A Priceless Review: “A Wrinkle In Time”


Image from movies.disney.com

By Jake Price, Entertainment/Opinions Editor

It’s the Disneyfied version of the Christopher Nolan movie “Interstellar.” Both have a science based story, but at the same time have a whimsical element beyond the world of science. However, only one of the films fails to execute the insane idea it presents.

“A Wrinkle In Time” is Disney’s newest feature film, based off the book written by Madeleine L’Engle, that explores the worlds within worlds. If you’re interested in the book or other books that related to “A Wrinkle In Time” go here. The story follows a young girl named Meg, her friend and her brother on a mission to find her father who is lost within another dimension. They’re all guided by three wise celestials who test the three kids as they save Meg’s father and the universe from a evil being.

Disney has a knack for strong, colorful visuals, and it’s evident in this movie. I don’t know, however, why the movie was a big, jumbled mess of story and characters.

The first question I asked myself when I came out of this movie was: did the screenwriter fall asleep after writing the first act of the movie? The first act of this movie was easy enough to understand. It explained the concept of inter-dimensional travel and other scientific concepts the movie tried to convey well enough, and it was able to establish the main characters as effectively as it could. However, the rest of the movie is a pain that is unbearable.

First, all of the scientific based plot elements that were introduced went completely ignored. Random set locations, weird creatures and characters showed up out of nowhere with no explanation and/or reason. The movie is science-fiction, and the film took the time to set up the science behind the universe that was being explored. The film should’ve either stuck to the scientific explanations they introduced in the beginning or they should’ve just thrown the whole story out the window.

Did You Like "A Wrinkle In Time"?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Second, all of the characters in the movie had no depth. For a movie that focused on the exploration of multiple alternate dimensions, most of the characters were one dimensional. Just to be clear, it’s none of the actors’ or actresses’ faults. They all give the best performances they could give, and the script gave them nothing to work with.

Here are some of the obvious examples. One of the celestials, Mrs. Who, portrayed by Mindy Kaling, literally had no other dialogue but inspirational quotes from famous people. That was supposed to be the basis of her character, but it didn’t work. There was no connection with the character which is so important when it comes to characters and their development. Another problematic character was Meg’s little brother. He didn’t seem real. His character is supposed to be this child prodigy that is one of the smartest minds in the entire universe, but he felt like a walking encyclopedia. He became very annoying and unnecessary. He contributed nothing to the movie as a whole.

There is one small light at end of this tunnel for “A Wrinkle In Time.” The visuals were true, pure Disney. With the combination of the fantastical production design and the bollywood influenced costume design, the movie received the much needed colorful flare that’s just mesmerizing. However, this never changed the fact that context of the visuals were abysmal.

“A Wrinkle In Time” was a disappointment. I am a huge Disney fan, and had high expectations for this film, but I am starting to think that Disney isn’t exactly the best at making films outside of their very successful franchises.