A Wrinkle in Time - a review

All right. Mother's Day marks the second time I've seen this movie and I feel like it's time to review it. If you come across this review, know that there will be spoilers here. So read at your own risk. Over all, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It is eye candy, but the story could have been stronger.

I love the book. I have read it many times and read it again right before seeing this movie the first time. I read blogs in anticipation of the film and saw many complaints. I still looked forward to seeing it. So first, let me talk about the things that I didn't mind deviating from the book.

The first thing is Meg. I read many people who were upset at the casting of Meg and called the move to cast an African American actress PC and a poor attempt to bring the book into modern times. I disagree with them. I LOVE that they cast an African American actress and this is an important move, not only because she's black, but she's mixed. Dr. Murray, her father, is white. Dr. Murray, her mother is black. This paints a better picture of how families are now in this age. Meg as a character is a young teenager feeling the emotions of puberty as well as the awkward phases of growth and the expectations of her teachers that she should at least be half as brilliant as her parents. All of this she has to deal with along with the disappearance of her father. She is teased mercilessly and so in dealing with all of this is angry and argumentative. So, in other words, pretty normal for a teenager. I think it was well played and have absolutely no problem that the character was changed from a white girl with unruly red hair in the book, to a black girl with unruly black hair in the film.

The second thing is the missing characters of Sandy and Dennys. In the book, these twins are the "normal" kids in the family. They are younger than Meg, but go to the same school. They champion her in front of the bullies. They're good at sports and are likable kids. They do not go on this adventure with their siblings. For this reason, I don't mind their exclusion from the film. They would have felt superfluous. I add here that the dog, Fortinbrass, was in the film and he did feel a bit unnecessary.

Next, Charles Wallace. In the book, he is a young boy of five. He hasn't started school yet. He hadn't begun to talk until he was four and then in complete sentences. Everyone outside the family believed he was possibly retarded. Meg defends him with vehemence. He is her little brother and just about the only person in the world who understands her. He seems to read her mind. He is key to the adventure they take. In the film, he's adopted. He is six and therefore in the same school as Meg, and is there for her champion in lieu of the twins. He does seem to understand her and the writers and directors include a scene in the beginning of the film from the book where a storm drives Meg out of her attic bedroom and Charles Wallace, instead of comforting her by going to her, has come to the kitchen and put milk on the stove for hot chocolate and made sandwiches. In the book, their mother joins them. I felt the absence in the film when she didn't come down, that scene added to the mystery of Charles Wallace and his gift of intuition at such a young age. Still, I like that he was adopted into a interracial marriage. It gives the family the look of a modern family. Also, Charles Wallace is of Asian decent. As a product of my education, I couldn't tell you his heritage, but the eyes tell it. The actor they cast did a fine job for one so young.

The Happy Medium. I really liked Zach Galifianakis in this role. In the book, the medium is a she and good friend to the three Mrs. She likes to be happy and when told to show the children their home, she gets sad after seeing the state of things, especially Calvin's home life. I had always pictured her cave as a dark normal cave with a fire in the center. The film not only changed the character, it re-imagined the location. It is a dark cave but the balancing rocks give it a sense of adventure. I really enjoyed the mood and attitude Zach put into the character.

Now for a few things that I wasn't thrilled with but enjoyed none the less. The three Mrs. In the book, Mrs. Whatsit is described as a tramp. She wore a large overcoat over many scarves with a floppy hat and galoshes. It's a part of her character that she doesn't understand what's right and wrong. She did steal Mrs. Buncomb's sheets, but in the book she wasn't wearing them. She was a small woman, and while Reese Whitherspoon isn't a large woman, I didn't feel she was quite right for the part. Still, she grew on me and by the middle of the film, I could forgive the deviations. One major deviation was her transformation. In the book, she transforms into a large, winged centaur type creature. I actually really liked the large leafy creature she turned into in the film. I loved the flowers on Uriel and that they spoke in color, a language Mrs. Whatsit understood. The middle Mrs, Mrs. Who was quite different as well. In the book, she's described as willowy and thin with thick glasses. She does speak in quotes, but not as much as she does in the film. I don't mind that they have her speaking in more quotes in the film. I do think Mindy Kaling was the wrong choice for this part. She did okay. I didn't hate her in this part, and I don't hate her at all. I love her in Inside Out. I still feel like she wasn't right for the part of Mrs. Who. One line I missed the most I think was on Uriel, in the book, when Mrs. Whatsit changes, Mrs. Who asks Mrs. Which if she should also change. In the book, Mrs. Which tells her "Not now." In the film, there is no line, so no anticipation of what form Mrs. Who would change into. Also, her spectacles are all wrong. Harry Potter showed us we can put thick glasses on a character even if the actress doesn't wear glasses. Though I'm pretty sure we already knew that. In the book the glasses have a key part, which in the film they really don't. Lastly, Mrs. Which. I like Oprah, but I feel like she was too recognizable to be the old spectral figure in this movie. In the book, she hardly takes corporeal form. It's hard for her. When she does, she looks a lot like a witch, with dark flowing robes, a beaky nose, and a pointed hat. Although, Mrs. Which's looks in the film are the last thing I take contention with, I really feel like her character was way too "real". In the book, her speech is wispy and drawn out, as though coming from a great distance. In the film, she talks normally. Other than her too big size, and faded feet, she doesn't seem that otherworldly in this film.

Next, I have to address some of the language in this film. Now don't get me wrong. This is a family friendly film. However, never once in the book are the children called to be warriors. Meg's value as a human being isn't drilled into her as it is in the film. There is a lot of emphasis on the universe and how events and time and choices and happenings all coalesced into Meg, or into Charles Wallace finding their family. It's almost too sweet. Meg complains, in both film and book that tessering is hard and she doesn't like it. In the film they tell her when she can become one with the universe and with herself tessering will become easier. How very zen. I won't deny that the underlying message in the book is very Christian. As a Christian woman, I actually like how the book incorporates the Christian message without being preachy or in your face. The movie felt like they had been very careful to remove as much of the Christian message as they could without changing the story. All that remains of that message is the light and the darkness and the darkness can only be overcome with the light. It also never comes out that the three Mrs. are stars. They were stars chosen for this mission, not warriors or fighters. The closest they came to that was telling Meg they were light. In a round about way, that was true.

On Camazots, the children encounter a field, then a forest, then a suburb. No. They land on the outside of the suburb and make their way in. The movie missed out on the opportunity to show how the evil isn't as strong they think it is. The children are all bouncing balls in rhythm. The rhythm hurts Charles Wallace's head. And rightly so. His rhythm is different. In the book, there is one little boy who can't keep the rhythm and bounces the ball out of time. When the mothers come out and call their children in, they don't acknowledge the three new children. They approach the boy. His mother hurries out and pulls him inside, looking terrified and watching for anyone coming. The children are confused by this, but continue into town. The planet does not change around them, though I did like the effects the film used to change the scenery. The missed opportunity comes when the children reach Central Central Intelligence. Inside they pass a cell where the little boy who couldn't bounce the ball was inside and every time he bounced out of rhythm, he was shocked. It was quite telling for the children in the book.

Once in Central Central Intelligence, in the film, Meg uses Mrs. Who's glasses to see the "enfolded" space and climbs seemingly on air to reach her father.

Then she puts the glasses in her pocket and they are forgotten. Poor form on the directors for that move. If a prop is significant enough to use, then use it until it it is no longer useful. Then get rid of it, but don't forget about it. In the book, and I think the movie would have benefited from this telling, Meg used the glasses to get to her father and to pass through the cell wall where he was being kept. Inside the cell it was total darkness. She could see because of the glasses and when she realized this, she put the glasses on her father. He then used them to get out of the cell while holding her. Then they broke. The prop had been used for what it was meant and then it broke. It was not simply forgotten.

When Charles Wallace is dragging them to see IT, Dr. Murray panics when he can't get his son to respond to him. In the film, this is compounded by Meg losing consciousness to the darkness. He tessers away with Calvin and attempts to take Meg home as well. In the film, Meg pulls out of his tesser and remains with Charles Wallace, facing the IT down and declaring her love for her brother.

Two missed opportunities here. The first happens when Dr. Murray tessers. In the book, he manages to get both Meg and Calvin off of Camazots. Meg wakes in darkness and panics. A creature helps her and explains that there is no sun for this world, but it is not a world consumed by darkness. Meg loves this creature for the way the creature cares for her, and she calls her Aunt Beast. When she is strong enough to join her father and Calvin, she is angry at her father for leaving Charles Wallace. This is a key scene in her growth. The three Mrs. appear again here and when she finally realizes that she had expected her father to fix everything, but he couldn't, they send her back to Camazots and remind her that they love her. Their final gift to her is their love. Dr. Murray isn't the hero she needed, and now she's ready to face the IT on her own. Then Mrs. Which tessers her back to Camazots to get her brother.

The second missed opportunity, is simply in the middle of the giant brain that is IT, when Meg is confronted by her brother, he tells her no one loves her. Well, in the film, she can only tell him that he loves her, despite what he thinks in the moment. In the book, she lists those who love her and realized that they, including her brother are the only people that matter. Charles Wallace tries to blow her off, but the mention of the three Mrs and the love they gave Meg, strengthens her. The film could have put that in without making much more than ten minutes longer or so.

Calvin seemed to have a very small part in this. At the beginning of the adventure, he is told that he was chosen for his diplomacy. That never comes into play. In the book, he has a strong intuition. It's different than Charles Wallace's, but strong none the less. He does say that he felt he needed to be there. But his character really had no other significance. He had a crush on Meg and validated her through out, but really, he was largely ignored and his character could have been left out for the story it had. The movie really missed building Calvin's character.

Finally, I think the worst part of this movie is the end. Dr. Murray tesseres out of IT with Calvin, trying to take Meg also. Then we forget about them while Meg fights to get Charles Wallace out of IT's grasp. Dr. Murray had said he was going to take them home to regroup. That's a long time for him to be home without seeing his wife. The time frame of Meg struggling in IT on Camazots as compared to the time of Dr. Murray leaving and being gone to Earth just doesn't mesh. Time doesn't follow that differently. Once Dr. Murray landed on Earth, even without Meg, he would have found his wife and told her what they were up against. That's what should have happened in the movie. I've already mentioned what happened in the book.

So, in conclusion. I liked the movie, but I felt that it need something more. If you haven't read the book, then the movie is just fine. It follows a story arc that is believable enough to allow you to suspend you disbelief. If have read the book, then you will find these issues and perhaps others. Still, I like the CG and I could enjoy the movie, even the second time around. If you have any other issues you found, let me know in the comments.