moviedude1 Alright, I admit it. I've made the mistake of reading some of what other people have said about this film and I have a hard time concentrating on the film, rather than the comments on the film.First of all, for all you people who put down this movie, I sit here and say, "Fine!" It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But, like the synopsis says, it's a movie BASED on her life. And any movie buff knows that that means there are bound to be inaccuracies (which means you should have never watched the movie at all, because you're setting yourself up for a downfall, which is your own downfall, not the authors of this screenplay.)Two other things I would like to point out: 1) For someone to be remembered AT ALL this long after they've passed on is a miracle in itself. I'd be HONORED if someone were basing a movie about my writings a hundred years after they've been written. And I'm sure her family appreciated the sentiment, as well.2) It had been a long time since I had seen Richard Thomas in anything theatrical, so I thought it was a nice touch to involve his talents in creating this portrayal. For someone who has created an icon from the Waltons—that has lived 3 generations now (I was a kid when it came out & I am now old enough to have grandchildren) and is still going strong—to an icon like Charles Ingalls. I felt that this fact added credibility to the film, as I've heard about Mr. Thomas convictions on the parts he agrees to play. The only sad part I find in this is that there weren't more of these types of films made or that I have YET to see PART II.7 out of 10 stars!

mswritesalot I stumbled across this film on the satellite grid tonight, and was interested because I grew up reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. What a pity that the writer of this script never so much as lifted the cover of one of Wilder's books. There is far more factual information to be found on the Wikipedia site than in this film. I watched through to the end, but I made it only by pretending that this was not a film about Laura Ingalls Wilder. The little girl who portrayed young Rose gave a good performance, but everyone else left me cold. I heartily recommend that LIW fans avoid this film.

Tracy Stubbs For anyone who has read the Little House books they would enjoy this TV movie. Unlike the Little House series (which I adored)this tells the actual story of Laura growing up and falling in love on the wilds of the prairie. Granted it was at first a little confusing seeing John Boy Walton playing the part of Pa Ingalls, but it was still enjoyable all the same. My only woe about the film is that it jumped ahead quite quickly and lacked detail in certain places but for anyone who hasn't read the books they probably wouldn't notice. Congratulations should be given to all the cast as it was a very brave thing to do since laura Ingalls is already known to the world through the eyes of Michael Landon.

veronicadellagissi It's a pity when moviemakers take a popular book or books andthen make a movie with elements that contain very little of what's inthe books. Don't they know that readers will be terriblydisappointed? This movie diverges from Laura Ingalls Wilder'sbooks in so many ways that it's ludicrous.A blond Laura? Ma with her hair in a braid? Charles offering to gofor the wheat during the Hard Winter and being stopped not byCaroline but by Almanzo? Almanzo's horses "PT and Barnum?"(they were SKIP and Barnum). Where are Prince and Lady? Theteacher was Miss Wilder, Almanzo's sister, not some stranger?And who was "Patsy?" Where's Laura's nemesis, Nellie Olson?Just awful. Don't bother. Reread the books.