‘A Wrinkle in Time’ Isn’t As Smooth As It Should Be [Review]

There’s a great deal to love in Ava DuVernay‘s inspired, invigorated Disney blockbuster retelling of “A Wrinkle of Time.” Both visually and thematically, it’s a gorgeous movie — told with great warmth, a tender heart, a keen eye and a loving spirit. It’s mesmerizing in its scope and it’s encouraging and inspirational in its undaunting optimism. It’s a $103 million production with a diverse cast, great production values, soaring motivations, fantastic visions of grandeur and one hell of a great director.

It’s exactly the type of movie I want to celebrate. It’s exactly the kind of bright, imaginative blockbuster I want to sing praises to. Oh, how I wish I was more taken by it. Despite everything going for it, “A Wrinkle in Time” is sadly not as great as I would hope it would be. Heartfelt but tangled, passionate but rushed, big-minded but not smoothly-handled, it’s a disappointment. An earnest, good-natured one, I should stress, but it’s unfortunately not the gleeful, emboldening triumph you wish to see.

Based on Madeleine L’Engle‘s celebrated 1962 science fiction literary classic, “A Wrinkle in Time” centers on Meg Murry (a captivating Storm Reid), a bright, misunderstood young girl who lost her world-renowned physicist father (a bearded Chris Pine) four years prior. Living with her concerned scientist mother (an underutilized Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her precocious younger adopted brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), Meg lives an unassuming life, unaware of the great potential that lies inside her. That changes when she is introduced to three magical presences, an eager, motor-mouthed Mrs. Whatsit (a fantastic Reese Witherspoon), an always-quoting Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling) and wise elder Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey). Together, these three Mrs.s take Meg and Charles Wallace, along with a joining Calvin (Levi Miller), on a wild journey through space and time, transporting and teleporting to fantastical places beyond their imaginations to rescue Meg’s father — who is being held captivate against his will — before it’s too late. Through the art of the tesseract, Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace will travel with Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which in a spellbinding adventure beyond belief, visiting strange inner dimensional personalities like Happy Medium (Zach Galifianakis) and Red (Michael Pena) in their quest.

While there are certainly captivating set pieces and impassioned performances abound, “A Wrinkle in Time” never finds its proper footing. The pacing is rushed and frantic when it should be gentle and graceful. As a result, the movie isn’t as investing and inviting as it could be, particularly with the enriched display of creativity and zeal brought into every moving frame. It’s clear that DuVernay didn’t take on one of her biggest, boldest creative challenges yet without positivity and intent. And while the costuming, character designs, production designs, and general world-building are all on point, they’re not matched by the cluttered, underwhelming screenplay adapted by normally trustworthy writers Jeff Stockwell (“Bridge to Terabithia“) and Jennifer Lee (“Frozen,” “Wreck-It Ralph“), which fails to gives the film the shape and precision it needs to succeed.

“A Wrinkle in Time” never flows with firm elegance and confidence, as it is muddled by clunky execution, underdeveloped story and character explanations and poor scene transitions. Given the difficulty of translating this source material, however, some slack must be given to DuVernay. The book is charming and endearing, but it’s also a bizarre, loopy piece of work. It’s considered unfilmable by some, and there’s some merit to that claim. It’s a challenging book to adapt. Kudos to Ava for going big and swinging for the fences. There’s no shortage of inspiration to be found in her vision. But for all its inventive and even experimental resilience, filled with fine touches and delightful stylistic flourishes, it doesn’t connect richly and skillfully.

“Tomorrowland” and “John Carter” are easy comparisons here. Both bright-eyed, enthusiastic projects had big, bold, lofty expectations, and neither of them completely stuck the landing. But the comparison that came to mind, for me, was David Lynch‘s “Dune.” It’s another adaptation of an acclaimed-but-hard-to-translate work of brilliance that was tackled by a talented, commemorated visionary who risked it and didn’t quite succeed. But it’s a rare misstep in an extraordinary career, and I know with certainty that DuVernay will continue to create great, impactful projects that make our lives richer and better. She has already done that with “Selma” and “13th,” to name only a few of her most well-known successes, and I greatly look forward to seeing whatever comes from her next. “A Wrinkle in Time” isn’t the movie I wanted to cheer on, but it’s still rousing.

These are the moments when film criticism is simply not fun. Because, believe me, I really, really, really, really wanted to love this movie wholeheartedly, and there’s nothing that would make me happier than to champion DuVernay’s continued success in this platform. And it breaks my heart that I didn’t walk away stunned and moved by its power and bold persistence. Despite its wavering success, however, “A Wrinkle in Time” has the power to inspire many and it has the potential to dazzle and inspirit young audiences all around the world, and that’s a greatly powerful and beautiful thing. It’s a less-than-extraordinary film that I nevertheless want to see succeed — if mainly for the good it can do in a world filled to the brim with injustice and indignities. It has a great message and it has a great beating heart. I wish I loved it as much as Ava clearly loves this universe and these characters. Despite its strong performances, notably from Reid, Pine, and Witherspoon, its wide collection of marvels and it’s joyful sense of self, “A Wrinkle in Time” crumbles under expectations. But it’s not so much a failure as it’s a flawed do-gooder that could make our world better. It doesn’t dazzle like the stars and it doesn’t transport us away, but it still offers hope. [C]