"Love is always there, even if you don't feel it."

-Dr. Murray

Disney's 2018 science/fantasy film A Wrinkle in Time follows is a movie adaption of the 1962 novel by Madeleine L'Engle. The story follows Meg Murray (Storm Reid), a young girl on the quest to find her missing father of four years (Chris Pine). Meg is joined by her younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and classmate Calvin (Levi Miller) on her journey, guided by three etherial beings of the universe (Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling). Meg and co. soon realize that her father is trapped on Camazotz, home of the IT, which represents all of the greed, anger, pride, selfishness, and low self esteem in the universe and impacts those on Earth directly. Not only does Meg now have to save her father from one of the most dangerous places in all of the cosmos, she must destroy the IT and free those in its grasp.

Now, I wouldn't say I disliked the movie. In fact, I thought it was relatively entertaining. After all, who wouldn't enjoy seeing a giant, looming Oprah on screen for an hour? My problem lies with the fact that it doesn't follow the original book relatively well. Before watching this movie, I made sure to read L'Engle's novel first. It's always been a rule in my house to read the book before seeing the film, and that habit has just stuck with me. I'm very glad I did. As much as the film tries to capture the eccentricity of the novel, it just can't. There's something about L'Engle's words that leave you hanging, leave you wondering what on earth (or otherwise) is going on. I didn't feel that in the movie. I was never bored, per-say, but I wasn't really invested either. And maybe that's just because I kind of already knew what was going to happen! Who knows. The film also leaves out a few of what I thought were crucial points in the book. In fact, my favorite scene was cut entirely, which I was really disappointed about. Subsequently, the plot of the movie deviates heavily from the original, and thus there are many plot holes littered throughout. Essentially, I'm saying that if you like the novel, you may be let down after watching Disney's adaption.

If you were to watch the film without reading the book, however, there are some redeemable qualities that might make you genuinely like it. For one, the scenery is absolutely stunning. The planet Uriel (below) is a prime example of this. Filmed in New Zealand, the Uriel scenes are easily the most beautiful parts of the film.

While the settings are gorgeous, the visual effects are whimsical and really make you realize just where the $100 million production budget went (aside from hiring Oprah of course). Within the first fifteen or so minutes of the film, we are introduced to the idea of tessering: the primary mode of travel between the cosmos. Each of the characters walks through a ripple in the world that appears before them, and we as the audience follow Meg and what she is experiencing. While tessering is easy and borderline enjoyable for the others, Meg finds herself spiraling out of control in robes of darkness, almost suffocating. We then sympathize with Meg's frustration that she isn't like everyone else, that she is different both in normal life at school and among those of the universe. These visuals thus help us to understand our protagonist more, and really put ourselves in her shoes. There's also Reese Witherspoon turning into a lettuce dragon, so that's cool too.

This segways into my other issue with the film: the characters. In the original novel, the roles of the characters made sense. They worked together nicely and the dynamics played off of each other to make each person well-rounded. The characters in Disney's adaption, however, leave something to be desired. The three etherial beings (Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which) are bland and have one static personality that just doesn't work well. Meg's father, Alex, comes across as selfish and flat, unlike L'Engle's version of a kind and thoughtful man whose science just got him into some trouble. Worst of all though was Charles Wallace, the pretentious, know-it-all five year old who won't keep his mouth shut. I just wanted to give that kid a good old fashioned slap to the head. Maybe that would be enough to knock him down a peg, or at least get him to shut up. Somehow he didn't come across as obnoxious in the book; maybe because he wasn't audibly whining in my ear for an hour and and fifty minutes. Also, who names their kid Charles Wallace? No offense if that's your name, but I just think it's dumb and pompous. That part wasn't changed from the book, but I still think it's annoying.

When it comes down to it, Disney's A Wrinkle in Time isn't inherently bad. It's relatively entertaining and if nothing else, there's a lot to look at. I also must acknowledge the POC representation in this movie, thanks to Ava DuVernay, a woman of color herself. This film, albeit a bit lack-luster, does star people that aren't normally portrayed as a role model in kids' movies. That I have to applaud A Wrinkle in Time for. I still cannot recommend this film to someone, however, especially if you've read the book beforehand.