It is a performances centric movie

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This movie is quite possibly the most atrocious book-to-film adaptation I've ever seen.A few decades too late, I finally got around to reading A Wrinkle in Time. It was beautiful. So magical, so moving, so touching, so brilliant. And because it was on Netflix, I decided to give it a watch not even an hour after I finished reading the book. What a horrible decision I'd made. I mean, if you're reading this, take this as a sign of God to not watch the movie. Stay away. Away, away, AWAY. It will ruin everything for you. I don't know who in the hell thought it was a good idea to put things in this sad excuse of a movie that never happened in the book. Things were taken out of order. Not even the decade is the same! I'm so upset I could cry.You have been warned. This movie is nearly nothing like the book. Watch something else. I need to binge watch The Office now to forget I ever watched this garbage.

A Wrinkle in Time tries hard to be a thoughtful, original, family- friendly science-fantasy. But so hard does it try, it ends up self- aware, genre-confused and slow. Hindered by poor acting, the film will satisfy only the most patient and simultaneously uninvested of viewers.While I applaud any film confident enough to take its time setting a backdrop and building characters, this film just takes its time. Largely this is down to the wooden acting, even though the source material (it is based on a book) must also bear some of the blame.With character names like Mrs. Whotsit, it's clear the story wishes to be charming and maybe even childish. But this is then mixed with extended, shallow expositions about human nature or the Universe, ridiculously precocious (and arrogant) youngsters with a budding but lacklustre mature romance, and quotations from classical literature (plus a splattering of pop culture). It's hard to see who the story could appeal to.So much time is spent trying to establish an emotional connection, if they'd even spent a fraction scouting for decent lead actors and rewriting the script, they might have succeeded. As it stands, it's simply painful to watch the lead actress rattle off pretentious speeches, inane colloquialisms and emotional exclamations each with the same expressionless face and measured voice. Against stirring piano and violin.I don't know whether it's the filmmakers' or the original author's fault, but infecting a mediocre kid's plot with an adult's intellectual indulgence - or is it an adult's intellectual indulgence wrapped in a mediocre kid's plot? - can only result in the dilution of each part with the other: the dull smudge that results from the child's fallacy of a more exciting hue created through colours smeared together - which, coincidentally, is the visual image on which the film ends.

I've never any of the "A Wrinkle in Time" books, though they are on my "To read" list, and still this movie felt homogenized/cleaned up to me. The acting was rather good (Alfre Woodard and her wig were pretty fabulous) and the SFX were as expected for what is essentially a TV movie. But the whole thing just seemed OFF. It seemed as though remnants of scenes and plot points were all over the place, orphaned by the need to create a mass appeal movie. Of course the good thing is I want to read the book sooner, rather than later! So, watch the movie, it's a good bit of fluff. Kids may go glassy eyed at the "love" stuff and philosophizing, but it's good family fare.Still, READ THE BOOK!

I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner. The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.A wrinkle in time:*/****