MovieChat Forums > A Wrinkle in Time (2004) Discussion > Reasons why this movie is horrible

Reasons why this movie is horrible

posted 16 years ago by calgoldentitan
17 replies | jump to latest

The Brain, only those who read the book would understand that. But it looked like a swirling sea of snakes, they were focusing to much on showing the cerebrum texture and context they forgot to clarify for people who hadnt read the book. Since that town was supposed to be evil, most people probaly thought it was just a bunch of snakes, until charles wallace at the very end described the "giant brain"

i had so many issues so ill just start naming them in no particular order

*Happy Medium, did they really have to get preachy? i mean ok, pick a gay guy, but then make him all fairy'd up, and then say im neither above all that but then as they leave the medium, whatsit says i think we wore "her" out, why couldnt they say it, or leave the gender arbitrary, are they saying gays can be girls watever it jus wastn neded. Also Happy Medium should have been more funny, the laughter was soo clearly forced

*Mrs Which, i wanted to see her shimmer more, and have more of a background role, give her a hard time materialzing, that was essential to the book, paint her as someone who cant think in a corporeal way,

*Mrs Who, should have been plump like we all remember! And the glasses, they never explained tha she gave the glases to meg, meg just randomly had them

*I reallly wanted to hear Charles Wallace say, "how are ya pops!?", that would have been grreaaat comic relief, as far as the father, two big problems
He really did and does look weak in this movie, and his acting when he first sees meg was horrible, he should have been more suprised and shocked. And also shouldnt he have protested more when they first said meg has to go back, he walked over to her hella fast talking about weakness yadada, which in the book was mrs whatsit told her she had. Also when he and calvin and meg keep sayin the same thing ove and over and over and ove it was so sad and tired, "No charles Wallace dont listen to him" that whole scene were red eyes is courting wallace took to long, and didnt need the dad in it, they litearlly had nothing to say, they were jus annoying backgroud noise

*I didnt care that meg didnt have glasses, but they def overplayed calvin being the most popular boy in school, he could have just been cool but they made him king of the town! in that case, give more storyline to why he likes meg, dont just make it so

*The twins should have been more annoying and the moms acting sucked. The schools scenes i did like though

LEts keep this going! Post reasons why you didnt like it as well

[–] brandonsc 15 years ago

i love Love LOVED the book, and i thought the movie was . . . well, it was okay.

However, most of your issues would not have been issues had you been paying attention, so rather than point out the problems i had with the movie, here are my problems with most of your responses:

Happy Medium: They actually called The Happy Medium BOTH "him" and "her," sometimes within the same sentence JUST to keep the ambiguity of the character's sex.

Mrs. Who: She most certainly DID give Meg the glasses.

Calvin: How on earth did you get that the movie made him "king of the town"?? No one at school mentioned him even once. Charles was aware of him, as he was in the book.

Sandy and Dennys: How on earth would them being more annoying have made this a better movie?

The Brain was foreshadowed in the very school scenes you claim to like so much.

Your problems with Mrs. Which & Charles are simply a matter of taste. Of all the problems I had with this presentation, i would say that these would not even make the list though.

[–] sgf292 15 years ago

I'm sorry, I've only seen about 1 minute of this movie so I can't say exactly why I hate it.
But I think MAYBE it could be redone. Possibly an independent, though. I'm afraid what all they would change just to get people to go see it...

[–] ReservoirDolphin 12 years ago

Personaly, if I remade it I would keep it as close as I possibly could.

[–] Tech-Chef 15 years ago

Do You REALLY have nothing better to do then attack every movie you watch?

The Review Dude

[–] alyssavirus 15 years ago

I just thought that they... dumbed it down too much, like they thought every person who watched it wouldn't be smart enough to get the book version. And I never thought Charles Wallace would be so... well, creepy.

[–] pianoteacher1218 15 years ago

No, I agree completely; This movie sucked big time. I am sorry if there are people here who love it, that is fine but I hated it, too and yes I watched the whole thing but with a sinking feeling the whole way. The characterizations were ALL WRONG, the casting was all wrong. I felt like they didn't capture the heart of the story, the heart or look of the characters. Now sometimes, the looks don't matter but other times they do. In the case of Meg, where are the glasses, the braces? WHere were the plain looks? Where was the gorgeous mother? Sorry, but the actress who played Mrs. Murray was just so-so and for me, a big part of Meg's character was her inferiority complex. Sure, she said she felt stupid and that she didn't fit into her skin anymore but for me 90% of her insecurity came from her plain looks and the fact that she had a brilliant scientist for a mother and a drop-dead gorgeous beauty and this was a pain in her side. They didn't convey this well at all. Yes, I thought all the actors were miscast, poor acting. Ugh, this needs a reboot. Better actors, a screenplay writer who GETS THE STORY.

[–] wolfmiester007 15 years ago

Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. When asked about the movie and if it met her expatiations she said "Yes, I expected it to be bad, and it is". Look it up on wikipedia.

[–] sci-fi-fan18 15 years ago

I felt that when Mrs. Whatsit (I thnk it was her) revealed her true form, i think they should have made the creature a little more majestic looking... I found it to be downright hideous... There was no handsomeness to it beside the fact that it looked butch. Not even manly, just butch...

-Endings, as it is known, are where we begin.

[–] LilWizardBoy16 15 years ago

Lmao. I haven't seen the movie yet nor have I seen an image of her true form but I'm not sure I want to anymore. I truly hope that one day this movie WILL get a re-boot and it'll turn out to be amazing. I think that this story has amazing potential if it's in the right hands!

[–] Matt-609 15 years ago

I was sure this movie was going to be bad and it was for a lot of the reasons mentioned and more. Surprisingly, the thing that disappointed me most was the casting of the dog. Even though it's only a small detail, how hard would it have been to get a "big black dog" to play Fortinbras?

[–] enjoytheisland 13 years ago

Yeah, going into it I wasn't expecting much and after watching the first few minutes I thought I wouldn't see it through to the end, but I did. It just bothered me that the characters in the book and the setting didn't match that in the movie. I would loved to have seen it take place in the 1960s since that's when the original book was written. The book takes place in New England and it just didn't have that N.E. feel. The house was nothing like in the book, not nearly as big as it seems (at least in my imagination). And I always pictured Meg's room as being this expansive space with dark corners and not a lot of stuff in it. Fortinbras, wasn't he a lab mix in the book? And Meg looked nothng like she is described in the book, none of the characters did really. I think the actor playing Meg was the best of any of the actors, she captured some of the frustration and angst that Meg had in the book, but not nearly as well as it should have been done. I need to reread the book, but the movie didn't live up to my expectations in the least. It's too bad Mrs. L'Engle weren't alive or she could have been used as a consult on this supposed new movie adaptation. I don't think I want there to be a new movie though, I rather like keeping all of my visions of the story to myself. I wish I had never seen this movie.

[–] vml-the-great 14 years ago

I thought the movie was alright, though not very faithful, until I saw the winged "centaur." It was the most hideous thing ever animated! Just imagine a HUGE fugly human head on a pegasus' body. It totally ruined the movie for me. Too bad the author of WRINKLE IN TIME was alive to see that *beep* before she passed away. :(

[–] velvetwynter_2 14 years ago

I was unsure when I rented this as to whether I should or not as I have been reading this book since I was a kid (which has been many, many years) and know it pretty much by heart. When the beginning was different than the book I knew that I was not going to like it and then it just got worse from there. I was greatly disappointed in it and was unhappy that I did rent it. Once again, disappointed with Disney. If you haven't read the book maybe it is entertaining...but if you have read it...a huge disappointment. At best it is a very loose and poor interpretation of the book.

[–] Cya6 12 years ago

The absolute worst thing about this movie, imho, was Charles Wallace. Did they completely misread his character?
He was supposed to be a genius, who at least acted like he knew everything, even if he didn't.
He and the Mrs. Ws were, if not friends, acquaintances. In this movie, they treat him like some irksome child that they happened to have run into before!
Instead of making him a genius who happened to be 5, they made him a five-year-old who happened to be smart. He didn't have that genius air, the almost better than you air that he did in the book. Instead he was a naive little boy!
I swear, every time he did something cutesy, or acted like a little kid, I just wanted to scream.
Worst part of many for me, though I must be a minority, as no one else seems to have cared. :(

[–] Mobtana_Style 11 years ago

I'm writing this and I'm only ten minutes in.

In my best Ryan Scott voice..."THAT IS NOT CANNON!" First of all, the movie doesn't start out on a dark and stormy night like it should. Meg is pretty which she isn't. From the book, I always got the impression that they were British and lived in the UK. Disappointed that the movie takes place in the modern era (the book was written in the 60's, it should've taken place in the 60's). I don't have a problem with them making Mrs. Whatsit black, but they could've found a better actress. The scene introducing her was far too short. This movie would've been so much better as is if everyone were British. That accent makes most everything better.

It wasn't a dream? Like the one I had where me and Lee Majors were tracking Bigfoot?