A Wrinkle in Time is taking a beating in early reviews.

[TwoMisfits]

I've learned to ignore rotten tomato reviews. Too many 90%+ movies I was ultimately not really impressed by, and too many 20-40% movies where I asked if I saw a different movie b/c while it wasn't amazing, it was still pretty good. If you were planning to see it prior to reviews, I'd still see it. If you were planning to pass, unless your friends say it's awesome, I'd probably pass. Pretty much the people who know you are the only ones who probably can give you real feedback if you'll like it...

 

[Chaitali]

Seems like a mostly positive review from Craig. I'm hopeful about the movie after reading reviews from reviewers that I've trusted in the past.

 

[Scifidiner]

I haven't read the book and I have no idea what "political slant" it's supposed to have. I have only seen the trailer, so I'm only going from that, it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I hate to say that because I like some of the actors that are in it. It's one of those movies that if in a few years it's on TV and I have nothing else to watch I'll check it out.

 

[Geoff_M]

I haven't read the book and I have no idea what "political slant" it's supposed to have.

Originally, I agreed with you, but this CNN contributor pretty much spells it out for us: Watching 'A Wrinkle in Time' is a political act
Sigh... I really miss the days when you used to go to the movies for entertainment and some escapism.

 

[fatmanatee]

Originally, I agreed with you, but this CNN contributor pretty much spells it out for us: Watching 'A Wrinkle in Time' is a political act
Sigh... I really miss the days when you used to go to the movies for entertainment and some escapism.

You can also ignore CNN and just watch the movie if you want!

 

[PrincessJewel]

We saw the movie this week and unfortunately it fell short of my expectations. I think I would have been upset if I had spent money on a movie ticket. If interested my full review is here:
https://**************.com/blog/2018/3/9/wrinkle-in-time

 

[jknezek]

Originally, I agreed with you, but this CNN contributor pretty much spells it out for us: Watching 'A Wrinkle in Time' is a political act
Sigh... I really miss the days when you used to go to the movies for entertainment and some escapism.

Did you actually read this review? The only overtly political thing the whole review points to is that 3 of the central characters are either minorities or mixed race. How does that make it political? To keep with young adult fiction turned into novels, was Hunger Games political? Both the bad guys and the heroes were white, but I didn't sense the color of the actors to be a "political" act in and of itself. The same goes here. I don't understand why just the color of the actors makes something political. Now there may be other messages, but this review/article/jumble of thoughts doesn't really touch on anything else, simply talking about how having a mixed race girl interested in science as the hero is political. It's not. It's a casting decision.

People these days read way more into what they want to be political or not. And most of the time it just depends on their own point of view. Go and enjoy the movie if you want. If the race of the lead heroine is causing you problems, that probably says more about you (in the generic sense of the "yous" all over this country/world) than it says about the movie.

Now if the movie has other themes, issues, that stray from the book, fine, maybe it is political. But on the single issue this article picked up? I'm calling people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is sadly much too common these days.

 

[BrianL]

Did you actually read this review? The only overtly political thing the whole review points to is that 3 of the central characters are either minorities or mixed race. How does that make it political? To keep with young adult fiction turned into novels, was Hunger Games political? Both the bad guys and the heroes were white, but I didn't sense the color of the actors to be a "political" act in and of itself. The same goes here. I don't understand why just the color of the actors makes something political. Now there may be other messages, but this review/article/jumble of thoughts doesn't really touch on anything else, simply talking about how having a mixed race girl interested in science as the hero is political. It's not. It's a casting decision.

People these days read way more into what they want to be political or not. And most of the time it just depends on their own point of view. Go and enjoy the movie if you want. If the race of the lead heroine is causing you problems, that probably says more about you (in the generic sense of the "yous" all over this country/world) than it says about the movie.

Now if the movie has other themes, issues, that stray from the book, fine, maybe it is political. But on the single issue this article picked up? I'm calling people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is sadly much too common these days.

It is the casting decisions themselves that were political, not anything in the movie itself (as far as I know - haven't seen it yet).

 

[jknezek]

It is the casting decisions themselves that were political, not anything in the movie itself (as far as I know - haven't seen it yet).

Which should lead us to ask ourselves, does casting a white heroine constitute a political decision? If not, why should casting a minority? Acting is acting. Nick Fury in the Marvel Cartoons was a white guy, I don't remember all this fuss about Samuel Jackson being cast for that role in the movies. People have lost their ever loving minds.

 

[mshanson3121]

For the record, I have no problem with the casting except for Oprah, who is so "Oprah" that she's all you can see. She doesn't transform into the character. The rest of the noise makes no difference to me.

Yes, we saw this just in the trailers!
It didn't look good to us either, so we didn't bother seeing it.

 

[jkh36619]

A few of the review I have read we're essentially saying that more effort seems to have been spent making the movie inclusive and progressive than was spent on substance of the movie and missing the essence of the book.

DuVerney herself stated it was very important for a white boy to be following a black girl around. To which I say who cares who follows who around. I just want to watch a good movie.

 

[BrianL]

Which should lead us to ask ourselves, does casting a white heroine constitute a political decision? If not, why should casting a minority? Acting is acting. Nick Fury in the Marvel Cartoons was a white guy, I don't remember all this fuss about Samuel Jackson being cast for that role in the movies. People have lost their ever loving minds.

Well, it's complicated. Honestly, if they just cast who they cast and didn't make a big deal about it, then nobody would probably notice. But they are "striking a blow" so to speak, so that becomes entangled with the movie. It's all very silly in my book.

Just a note about Nick Fury too. There was a version of Nick Fury in the comics who did look like Sam Jackson (indeed the artist based it on him) and that was in the "Ultimate Universe" which was sort of an offshoot universe with a modern starting point and a bit more edge. The movies borrowed a lot of the look from those comics, hence the casting of Sam Jackson. Now, why the comic writers made that decision, who knows. I think they just wanted Sam Jackson in their comic though. Since the Ultimate Universe has since been dissolved, the Sam Jackson character is not Nick Fury Junior in the primary Marvel Universe and has taken the same role that his father had.

 

[tjkraz]

Originally, I agreed with you, but this CNN contributor pretty much spells it out for us: Watching 'A Wrinkle in Time' is a political act
Sigh... I really miss the days when you used to go to the movies for entertainment and some escapism.

Those must have been the days before we had thousands of websites and networks who bent over backward to preach to their constituency in the interest of gaining clicks, views and shares. I don't find movies to be any more political today than they were decades ago. What has changed is that anyone who wishes to politicize such things by applying their left/right-leaning slant now has a soapbox on which to do it, financial incentives and a flock of waiting followers.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Did you actually read this review? The only overtly political thing the whole review points to is that 3 of the central characters are either minorities or mixed race. How does that make it political? To keep with young adult fiction turned into novels, was Hunger Games political? Both the bad guys and the heroes were white, but I didn't sense the color of the actors to be a "political" act in and of itself. The same goes here. I don't understand why just the color of the actors makes something political. Now there may be other messages, but this review/article/jumble of thoughts doesn't really touch on anything else, simply talking about how having a mixed race girl interested in science as the hero is political. It's not. It's a casting decision.

People these days read way more into what they want to be political or not. And most of the time it just depends on their own point of view. Go and enjoy the movie if you want. If the race of the lead heroine is causing you problems, that probably says more about you (in the generic sense of the "yous" all over this country/world) than it says about the movie.

Now if the movie has other themes, issues, that stray from the book, fine, maybe it is political. But on the single issue this article picked up? I'm calling people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is sadly much too common these days.

I read the article differently - it seems the author is calling for going to see the movie as a political act -> that is "protesting with your wallet" to spend money on something that features minorities and from a minority director regardless of if the film is good/you actually want to see it

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Which should lead us to ask ourselves, does casting a white heroine constitute a political decision? If not, why should casting a minority? Acting is acting. Nick Fury in the Marvel Cartoons was a white guy, I don't remember all this fuss about Samuel Jackson being cast for that role in the movies. People have lost their ever loving minds.

well, at least for a while (and probably still so) it was "a political movement" to have a focus on female leads (of any color), and strong ones at that, that were driving the action and being the heroes rather than being saved by a strong male figure

And yeah, showing minorities in strong roles and the leaders and the ones doing the saving is still a big thing and something lots of children haven't seen before / haven't been able to "see themselves" in .... hopefully some day it won't be a big deal, but it still is

 

[JK World]

well, at least for a while (and probably still so) it was "a political movement" to have a focus on female leads (of any color), and strong ones at that, that were driving the action and being the heroes rather than being saved by a strong male figure

And yeah, showing minorities in strong roles and the leaders and the ones doing the saving is still a big thing and something lots of children haven't seen before / haven't been able to "see themselves" in .... hopefully some day it won't be a big deal, but it still is

Exactly this. I'd love for it to be 'no big deal' when a movie with a female or minority lead is successful and well received, but that still is not the case. I love good movies regardless of who is in them, but I also love for my son to see characters on the big screen doing great things that look like him. And until that happens on a regular basis and becomes the norm (for my black son, and for children of all races), it has to be done intentionally and with awareness. That is how things eventually become normal.

 

[MamaBelle4]

This is reminding me of the time capsule episode of Parks and Rec.
One person wants a copy of Twilight put in.
The head of the "family preservation group" fights it because it is anti-christian.
A member of the ACLU fights it because it is too Christian.

You can literally see political slants in anything you want were you so inclined.

If you want to see it, see it. If you don't, don't. I fail to see how who Hollywood casts in a role affects anyone's day to day life. If you have an issue with a diverse cast "for diversity's sake and too PC", then I can't help you. All different types of people go to the movies and want to be represented. As long as the acting is good, why does it matter?

I WILL go see this (but once it comes to the discount theater near me, I've got 5 kids, I'm not a gazillionaire)

 

[jknezek]

I read the article differently - it seems the author is calling for going to see the movie as a political act -> that is "protesting with your wallet" to spend money on something that features minorities and from a minority director regardless of if the film is good/you actually want to see it

Which to me is as idiotic as the other side. Go see a movie because you want to see it. Nothing more or less. It's entertainment.

 

[jkh36619]

Maybe I live in a box but I don't personally know 1 single individual who will not see a movie because of color or gender of the actors. Hollywood is the ones making the big deal out of everything. Average folks like us just want to spend honest money on a good movie. But to be honest, I didn't know the Oscars was all white till a big deal was made about it because I refuse to watch crappy award shows.

 

[STLstone]

Which should lead us to ask ourselves, does casting a white heroine constitute a political decision? If not, why should casting a minority? Acting is acting. Nick Fury in the Marvel Cartoons was a white guy, I don't remember all this fuss about Samuel Jackson being cast for that role in the movies. People have lost their ever loving minds.

Casting the best person for the character is not "political." Casting a person for any other reason than they are best suited for the character is "political."