Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

sunriseandsunset Disappointing some good acting but story just lacked prob some children would enjoy but it was meh for me

Lance E Sloan (lsloan-imdb-com) Madeleine L'Engle's fantasy works are in part highly expressive of her Christian viewpoint in a manner somewhat similar to that of Christian fantasy writer C. S. Lewis. She was herself the official writer-in-residence at New York City's Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, which is known for its prominent position in the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church. L'Engle's liberal Christianity has been the target of criticism from more conservative Christians, especially with respect to certain elements of A Wrinkle in Time.

Cya6 We were just looking for something to watch one night when we stumbled upon this movie. My sister and I were like "cool, didn't know they made a movie out of this!" We expected it to be awful. We weren't disappointed.In all honesty, it had been a while since we had read the books, but, yeah, they were pretty bad. Most of the horrendousness of the movie has been discussed by previous reviewers, so I'll only bring up what I really didn't see on other reviews.Am I the only person disappointed with Charles Wallace? In the books, he was incredibly smart, but not only that, he had the maturity to match it. He acted very aloof, and seemed to always have a general understanding of what was going on (even if he didn't). In the movie, he was this little naive kid. He acted like a little kid who just happened to be smart. In the books, he was so cool! This film made him seem like a 5 year old who happened to be smart, not a genius who happened to be 5! Also what irked me was the relationship between Charles and the Mrs. Ws. In the book, they were almost friends! He chided Mrs. Who for stealing the blankets, but, no, in the movie, they treated him like a child they had run into before!Gonna stop here, because otherwise I'd just go on.Actually, there is one other thing... Losts of people were upset about the Mrs. Whatsit horse thingy. I never had high expectations to start with. Maybe it was just the book cover I had, but I don't think large, bald centaurs are overly attractive, rather less the most beautiful thing on Earth.'Kay, done now. Just mah opinions!

johnstonjames oh please. people that always ask for a direct adaptation of a book are being, well, shall i say, a little thick in the noggin. a famous journalist once said "what works in the written word almost never translates well into cinema". look. the very definition of "adaptation" means change. to make something work in cinematic terms does mean some modification. i've gone through this moronic argument with so-called 'Alice in Wonderland' purist who erroneously believe that 'Alice' is un-film-able. despite the fact that almost all 'Alice' adaptations are excellent and make for good cinema. the kind of thinking that a movie must read word for word like the book is a bad understanding of filmmaking and rigidly stubborn to say the least.and it's also very inflexible and unimaginative. if most of these control freaks had their way, a lot of film adaptations would be too over-long and needlessly over-involved for film. these quibbling control freaks don't even seem to comprehend how boring their notions seem. too much rigidity isn't good. i know. i can be very rigid myself. so everybody shut it.just like the works of Lewis Carroll a.k.a Dodgson, i HAVE read the Madeleine L'Engle children books. haven't read em since i was a wee tyke cause unlike Carroll, the appeal of L'Engle is basically for tweeney teens and small fry. don't kid yourselves. as charming and wonderful as most children's classics are, they have a limited window for appreciation. come on babies, you need to move on sometime and read more demanding material. candy is dandy but liquor is quicker. i suppose if you can't handle the heat...this was a cute and charming adaptation of L'Engle's little classic. sure it was more Disney than L'Engle, but what Disney film isn't more Disney than the original author? that's the Disney formula we have all come to expect. after all this was the "wonderful world of Disney' TV show.i'm also perfectly aware of the differences. haven't read the books since i was a stupid little kid, but they left a strong impression on me. i remember lovin' them. Meg for instance, really was as ugly in the book as she always complains that she is. i recall Meg had glasses and braces. in the Disney version she is decidedly more appealing looking. kids might not have related to a ugly Meg as much. Charles Wallace was also creepier in the book. but the whole thing with the neighborhood where the children all bounced their ball and played at the same time and rhythm, is straight out of the book.this is a very good Disney movie. Disney would be smart to embrace it more and show it on the Disney channel. it's certainly better than a lot of the crap they try to pass off to kids these days on the "D" channel. i mean those 'Wizard of Waverly Place' movies are really such junk food. i sure do miss vault Disney sometimes.there is also an excellent bonus feature with a interview with author L'Engle on this DVD that is just great. she discusses the ridiculous book ban, particle physics and teen age insecurity. it's really sweet when L'Engle discusses how kids often think they are "ugly, stupid and mean". i wished i'd heard her speak when i was younger, because unfortunately i still feel that way at 49. however i am now more comfortable with it. a lot of people (more than not) are ugly, stupid and mean. so why should i worry about myself.hey. don't quibble about adaptations so much. some are bad, but not always. i mean be somewhat satisfied. how often do you expect us to keep revisiting the same material over and over again. remember you can't please everybody and some people are never satisfied.this imaginative TV movie will probably please Disney fans more than fans of the book, but hey, that's okay. after all, this was cranked out by the mouse factory. i thought it was great sci-fi for Disney fans and kiddies.