliers envoient Meg, son frère et son amie dans l'espace pour le retrouver.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 5 victoires et 17 nominations au total
David Oyelowo
- The It
- (voix)
Résumé
Reviewers say 'A Wrinkle in Time' has received mixed reviews, with criticisms targeting its disjointed plot, heavy reliance on CGI, and perceived lack of coherence. Many felt it failed to capture the essence of the book. Performances from the adult cast were often criticized, though young actors like Storm Reid were praised. Stunning visuals, themes of love and family, and a diverse cast were highlighted positively.
Avis à la une
This movie has nothing to do with the books I enjoyed as a child. In fact it was so poorly adapted that to even call it A Wrinkle in Time is an insult to the original book. If only I could fold time and go backwards to get my 2 hours back and the $$ it cost!! Save your money and your time it's not even worth renting!
By the time "Wrinkle" reached its climactic scenes, where the stakes are highest and the resolution hangs in the balance, it carried so much forward momentum that I had to keep waking myself up so I wouldn't snore and bother the other theater patrons.
Yeah...it was like that.
Look, I'll admit: I've never read the book (shame on me, I guess, as a lifelong lover of SF and general metaphysical weirdness), so I can't judge DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time" as an adaptation of L'Engle's literary favorite. But I CAN measure it as a film that wants to tell a story, and on that scale...um...
...
Uy. Never is there a real sense of conflict with which to engage: the tone and mood are so lovey-dovey, from stem to stern, that the film never feels like it's progressing in any meaningful way. The galaxy-gobbling threat doesn't, and isn't. Good performers are wasted on one-note characters (be they whimsical space-nymphs or oh-so-precious baby geniuses) in puzzling costumes and -- were those hairdos? I think they were hairdos. I mean, they were where hair is supposed to be. Expensive FX fill the screen in service to a plot that *drifts* through its paces instead of *advancing*. If there was variance in the musical score, I missed it (but I think I didn't, because I think there wasn't). Michael Peña is asked to leave his "Ant-Man" charm at home and put on a goofy mustache and some red contacts for like a few minutes, and Captain Kirk (the new one, anyway) has a beard and is interesting, but doesn't really do anything and OPE what nope I'm awake not snoring sorry no.
This is going to be someone's favorite movie, and that's a beautiful thing; art needn't be categorically *good* to be *effective*, after all, and I love the hell out of "Xanadu", so I should know. But a film that wants to tell a story should be equipped to tell a story, and if it can't do that, then...it's doing something else, I dunno, I'm...
...
...huh? No, no, I was just...just resting my eyes. It's nice, maybe you should do the same.
Yeah...it was like that.
Look, I'll admit: I've never read the book (shame on me, I guess, as a lifelong lover of SF and general metaphysical weirdness), so I can't judge DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time" as an adaptation of L'Engle's literary favorite. But I CAN measure it as a film that wants to tell a story, and on that scale...um...
...
Uy. Never is there a real sense of conflict with which to engage: the tone and mood are so lovey-dovey, from stem to stern, that the film never feels like it's progressing in any meaningful way. The galaxy-gobbling threat doesn't, and isn't. Good performers are wasted on one-note characters (be they whimsical space-nymphs or oh-so-precious baby geniuses) in puzzling costumes and -- were those hairdos? I think they were hairdos. I mean, they were where hair is supposed to be. Expensive FX fill the screen in service to a plot that *drifts* through its paces instead of *advancing*. If there was variance in the musical score, I missed it (but I think I didn't, because I think there wasn't). Michael Peña is asked to leave his "Ant-Man" charm at home and put on a goofy mustache and some red contacts for like a few minutes, and Captain Kirk (the new one, anyway) has a beard and is interesting, but doesn't really do anything and OPE what nope I'm awake not snoring sorry no.
This is going to be someone's favorite movie, and that's a beautiful thing; art needn't be categorically *good* to be *effective*, after all, and I love the hell out of "Xanadu", so I should know. But a film that wants to tell a story should be equipped to tell a story, and if it can't do that, then...it's doing something else, I dunno, I'm...
...
...huh? No, no, I was just...just resting my eyes. It's nice, maybe you should do the same.
This is probably the worst Disney movie I've ever seen. It's also probably the worst movie I've seen this year. The movie for starters is flat out BORING. The majority of the film is people standing around talking, and they aren't talking about anything interesting or that advances the plot in most cases. There's some beautiful imagery here, but then there's also too much green screen and CGI going on that it just loses it's luster. What is the deal with this director also? There were probably 70+ shots inches away from each actors face. It didn't look pretty and was extremely distracting to me. Somehow this director had all of these great actors and couldn't even get anything out of the majority of them. Chris Pine was about the only person that did a good job here. I would not recommend this to anyone. It's unbelievable that this is a film with a budget over $100 million. They should have never even released this travesty.
I ignored the bad reviews and went anyway. Disappointing is probably an understatement. This movie is a disaster. Not only is the acting incredibly awful, especially from some otherwise accomplished cast members, but the original storyline was all but abandoned. I read the book several times, and even I was confused what was going on in this film. There was no explanation for any of the concepts, character development was nonexistent, special effects were plentiful but meaningless. The most fascinating parts of the book were eliminated, or only presented so quickly that it was difficult to understand why they were happening and how they related to the story. This movie could have been SO great - there was incredible potential here, and Disney and the director literally wasted it all.
I couldn't even finish the movie. I am speechless it was just so bad. I mean acting , direction , make up, dialogues just a very poorly done movie which did not make any sense at all. 0/10 A complere Waste of time and money.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesOver the entrance to Mrs. Who's (Mindy Kaling's) house is a street-number sign with the eight hanging lopsided, forming an infinity symbol.
- GaffesIn several scenes, Meg's glasses do not have any lenses in them.
- Citations
Dr. Alex Murry: What if we are here for a reason. What if we are part of something truly divine.
- Crédits fousThe Walt Disney Pictures logo is affected by a tesseract.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The 75th Annual Golden Globe Awards (2018)
- Bandes originalesLet Me Live
Written by Denisia "Blu June" Andrews, Brittany "Chi" Coney, Ali Payami, and Kehlani (as Kehlani Parrish)
Produced by Nova Wav and Ali Payami
Performed by Kehlani
Courtesy of Tsunami Mob/Atlantic Recording Corp.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is A Wrinkle in Time?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Un Viaje en el Tiempo
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 100 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 100 478 608 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 33 123 609 $US
- 11 mars 2018
- Montant brut mondial
- 132 675 864 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant