... Well, for a TV adaptation of a book that is.
First off, I'm a BIG fan of "A Wrinkle in Time".
There where somethings that where left out (mostly for timing I would guess), and something changed, most notably *IT* wasn't a personality the same way *IT* was in the book. Instead the Red Eyed Man's role was beefed up, and he was more or less the mouth piece of *IT*. Frankly, (and I'm soooo sorry for saying this) I think *IT* having it's original role from the book would not have translated very well at all. Somethings work in a book, some on TV show, some on a TV movie, and some on a BIG SCREEN movie, but one will not inherently translate to the other.
Granted, the CGI wasn't ILM quality, but hey, special effects are just a tool to HELP tell a story, if it does the job, fine with me, photo quality CGI isn't what makes a movie/story great (coughs *Star Wars: Episode II*) it's the writing. In particular the characterization of the people in the story.
Katie Stuart, Gregory Smith, and David Dorfman all played the role's of Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace extremely well. Which is why on the whole I give it a 9 out of 10.
The only REAL low point was with the Happy Medium. Sorry, but that part just didn't fly well. I don't know if it was the directing, the acting, the fact somethings just don't translate well, or whatever, but this part just left a bad taste in my mouth.
So is it as good as the book my 3rd grade teacher read me 16 years ago? Well, no but I'll stand by it as being as good as a story adaptation like "A Wrinkle in Time" can be given how unique and boldly original of a story it is. IMHO it does justice to Madeleine L'Engle.
First off, I'm a BIG fan of "A Wrinkle in Time".
There where somethings that where left out (mostly for timing I would guess), and something changed, most notably *IT* wasn't a personality the same way *IT* was in the book. Instead the Red Eyed Man's role was beefed up, and he was more or less the mouth piece of *IT*. Frankly, (and I'm soooo sorry for saying this) I think *IT* having it's original role from the book would not have translated very well at all. Somethings work in a book, some on TV show, some on a TV movie, and some on a BIG SCREEN movie, but one will not inherently translate to the other.
Granted, the CGI wasn't ILM quality, but hey, special effects are just a tool to HELP tell a story, if it does the job, fine with me, photo quality CGI isn't what makes a movie/story great (coughs *Star Wars: Episode II*) it's the writing. In particular the characterization of the people in the story.
Katie Stuart, Gregory Smith, and David Dorfman all played the role's of Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace extremely well. Which is why on the whole I give it a 9 out of 10.
The only REAL low point was with the Happy Medium. Sorry, but that part just didn't fly well. I don't know if it was the directing, the acting, the fact somethings just don't translate well, or whatever, but this part just left a bad taste in my mouth.
So is it as good as the book my 3rd grade teacher read me 16 years ago? Well, no but I'll stand by it as being as good as a story adaptation like "A Wrinkle in Time" can be given how unique and boldly original of a story it is. IMHO it does justice to Madeleine L'Engle.