Little House on the Prairie

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....

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!!!!

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.

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.

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...