After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 5 wins & 17 nominations total
David Oyelowo
- The It
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Summary
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.
Featured reviews
I'm always in favor of a good lesson for kids wrapped in an adventure, no matter how out there it might be. The astral travel in A Wrinkle in Time is where teen Meg (Storm Reid) must go through a portal to find her scientist father. He's been gone for 4 years, having discovered that portal as physicist and entered it, foolish dad to abandon family just to go where no man has ever gone before.
Unfortunately, Meg's coming of age as she travels with wunderkind little brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), and high school chum Calvin (Leo lookalike Levi Miller), never involves defining challenges but rather just murky CGI and an evil force straight out of Arrival's Rorschach alien. While we hear about her need to have more confidence and be more aggressive, when she finally achieves those, the film is almost over, and the transforming beats are not obvious anyway.
Even the "Which's" interstellar guides, play by Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling, are unimpressive personalities with equally unimpressive costumes. While they might be a cross between the benign Glinda of Oz and the three witches of Shakespeare on Prozac, they are not seminal to Meg's development or the plot's.
I can advise Oprah to slink back to her kingdom and Pine to go back to his starship. As for you, audience, I advise you to avoid this clunker and see The Shape of Water. No, that's not kids' stuff, but maybe that's all for the good. As Oprah's Mrs. Which intones, "Trust nothing." Trust not this film to do justice to Ms. Lengle's original.
Unfortunately, Meg's coming of age as she travels with wunderkind little brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), and high school chum Calvin (Leo lookalike Levi Miller), never involves defining challenges but rather just murky CGI and an evil force straight out of Arrival's Rorschach alien. While we hear about her need to have more confidence and be more aggressive, when she finally achieves those, the film is almost over, and the transforming beats are not obvious anyway.
Even the "Which's" interstellar guides, play by Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling, are unimpressive personalities with equally unimpressive costumes. While they might be a cross between the benign Glinda of Oz and the three witches of Shakespeare on Prozac, they are not seminal to Meg's development or the plot's.
I can advise Oprah to slink back to her kingdom and Pine to go back to his starship. As for you, audience, I advise you to avoid this clunker and see The Shape of Water. No, that's not kids' stuff, but maybe that's all for the good. As Oprah's Mrs. Which intones, "Trust nothing." Trust not this film to do justice to Ms. Lengle's original.
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.
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.
Great actors with very poor script. Rendering poor performance. Even my 10 yr old daughter was bored and wanted to leave early.
We wondered why we were the only ones in the theatre.
A real disappointment
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!
Did you know
- TriviaOver the entrance to Mrs. Who's (Mindy Kaling's) house is a street-number sign with the eight hanging lopsided, forming an infinity symbol.
- GoofsIn several scenes, Meg's glasses do not have any lenses in them.
- Quotes
Dr. Alex Murry: What if we are here for a reason. What if we are part of something truly divine.
- Crazy creditsThe Walt Disney Pictures logo is affected by a tesseract.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The 75th Annual Golden Globe Awards (2018)
- SoundtracksLet 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.
- How long is A Wrinkle in Time?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Un Viaje en el Tiempo
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $100,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $100,478,608
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $33,123,609
- Mar 11, 2018
- Gross worldwide
- $132,675,864
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content