In 4th grade we had to read the book and watch the movie. I thought the book was good, but I didn't really like the movie. I don't remember a lot about this movie, but I remember it having bad effects and bad acting. Its not as good as the book, and they added in a load of nonsense. This movie isn't really worth watching unless you want to compare it to the book or the remake.

Rarely does a book get turned into a movie and the movie does the book justice. But this movie actually accomplishes what is normally nearly impossible. I read this book and thought that it was good. I think that the movie was a good interpretation of it as well. Nothing is really changed that much from the book and it is hard to say that anyone could hate this if they read the book. I've love to own this movie and watch it over and over again. The book is pretty good and creates a great story. This movies does it justice. I know it seems like I'm repeating myself, but hey, I have to get to ten lines somehow (even though it won't read like that on the site). So, if you didn't get that: the book is good and so is this movie. I recommend it.

I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz. The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.

Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.