31 reviews
For me, most of the historical inconsistencies in the book and movie aren't necessarily such a big deal- such as whether it was Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Scott whom Jack scared onto the wood pile. Most of these, I assume were done to create more cinematic consistency with characters,etc. Generally, I don't think that they hurt the story.
But some things do, like Ma wearing earrings, since this undermines the nature of the family's intense struggle to get by. (sunbonnets also would be a good thing.)
. Generally, my biggest historical problem is that the children seem to be more modern in their mentality-- almost as if they'll say "cool" or "gee whiz". This fits with the modern music and seems to have been done to cater to children of today.
Some examples of this more modern sensibility: Laura jokingly asking her father for candy when he goes to Independence (product of modern-day materialism? Laura in the book knew how precious/rare such treats were). Also Laura being the one to suggest that she could wear Mary's old shoes-- its pretty clear from the book that the Ingalls (most working pioneer families) always handed such precious goods down to one another (they were poor!!)
I also found the scene with Mary confronting Ms. Scott to be ridiculous- both because it was completely inconsistent with Mary's character according to LIW(good girl vs. Laura as the bad girl) and because it is completely inconsistent with how children would have behaved in the Little House books (children not speaking at the table and definitely not contradicting others). (Ma's reaction to this offense also is inconsistent, way too chummy)
I do like this series because it has beautiful scenery and deftly demonstrates how terrifying life then could be. (I never thought about, for example, how terrifying Independence was- always taking it instead for a charming town- it is scary) I like also how they show scene through Laura's perspective- with a sense of childhood wonder.
Yet one reason I always loved the books was because the children's mentalities were different from mine. They were in an earlier, less casual era, that fascinated me. I'd like to see more of that preserved, instead of having it slide so that today's children can relate to these ones in the series.
But some things do, like Ma wearing earrings, since this undermines the nature of the family's intense struggle to get by. (sunbonnets also would be a good thing.)
. Generally, my biggest historical problem is that the children seem to be more modern in their mentality-- almost as if they'll say "cool" or "gee whiz". This fits with the modern music and seems to have been done to cater to children of today.
Some examples of this more modern sensibility: Laura jokingly asking her father for candy when he goes to Independence (product of modern-day materialism? Laura in the book knew how precious/rare such treats were). Also Laura being the one to suggest that she could wear Mary's old shoes-- its pretty clear from the book that the Ingalls (most working pioneer families) always handed such precious goods down to one another (they were poor!!)
I also found the scene with Mary confronting Ms. Scott to be ridiculous- both because it was completely inconsistent with Mary's character according to LIW(good girl vs. Laura as the bad girl) and because it is completely inconsistent with how children would have behaved in the Little House books (children not speaking at the table and definitely not contradicting others). (Ma's reaction to this offense also is inconsistent, way too chummy)
I do like this series because it has beautiful scenery and deftly demonstrates how terrifying life then could be. (I never thought about, for example, how terrifying Independence was- always taking it instead for a charming town- it is scary) I like also how they show scene through Laura's perspective- with a sense of childhood wonder.
Yet one reason I always loved the books was because the children's mentalities were different from mine. They were in an earlier, less casual era, that fascinated me. I'd like to see more of that preserved, instead of having it slide so that today's children can relate to these ones in the series.
- zolavarsity5
- Apr 10, 2005
- Permalink
Being a tremendous fan of the books (and being one who hated the 70s TV show with the heat of a thousand suns), I have to say this series is... not bad.
The script is relatively true to the Little House On the Prarie book. Except for the inexplicable New Age nonsense inflicted on poor old Jack (spirit dog frightening the savages, my Aunt Fanny), all the changes make sense in the context of a TV miniseries. There's no need to bother casting a Carrie, a toddler whose literary counterpart isn't old enough to talk. There's also no real need to go into all the pioneering how-to, however fascinating such details are in the book.
The cast is tremendously likable, especially Erin Cottrell, whose portrayal of Caroline Ingalls is both saintly and human, just as the character was written in the stories. Gregory Sporleder does a terrific turn as Mr. Edwards, the wildcat bachelor from Tennessee.
Where the miniseries fails is at the adaptation level, not in the performances. The author of the teleplay, Katie Ford, has injected too much of a modern sensibility. The Charles of the book would not in a thousand years have expressed his appreciation for Caroline's sacrifices by weeping as if he were on Oprah. Caroline's whining about dressing up, Mary's "sassing" an adult (an adult who was expressing fear and hatred towards the Native Americans, an attitude common to white settlers of the time), and Laura's constant disobedience of her father's orders to stay on the homestead - these all ring falsely to anyone who ever enjoyed the iconic series of books.
However, with that aside, it must be said that LHOTP:2005 is a completely inoffensive, sweet little series. It's beautifully shot, evenly paced, nicely casted, and tailor-made for the "Wonderful World of Disney/Saturday evening movie" brand.
The script is relatively true to the Little House On the Prarie book. Except for the inexplicable New Age nonsense inflicted on poor old Jack (spirit dog frightening the savages, my Aunt Fanny), all the changes make sense in the context of a TV miniseries. There's no need to bother casting a Carrie, a toddler whose literary counterpart isn't old enough to talk. There's also no real need to go into all the pioneering how-to, however fascinating such details are in the book.
The cast is tremendously likable, especially Erin Cottrell, whose portrayal of Caroline Ingalls is both saintly and human, just as the character was written in the stories. Gregory Sporleder does a terrific turn as Mr. Edwards, the wildcat bachelor from Tennessee.
Where the miniseries fails is at the adaptation level, not in the performances. The author of the teleplay, Katie Ford, has injected too much of a modern sensibility. The Charles of the book would not in a thousand years have expressed his appreciation for Caroline's sacrifices by weeping as if he were on Oprah. Caroline's whining about dressing up, Mary's "sassing" an adult (an adult who was expressing fear and hatred towards the Native Americans, an attitude common to white settlers of the time), and Laura's constant disobedience of her father's orders to stay on the homestead - these all ring falsely to anyone who ever enjoyed the iconic series of books.
However, with that aside, it must be said that LHOTP:2005 is a completely inoffensive, sweet little series. It's beautifully shot, evenly paced, nicely casted, and tailor-made for the "Wonderful World of Disney/Saturday evening movie" brand.
- SlinkyBird
- Apr 10, 2005
- Permalink
So far it seems to be the best adaptation. Some may wonder where is Carrie, well as true in her life, Carrie was born in Kansas. Albeit, at the time Mary was 5 and Laura 3. Then the Ingalls moved back to the Big Woods, when the buyer of their log cabin could no longer make payments.
In the books, it talks of the second journey out west. So if this is true to the story, Carrie should be born soon. Otherwise, I would be annoyed with the omittance of a character as well.
The story so far does follow the books quite well ("except for no Carrie") One hopes a screen play writer out there could adapt the story of Laura Ingalls Wilder to screen, so far there has been too many poor attempts.
In the books, it talks of the second journey out west. So if this is true to the story, Carrie should be born soon. Otherwise, I would be annoyed with the omittance of a character as well.
The story so far does follow the books quite well ("except for no Carrie") One hopes a screen play writer out there could adapt the story of Laura Ingalls Wilder to screen, so far there has been too many poor attempts.
- inthecrease77
- Mar 26, 2005
- Permalink
We've been glued to the tube for the last three Saturday nights. Wow. I loved it. This is TV worth staying home for. The story has grabbed us, the cast is just right--especially little Laura, Mr. and Mrs. Scott (what a hoot!), and Wildcat. Loved the cinematography. The production values are worthy of the big screen. Such stark beauty. And that part about them driving the wagon across the frozen lake as it is thawing... White knuckle time! The scenes with the Native-Americans are some of the best I've seen in any film. You catch a sense of how strange it was for both the white man and the Indians, locked in their silent dance.
I definitely recommend this movie. Hope it comes out soon on DVD!
I definitely recommend this movie. Hope it comes out soon on DVD!
- janicerogers
- Apr 8, 2005
- Permalink
As many, I have grown up on Michael Landon's "Little House" and have read all of the "Little House" books written by Laura Inagalls Wilder.
The original television series of the 1970s and 1980s was good, with a homey and warmth of family feeling to it, but strayed more and more from the actual writings of the LIW books as time went on.
This ABC/Disney version of "Little House On The Prairie" is much more closer to the actual books than any of the previous TV shows of the past. However, this 6 hours mini-series was not all completely accurate, and some of the camera shots could have filmed been better. But all in all, it is a very good program and well worth adding to your collection.
The acting by Kyle Chavarria and Danielle Ryan Chuchran was excellent, along with several of the other cast members. No, it is not Michael Landon with his Hollywood looking Charles Ingalls, but a lot closer to the real Charles Ingalls as played by Cameron Bancroft in this version. This DVD gives you a more realistic insight as to how the pioneers actually lived back in those times, and the hardships and the family values that are rare to find in modern day time.
Get this DVD, you will enjoy it!!!!
The original television series of the 1970s and 1980s was good, with a homey and warmth of family feeling to it, but strayed more and more from the actual writings of the LIW books as time went on.
This ABC/Disney version of "Little House On The Prairie" is much more closer to the actual books than any of the previous TV shows of the past. However, this 6 hours mini-series was not all completely accurate, and some of the camera shots could have filmed been better. But all in all, it is a very good program and well worth adding to your collection.
The acting by Kyle Chavarria and Danielle Ryan Chuchran was excellent, along with several of the other cast members. No, it is not Michael Landon with his Hollywood looking Charles Ingalls, but a lot closer to the real Charles Ingalls as played by Cameron Bancroft in this version. This DVD gives you a more realistic insight as to how the pioneers actually lived back in those times, and the hardships and the family values that are rare to find in modern day time.
Get this DVD, you will enjoy it!!!!
- silvereagle410
- Apr 25, 2006
- Permalink
I agree with most of the comments placed here. I'm currently watching the series on ABC and boy am I disappointed but I must say that working in the entertainment industry I know how a lot of good books are made into horrible movies or TV shows.
Most of the time it is the Network or Studio Executives who mess with the originality of the books ( Due to advertisers requests) and sometimes the producers and writers tend to stray from the original idea which is always better in my opinion. It gives them a creative license that ticks me off. I know how it works due to the fact that I'm working along side most of these folks.
I grew up with the Little House on the Prarie series and have read the series numerous times. Very disappointed with the series so far.
The music selections are too modern. Pa's clothes seems to have been picked out of the local western wear-house in Los Angeles. No attention to detail of that time period. Lots of mistakes all around. Too bad. I was really looking forward to a great series.
In my mind I was looking forward to seeing something like the Lonsome Dove Mini-Series. Now that was really a good Series. They at least paid attention to the book. I gotta give props to Suzanne DePasse and her crew.
Well, enough of my rants. I will continue to watch the show but with a heavy heart. I hope someone, someday does another Little House on the Prarie series and follows the details to the T. Maybe it will be me. :o) Enjoy folks.!
Phil
P.S. Who's looking forward to "Into the West" on TNT due out this summer?
Most of the time it is the Network or Studio Executives who mess with the originality of the books ( Due to advertisers requests) and sometimes the producers and writers tend to stray from the original idea which is always better in my opinion. It gives them a creative license that ticks me off. I know how it works due to the fact that I'm working along side most of these folks.
I grew up with the Little House on the Prarie series and have read the series numerous times. Very disappointed with the series so far.
The music selections are too modern. Pa's clothes seems to have been picked out of the local western wear-house in Los Angeles. No attention to detail of that time period. Lots of mistakes all around. Too bad. I was really looking forward to a great series.
In my mind I was looking forward to seeing something like the Lonsome Dove Mini-Series. Now that was really a good Series. They at least paid attention to the book. I gotta give props to Suzanne DePasse and her crew.
Well, enough of my rants. I will continue to watch the show but with a heavy heart. I hope someone, someday does another Little House on the Prarie series and follows the details to the T. Maybe it will be me. :o) Enjoy folks.!
Phil
P.S. Who's looking forward to "Into the West" on TNT due out this summer?
This show surprised me since I was a fan of the old Little house I did not expect to like this one very much. What a surprise. I fell in love with the show and the cast. I hope it will continue and come back on next season. The entire show was wonderful and the cast was great. I felt that the show got into more family stories. And I loved how it showed the indians and what they went through. I think it had some important information for all of us to know. And the landscape was just breath taking. I would watch the show every Sat if it was to come back on again and the funny thing is my son sat down for one night to watch it with me and he didn't think he was at all interested, and now he was hooked too. Imagine a 14 year old getting hooked on this type of show. I did not expect this.. Thank you Disney for doing such a wonderful show and please please bring it back again. I am sure you will find that you have a fan club that is just waiting for more.
- desertsunset52
- Apr 22, 2005
- Permalink
OK, I'm a great Laura Ingalls/Little House fan. I love the series - I grew up with it, hokey as it was at times. I really loved the books. I just ordered & re-read them a couple of years ago. I re-realized how much was fabricated for the series, but it was still wonderful. Even the books themselves are not completely true to life; Ms. Wilder omitted & softened some events and some characters - they are children's' books after all. I only saw the last two eps of this one, but I agree it does seem to be the truest to detail to the books, (except for Laura & Mary's ages, and the ever-missing Carrie). I still really liked it, and enjoyed seeing yet another interpretation. The movie that was out a few years ago was good as well, for the "First Four Years". What I REALLY want to see is an essential verbatim movie for each book; with Laura's omitted details. Hollywood is so Sequel Driven these days; did we really need a 'Miss Congeniality 2' or a 'Lion King 1 1/2' (or 2 for that matter)OR how about those 'Friday the 13th' movies (they're on like #27 now aren't they?. I waited over 20 years for the LOTR series to be done right...I guess I can wait for a Little House Series of movies...
I must say I did not have great expectations and had not even intended to watch this miniseries, but all three consecutive episodes appeared on one of the free movie channels on New Years Eve. I did not move from my chair until the last credits.
Not a fan of the original TV series (perhaps not surprisingly as a then teenage male), and had not read the book. But this version! Superior direction and cinematography, and above all, INSPIRED casting.
This is altogether edgier than the original TV series. You get the feeling that happy outcomes are not always guaranteed and this keeps you watching.
Cameron Bancroft as Charles is a good man but not a saint. This makes his virtues all the more appealing because you see him struggle with darker thoughts and a possibly murky past, and win.
Erin Cottrell as Caroline may seem a little clear-eyed and fresh at first, but the steel reinforcing her kindness shows through, without overplaying it.
Danielle Chuchran's Mary is overshadowed by her sparky sister. Chuchran chooses to be true to the character rather than try to steal scenes, and it is performances like those that contribute to the overall truth of a production.
Gregory Sporleder as Mr. Edwards is a suitably likeable, salt-of-the-earth character. Perhaps he could have been even rougher round the edges, to justify Erin's initial wariness of him, and that Laura is the only one at first to see through to his virtues.
But the sparky gem of the show is the wonderful, wonderful Kyle Chavarria as Laura. I don't think I have seen a better performance by such a young actress since perhaps the young Saoirse Ronan. If not played right, Laura could have been annoyingly sweet, but Chavarria compromises for no-one and thus steals your heart. I will have to see more of this young lady in future.
This is as close as you will get to knowing what it was really like to be a pioneer family in the 19th century, inching west to the beautiful and dangerous unknown, with no safety net, nothing except what you thought to carry with you. The interactions with the Indians have the ring of truth. There is rightly no translation of the native languages so that you are as disconcerted as the Ingalls by the complications of moving on to their land.
Perhaps I've been gushing too much, you may not agree with everything. If you are troubled by differences from the book, watch this anew and remember that film is a different medium. And if you are expecting schmaltz based on the original series, the Disney name or the frankly ridiculous poster, don't worry - this is the real thing.
Not a fan of the original TV series (perhaps not surprisingly as a then teenage male), and had not read the book. But this version! Superior direction and cinematography, and above all, INSPIRED casting.
This is altogether edgier than the original TV series. You get the feeling that happy outcomes are not always guaranteed and this keeps you watching.
Cameron Bancroft as Charles is a good man but not a saint. This makes his virtues all the more appealing because you see him struggle with darker thoughts and a possibly murky past, and win.
Erin Cottrell as Caroline may seem a little clear-eyed and fresh at first, but the steel reinforcing her kindness shows through, without overplaying it.
Danielle Chuchran's Mary is overshadowed by her sparky sister. Chuchran chooses to be true to the character rather than try to steal scenes, and it is performances like those that contribute to the overall truth of a production.
Gregory Sporleder as Mr. Edwards is a suitably likeable, salt-of-the-earth character. Perhaps he could have been even rougher round the edges, to justify Erin's initial wariness of him, and that Laura is the only one at first to see through to his virtues.
But the sparky gem of the show is the wonderful, wonderful Kyle Chavarria as Laura. I don't think I have seen a better performance by such a young actress since perhaps the young Saoirse Ronan. If not played right, Laura could have been annoyingly sweet, but Chavarria compromises for no-one and thus steals your heart. I will have to see more of this young lady in future.
This is as close as you will get to knowing what it was really like to be a pioneer family in the 19th century, inching west to the beautiful and dangerous unknown, with no safety net, nothing except what you thought to carry with you. The interactions with the Indians have the ring of truth. There is rightly no translation of the native languages so that you are as disconcerted as the Ingalls by the complications of moving on to their land.
Perhaps I've been gushing too much, you may not agree with everything. If you are troubled by differences from the book, watch this anew and remember that film is a different medium. And if you are expecting schmaltz based on the original series, the Disney name or the frankly ridiculous poster, don't worry - this is the real thing.
- scalesa-52532
- Jan 1, 2018
- Permalink
It is a heartwarming story, pleasant production. not too bad on period detail and the acting is fine. Considering it's length, the pacing is surprisingly good. It is also filled with inaccuracies. Since when do you cross canyons from Wisconsin to Kansas, and since when are their high mountains in Kansas? At times it is unintentionally funny, like when Caroline, concerned with Indian attacks, demands a latch be put on the house door, yet the house doesn't have a roof yet. In general though, it kept me entertained and is certainly many notches above the television series from the 1970's. It does tend to be over sentimental, but that is also the nature of the stories. Good score and art direction.
The first version (the 1970's TV series) was so woefully off of the true story it was sad. Unfortunately, the recent "Beyond the Prairie" with Richard Thomas wasn't much better.
I find problems with this version as well (mainly with the acting) but it is thankfully much closer to the original version.
The man who plays Charles Ingles in this version is far better than Micheal Landon or Richard Thomas, both of whom were sadly miscast in that role. All in all, it is quite entertaining, and fairly close to the book.
I'm looking forward to part two of this version with great interest.
I find problems with this version as well (mainly with the acting) but it is thankfully much closer to the original version.
The man who plays Charles Ingles in this version is far better than Micheal Landon or Richard Thomas, both of whom were sadly miscast in that role. All in all, it is quite entertaining, and fairly close to the book.
I'm looking forward to part two of this version with great interest.
- bombad_jedi
- Mar 25, 2005
- Permalink
- Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson
- Aug 4, 2009
- Permalink
Books are almost always better than the movie made out of the book. And Disney's version of Little House on the Prairie is no exception. While the 1974 series did not follow the book completely, it did at least follow the story line and story elements a bit more closely than this new Disney version is doing. In one scene, in the movie, Laura is arguing with Mary whether brown or blonde hair is prettier. That happened in the book. But am I the only one who noticed that the Disney Laura also has blonde hair??? What's up with that? Couldn't they at least have dyed her hair...if not to look more like the historical Laura, then at least for making that one scene make sense?
Disney has taken so many liberties with the story line, I don't understand why they left the title intact. I might have liked the story more if it had just been another pioneer film. The scene with the wolves is another example of too much liberty with the story line.
I was watching this with my girls, but we found better things to do on a Saturday evening. This particular Disney film gets four thumbs down (I'm including my big toes as thumbs).
Disney has taken so many liberties with the story line, I don't understand why they left the title intact. I might have liked the story more if it had just been another pioneer film. The scene with the wolves is another example of too much liberty with the story line.
I was watching this with my girls, but we found better things to do on a Saturday evening. This particular Disney film gets four thumbs down (I'm including my big toes as thumbs).
- lagomorphgirl
- May 8, 2005
- Permalink
I just watched the first two hour installment of this movie...I enjoyed it, and for the most part, felt it was pretty faithful to the books and the the spirit of the story...but there were two glaring problems....WHERE was Baby Carrie....and they NEVER have the right breed of dog to play Jack...he's supposed to be a brindle bull dog! I felt the acting was good, better than some other productions I've seen....they had a good cast....I plan on watching the rest of the series...I enjoyed the guy they got to play Mr. Edwards....he was as good, if not better than Victor French...I liked the music they had throughout....very catchy....
I really enjoyed this rendition of Little House on the Prairie, and am recommending it to everyone. I really appreciate that it is a good, clean family movie, which is really rare to find these days. I coaxed my whole family into watching it, including my dad, boyfriend and brother-in-law, and it ended up being the men who stuck around to the end...the action of the show kept them watching and they were really into it! The scenery is absolutely beautiful and the story line is very entertaining. Although I've heard the TV script is close to the book, but not word for word, it is still amazing to see the obstacles the Ingles encountered as they traveled mile by wagon. I also think the casting is excellent - I particularly like the roles of Pa and Mary.
- hillarydanae
- Mar 29, 2005
- Permalink
I think is a really good movie! It is better than the old version. It has a lot more better actors and actress. I think this new version should come out on DVD or video. Laura Ingalls aka Kyle Chavarria is really cute and one year younger than me in real life also Mary Ingalls aka Danielle Ryan Chuchran is older than me by one year in real life and is cute also. I am also glad that they have Indians in it because if it didn't it would be a little bit more boring cause all it would be is just four people building there house on a prairie and nothing bad happening. There would not BE any action!I am also glad they have Jack the dog which is really cute with the two different eye colors he helps them scare away the Indians and he protects them in anyway as he can. I also like the whole family because i'm disciplined really good like the children and how they all cooperate like us.Our whole family is always helping each other and encouraging us in stuff. Well anyways I really like that TV show! It is a lot better than the old actors and actress. But no matter what I will always like Laura the adventurer in the story or movie!
- Coolpuppylover4
- Apr 16, 2005
- Permalink
It seems every time a classic TV show or movie has a TV movie made about it these days, Disney brings it to life. This time it is "Little House on the Prairie," the last one was "Where the Wild Fern Grows."
Some of the charm of the original series is lost in Disneyland, as much more sugar is used in coating, making it sweeter than the original. Not to say it wasn't a good film, but it was not anything like the TV series, except in character name.
I hope no time soon that Disney remakes any other high profile TV series as movie of the week programs. They should stick to what they know, original stories and sequels to their own films.
Some of the charm of the original series is lost in Disneyland, as much more sugar is used in coating, making it sweeter than the original. Not to say it wasn't a good film, but it was not anything like the TV series, except in character name.
I hope no time soon that Disney remakes any other high profile TV series as movie of the week programs. They should stick to what they know, original stories and sequels to their own films.
- Hollywood_Yoda
- Jul 14, 2013
- Permalink
Little House on the Prairie (2004 Mini Series) I was a child in the 1980s, and by then I already loved history, so Little House on the Prairie quickly became one of my favourite shows. It was interesting to see this 2004 version of a story that I had loved as a child.
I can't say that it touched me in quite the same way as the original television series, starring Melissa Gilbert, did. Perhaps that is also because I am a little older. But I also think it's because the time and the format did not allow me to become as engaged with the characters.
I thought Kyle Chavarria made a great Laura Ingalls. She had that wonderful cheeky, but adorable, look that Melissa Gilbert also had when she played Laura in the original television series. And Danielle Chuchran had that 'good and sweet' look that you expect from someone playing Mary. I did not think Cameron Bancroft, playing Charles Ingalls, and Erin Cottrall, playing Caroline Ingalls, were quite so well casted. But that may be because I expected them to look like the actors in the original television series.
I have never read the books by Laura Ingalls Wilder and so I cannot compare the television series with the books. I have been meaning to read them for quite some time, but somehow never got around to it.
One scene that always stuck in my mind from the original television series, was when Mr Edwards taught Laura how to spit. I am so glad they kept that in.
I found some of the cinematography a bit annoying. It would frequently focus on one thing, and then move to the focus to another thing, and then blur everything and play some really moving music. I almost felt as if the director was trying to hard to create a film, instead of just telling a story. I think when the filming of a movie makes you think about the cameras and the directors, then it is not really doing its job. I prefer movies and television series (especially one about characters that we already know and love) to sweep you up in the story and make you forget that you are sitting in front of a television screen. I could never do that with the miniseries.
I do think it was a good mini-series, and I would gladly watch it again. But I am afraid I still prefer the original television series. I have already made plans to borrow it on DVD.
I can't say that it touched me in quite the same way as the original television series, starring Melissa Gilbert, did. Perhaps that is also because I am a little older. But I also think it's because the time and the format did not allow me to become as engaged with the characters.
I thought Kyle Chavarria made a great Laura Ingalls. She had that wonderful cheeky, but adorable, look that Melissa Gilbert also had when she played Laura in the original television series. And Danielle Chuchran had that 'good and sweet' look that you expect from someone playing Mary. I did not think Cameron Bancroft, playing Charles Ingalls, and Erin Cottrall, playing Caroline Ingalls, were quite so well casted. But that may be because I expected them to look like the actors in the original television series.
I have never read the books by Laura Ingalls Wilder and so I cannot compare the television series with the books. I have been meaning to read them for quite some time, but somehow never got around to it.
One scene that always stuck in my mind from the original television series, was when Mr Edwards taught Laura how to spit. I am so glad they kept that in.
I found some of the cinematography a bit annoying. It would frequently focus on one thing, and then move to the focus to another thing, and then blur everything and play some really moving music. I almost felt as if the director was trying to hard to create a film, instead of just telling a story. I think when the filming of a movie makes you think about the cameras and the directors, then it is not really doing its job. I prefer movies and television series (especially one about characters that we already know and love) to sweep you up in the story and make you forget that you are sitting in front of a television screen. I could never do that with the miniseries.
I do think it was a good mini-series, and I would gladly watch it again. But I am afraid I still prefer the original television series. I have already made plans to borrow it on DVD.
I found LHotP when I was searching YouTube for Laura Ingalls Wilder audiobooks. The very first clip I spotted should have told me everything I needed to know: While Ma's back is turned, Laura deliberately knocks her spoon off the table. Pa also deliberately knocks his spoon off the table. This was an obvious habit between the two of them for Laura asking for a discreet word with Pa, and Pa obliging. As if Pa would have ever gone behind Ma's back for anything! The two of them have a brief, "We understand each other!" moment as they pick up the spoons. Then Ma came to the table, with her clothes and hair all wrong, and clearly Pa was sharing a private joke with Laura at Ma's expense.
Yes, Pa and Laura understood each other in a way that no two other members of the family did, and yes, they had a special bond -- but that fact could have been conveyed in a way that also underscored the respect Charles Ingalls had for his wife, and that both Ingalls parents demanded that the children show to adults in general and their parents in particular.
I jumped around a few other spots and found the non-bulldog Jack and the non-Ma Ma so distracting that I just gave up. Caroline Ingalls was a prim, proper Victorian woman who managed to remain one in the most difficult circumstances. There is no excuse for turning her into a casually-mussed modern woman.
A few more beefs: Where was Carrie? Pa's fiddle? Laura's BROWN hair and her hated sunbonnet? Next up: An episode of The Simpsons in which Homer neither overeats nor drinks beer, Bart doesn't do a single bratty thing, Maggie never takes a single suck of her binky, and Lisa doesn't even own a sax.
I agree with the other reviewers who suggested that as a generic prairie family/Hallmark Channel type thing, this might have worked. But please, take the Ingalls family's names off the thing! That wobble in the earth's orbit is them collectively spinning in their graves.
Yes, Pa and Laura understood each other in a way that no two other members of the family did, and yes, they had a special bond -- but that fact could have been conveyed in a way that also underscored the respect Charles Ingalls had for his wife, and that both Ingalls parents demanded that the children show to adults in general and their parents in particular.
I jumped around a few other spots and found the non-bulldog Jack and the non-Ma Ma so distracting that I just gave up. Caroline Ingalls was a prim, proper Victorian woman who managed to remain one in the most difficult circumstances. There is no excuse for turning her into a casually-mussed modern woman.
A few more beefs: Where was Carrie? Pa's fiddle? Laura's BROWN hair and her hated sunbonnet? Next up: An episode of The Simpsons in which Homer neither overeats nor drinks beer, Bart doesn't do a single bratty thing, Maggie never takes a single suck of her binky, and Lisa doesn't even own a sax.
I agree with the other reviewers who suggested that as a generic prairie family/Hallmark Channel type thing, this might have worked. But please, take the Ingalls family's names off the thing! That wobble in the earth's orbit is them collectively spinning in their graves.
My daughter and I only made it through fifteen minutes of this. We have read the original books over and over and couldn't believe what we were seeing. I thought, if they can get this much wrong in that little space, I'm not going to waste another four hours. Laura almost gets shot by some stranger? Laura is blonde? Jack is an Australian Shepherd? Ma wears her hair down? Their little house in Wisconsin is surrounded by other homesteads instead of lonely woods? Pa works for some scoundrel? They sell their house with all its contents? What I want to know is, why did they bother calling it "Little House on the Prairie"? Change the character names, call it "Pioneers" or something, and leave a beloved book series alone.
I really like the 70's Little House On The Prairie a lot better. I grew up with it. I still watch it. Better actors, more exciting etc. I thought this mini TV series was too much about Indians. It's like they were lurking everywhere. I have read the books, but I don't remember if they were about Indians. But when making a TV series, they should make it more exciting. I don't want to watch Indians lurking for 40 minutes... I mean yes, there were other things, but.. not a whole lot. In the show, they made them to be evil. The Indians really were not like that in real life, at least not all of them. Sure they were upset that white people took their land and stuff, but it doesn't make them bad! And other things; where the heck was Carrie? And, Laura is suppose to be a brunette! I thought Caroline's part was lame. Charles seemed to be quite hard on the girls... So, watch it if you like, but you won't miss anything by not watching it :)
My biggest disappointment with this retelling is that it cannot decide what it wants to be.- a fun retelling of the books or a retelling of LIW's real life. In both respects it fails.- besides missing a very important character (Laura's new baby sister Grace), the landscape being not as described in the books, Jack morphing into an Australian shepherd instead of a bulldog, there are several smaller things that catch my eye (and in fact grows to the extent that I cannot enjoy the thing).- the main thing is that they have obviously tried to make Ma (Caroline) look attractive to a modern audience, by letting have her hair down and slightly (top model) disheveled. In the books, Ma always stressed being a lady and how ladies always keep their hair neat, never loose, and cover their ears. And the book-authenticity aside, nobody can ever tell me that working on a farm with long, loose hair is practical. So it fails, both as a retelling of the books, or as an authentic representation of life in Kansas. If somebody wants to view a fun representation of LIW's life, by all means, watch the old series, as this new miniseries is not more authentic in the slightest.
- miriam_swietek
- Apr 10, 2007
- Permalink
A waste of two hours. Unbelievably trite and predictable but I could not turn it off. Had to see if it could get worse. It did. Kyle Chavarria as Laura Ingalls and Danielle Chuchran as Mary were great but I don't think I'll watch the next 4 episodes.
I thought I was finished, but I did not read all the guidelines and could not submit my comments. Can not get my thoughts posted without at least ten lines of commentary and that seems to be a little less of a waste of time than watching the series. Could not find the name of the dog that played 'Jack' he was pretty good too and I wondered if I'd seen him in anything else.
I thought I was finished, but I did not read all the guidelines and could not submit my comments. Can not get my thoughts posted without at least ten lines of commentary and that seems to be a little less of a waste of time than watching the series. Could not find the name of the dog that played 'Jack' he was pretty good too and I wondered if I'd seen him in anything else.