A Wrinkle in Primetime

Against my better judgment I broke down and watched A Wrinkle in Time Monday night. The upside is that it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be; the downside is that it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.


First of all, I want everyone to know that I wasn’t expecting the movie to come even close to the book. I ranked Wrinkle with Confederacy of Dunces in terms of unfilmability. (Note to Hollywood: Don’t even think of greenlighting Confederacy unless you cast Oliver Platt as Ignatius) So it was a little disheartening to realize the movie embodied the paradox about a certain kind of film adaptation: it wasn’t great, but it was obviously produced by someone who really cared about the book, which made watching it a maddening experience. Though spiritually and textually devoted to Wrinkle in spots, it veered into über-exposition at critical points. It was as if the producers/directors/powers-that-be didn’t trust non-Wrinkle fans getting it unless they made plot-points really, really obvious. So what did they do? They sucked the life out of it.

There were some high points, though:

And I promise I won’t use the word “wrinkle” in a blog title for at least three months….

2 Responses

  1. Eli
    Eli May 13, 2004 at 12:58 pm | | Reply

    Mmmm … Kyle Secor.

    I had no idea that little Timmy Bayliss could chew the scenery like that.

    I haven’t read A Wrinkle in Time (yet!), so the movie just seemed odd in places. Not hideously bad odd, but just distracting enough to be distracting.

    Oh, and a shout-out to Chris Potter, who played one of Michael’s boyfriends on Queer as Folk. Woo hoo!

  2. GayLibrarian
    GayLibrarian May 13, 2004 at 3:10 pm | | Reply

    Did you notice that, in the list of warriors fighting against the dark, Charles Wallace’s suggestion, Jesus, was omitted?

    And why was the horsey version of Whatsit blonde and white?

Leave a Reply