• 616
  • 37
  • 4,646
  • done
DownloadTorrent


Following the discovery of a new form of space travel as well as Meg's father's disappearance, she, her brother, and her friend must join three magical beings - Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which - to travel across the universe to rescue him from a terrible evil.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1620680/

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) download

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) download

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) download


More at reneescommunitygarden.com
And ibit.ws
dawnr470 4 months ago

I've been waiting over 20 years to see this beautiful story come to life, and was beyond excited when I saw that it was finally going to happen. I told everyone about it, many of whom had never even heard of the book. Now I just look like an idiot. The only positive I can cite is the acting by Chris Pine, and there were a couple of emotional moments that were well done. Otherwise, the entire movie was a poorly thrown together mess. The costumes were horrible, with Oprah's eyebrows looking like drugstore stick-on gems (and they weren't even straight!) Oprah's acting was atrocious. Reese Witherspoon was slightly entertaining, but even that felt forced. As for the story.....if you loved the book, don't see this movie. Just remember the book the way it is, you don't want to see it like this. They've removed key parts of the story, changed SOOOO much that it's barely recognizable. I understand that no movie ever sticks 100% to the book, and accept that each director will have their own interpretation. But this was just a massacre. And no, I couldn't care less that they changed the race of Meg, that's the least of the problems this nightmare has.

docrotwang 4 months ago

By the time "Wrinkle" reached its climactic scenes, where the stakes are highest and the resolution hangs in the balance, it carried so much forward momentum that I had to keep waking myself up so I wouldn't snore and bother the other theater patrons. Yeah...it was like that. Look, I'll admit: I've never read the book (shame on me, I guess, as a lifelong lover of SF and general metaphysical weirdness), so I can't judge DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time" as an adaptation of L'Engle's literary favorite. But I CAN measure it as a film that wants to tell a story, and on that scale...um......Uy. Never is there a real sense of conflict with which to engage: the tone and mood are so lovey-dovey, from stem to stern, that the film never feels like it's progressing in any meaningful way. The galaxy-gobbling threat doesn't, and isn't. Good performers are wasted on one-note characters (be they whimsical space-nymphs or oh-so-precious baby geniuses) in puzzling costumes and -- were those hairdos? I think they were hairdos. I mean, they were where hair is supposed to be. Expensive FX fill the screen in service to a plot that drifts through its paces instead of advancing. If there was variance in the musical score, I missed it (but I think I didn't, because I think there wasn't). Michael Peña is asked to leave his "Ant-Man" charm at home and put on a goofy mustache and some red contacts for like a few minutes, and Captain Kirk (the new one, anyway) has a beard and is interesting, but doesn't really do anything and OPE what nope I'm awake not snoring sorry no.This is going to be someone's favorite movie, and that's a beautiful thing; art needn't be categorically good to be effective, after all, and I love the hell out of "Xanadu", so I should know. But a film that wants to tell a story should be equipped to tell a story, and if it can't do that, then...it's doing something else, I dunno, I'm.........huh? No, no, I was just...just resting my eyes. It's nice, maybe you should do the same.

steve-84354 4 months ago

Great actors with very poor script. Rendering poor performance. Even my 10 yr old daughter was bored and wanted to leave early. We wondered why we were the only ones in the theatre. A real disappointment

barbara_4553 4 months ago

I ignored the bad reviews and went anyway. Disappointing is probably an understatement. This movie is a disaster. Not only is the acting incredibly awful, especially from some otherwise accomplished cast members, but the original storyline was all but abandoned. I read the book several times, and even I was confused what was going on in this film. There was no explanation for any of the concepts, character development was nonexistent, special effects were plentiful but meaningless. The most fascinating parts of the book were eliminated, or only presented so quickly that it was difficult to understand why they were happening and how they related to the story. This movie could have been SO great - there was incredible potential here, and Disney and the director literally wasted it all.

BiiivAL 4 months ago

Disney's studio has always been famous for the ability to find a common language with its target audience - with families, but recently something went wrong, because every new studio film (if it's not a new part of the next franchise) is a complete disappointment. Disney bosses in the pursuit of profit put not on those projects, and, as a result, failure after failure, so that the number of new films shot according to original scenarios or being screen versions of books, becomes less. I do not know what the goals were pursued by the notorious Disney bosses when they took on the adaptation of the little-known books by Madeleine L'Engle, but the new film on the first part of the cycle can not be called success.For a long time already a fantastic and bright fantasy did not cause such wild boredom, as it happened with the "Breaking of Time". This is an openly weak film that demonstrates how much Disney's studio has passed its position in the field of family cinema. I do not know if the original source of the script is at fault, but the story turned out to be so confused and difficult to digest that it's difficult not only for children but also for adults to sit out until the end of the film. This is the case when a beautiful picture does not completely compensate for the lack of a sane script.The first thing you want to scold the creators of the picture is that with what seriousness they carry pseudoscientific nonsense to the masses. Here we have the parents of the main heroine, dear physicists, who repeat some kind of heresy about love-charged particles on different ends of the universe that can be attracted to each other ... by the power of this love. I might have misunderstood something, but it sounded like that. And then we rub a simplified version of string theory, according to which the universe can travel without any spaceships and spacesuits, just as you click your fingers. And all this pseudo-scientific nonsense, of course, must be confirmed by the appearance of three eccentric ladies who are able to fold time and space at will. If everything happened because of the magic, it would be much less offensive than when we weave physics and try to cover up its laws by unsuccessful, it's worth emphasizing, all the krabli-crabs that occur on the screen. This also includes some kind of absolute evil, unraveling its tentacles throughout the universe. Evil is so incomprehensible that it seems that even the script writers could not comprehend it and outlined schematically that in the plot there was at least some antagonist.The second weak component of the "Break of Time" - the characters. With the exception of the young Deris McCabe and the magnificent Reese Witherspoon, one can not even mention an actor's game. Chris Pine is trying to squeeze something out of himself, but his history is not enough, and there is nothing special to play. Storm Reid and Levi Miller, apparently, are still too inexperienced, so all the attention to themselves is drawn by more eminent stars.And the "Time Fracture" is an example of reverse racial discrimination, when black actors are shoved literally into all the central roles, singling out only a few roles to "whites". Maybe it's a black director, or maybe it was the writer's vision, but there are too many black actors. Even if you quickly assess Meg Murry's surroundings at school, then virtually all of her offenders are "black" or Latino, the director is "black," she herself, her mother and brother are also, even two of the three cosmic entities - "colored". But the "white" can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And I would not say that it somehow touches me, but when the viewer is literally jabbed by the racial diversity, which is attracted to the ears, and political correctness - this causes only rejection and perplexity. A "Time Fracture" is not a "Black Panther", the "black" cast of which is conditioned by the plot. The third point that upset me was the everywhere hanging guns on the walls, which did not fire when they were supposed to shoot. The film asked a bunch of questions, the answers to which the viewer has not received, and is unlikely to receive. What discovery did Alexander Murri, that the universe so appreciates? How did he move? Why is Charles Wallace so clever and how does he know the three Mrs.? Why did Shadow become interested in the boy? How to understand the ending with obsession? There are so many questions after viewing that it seems as if you looked not a two-hour film, but separate episodes of the series, between which there should be more scenes that would explain everything. But they are not. And it would be very annoying if the film caused a little interest. But he is so sluggish and refined that you follow the final drama without much enthusiasm and without looking at the clock.Of the pros, I can distinguish except that the work of costumers, an excellent visual series and beautiful landscapes of other planets. But in the century of ubiquitous computer graphics in the cinema, it is already difficult to surprise such people, but perhaps a qualitative scenario is possible. "Break of time", alas, it was not possible. Children to watch the twists and turns of the story will be boring, and adults have nothing to watch at all. Thus, the film is unlikely to find its target audience and will sink in oblivion after many other original Disney films of recent years.

BillyFromSoddyDaisy 4 months ago

I was excited when this was announced as this was one of my favorite books growing up and I still enjoy re-reading this series. However, I also kept saying "I hope Disney doesn't screw this up again," after the travesty TV version they made in the early 2000s.Lo and behold, they managed to screw it up again.Let's start with the few bright spots (and calling them bright spots is even generous). First, I did enjoy the visual depiction of the tesseract. Also, the casting was pretty good. Storm Reid was well cast as Meg, and Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which were also portrayed well, despite that they drastically downplayed Mrs. Which's character.Now, the bad (and there is a lot of bad). Mrs. Whatsit was changed into a completely negative character who seemed completely inept and pessimistic. Important points in the book (Ixiel and Aunt Beast, for example) were completely ignored and given only cursory mentions so fleeting that you barely even notice it. The Man with Red Eyes is turned into marionette who literally collapses on screen. I get that in the novel he was a "puppet" of IT, but the depiction in the movie was laughable. The ridiculous storm scene when they first arrive on Camazotz came out of nowhere and was so ridiculously portrayed. First, they're struggling to find Charles Wallace, then they go through this ridiculous storm sequence, and when they make it over this wall (which again, was nowhere in the source material), that concern for Charles Wallace is completely gone until he pops out of nowhere saying "here I am." And are Meg and Calvin relieved to see him? Nope. It's more like "meh, okay." The movie completely left out how Calvin and Dr. Murray got back from Camazotz. All of a sudden, they're just back. Poof, no explanation.I get that certain stories require work to adapt: I didn't get particularly outraged with some of the changes "Prince Caspian" and "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" made in the Narnia series because those were short novels whose structure required adaption to make them cinematic. I wasn't necessarily pleased with all of them, but given the structure of the books, it was understandable that some work had to be done. "A Wrinkle in Time" was different. It's a very linear story which already was very cinematic and could easily translate itself from page to screen. But instead of a faithful adaption, the filmmakers decided to ignore 90% of the source material.Strike 2, Disney. You've now screwed this same story up twice.

cdlarsen-41638 4 months ago

I HIGHLY recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys flying lettuce, terrible acting, giant Oprah in a mermaid costume, or awful confusing plots with terrible direction. Disney - as someone who had to sit through this film I respectfully request that you use your Marvel money to build a time machine and give 2 hours back to any audience forced to see this abomination.

www.YTS.AM.jpg 58 kB
A.Wrinkle.In.Time.2018.1080p.BluRay.x264-[YTS.AM].mp4 1.9 GB
Downloading Seeding A Wrinkle In Time (2018) [BluRay] [1080p] [YTS.AM] from to 0 peers.
of
0 b/s / ↗0 b/s