Customer Reviews

Where the Red Fern Grows

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Where the Red Fern Grows has been my favorite book since my second grade teacher read it to us. Now I read it to my 5th grade class. The original movie was very disappointing, as it did not follow the book. I have always hoped that the movie would be remade and remain true to the book. Such was my anticipation when I bought the 2004 release. Unfortunately, this version has the same bastardizations as the original movie and other facets that make it difficult to enjoy. For example, most of the hunting is done in the daytime, even though the narration says it is night. Like the original movie, Billy does not win the coon hunt outright, but rather the real winner declares Billy the winner and gives the trophy and money to him. Many of the highlights of the book are left out, which I can understand due to time constraints, but why can't we get a movie of Where the Red Fern Grows that makes some attempt to remain true to the book?

This wonderful book deserves much more than this movie. I was hoping for so much more, especially from Disney. It seemd to me that it was made hastily and on a tight budget...Coleman and Ned Beatty (sp?) did their part, but Dave Matthews? This story did not deserve to have an actor if his inability playing the role of the young man's father. As a young man who read this book over and over, and for a Father who was excited about having his 6 year old son watch this movie with him, I am very, very dissapointed.

My teacher read the story to me and I'll always remember it as THE book that hooked me into reading. Now, 20 years later, I read this story to my 5th graders every year and find that it hooks them as well. It is one of my students' fondest memories of 5th grade and our year together. Every one can relate to loving a special pet. I always follow up the book with the movie. Needless to say, they always say that the book is way better. I was so glad to see the new version of the movie come out on DVD. The older version always had a dark picture that was a little hard to view at times (technology issue). I watched the new version last night and must say that the book is still so much better. I guess for the sake of time, they have to leave out certain parts, but the book really spoils you. I am glad that the movie still included the spiritual aspects from the book. It reminds one to have faith and to try to meet GOD half way when asking HIM for help. So many people/movies/books fail to share this message to keep from offending people. "Hats-off" to the producers for taking a stand and including the spiritual aspects as a vital part of the story. This is a wonderful message that we should never forget. I'll continue to read and show the DVD year after year. I am really happy that I have a more updated video to show my students. If you have never read this book, I hope this review will inspire you to do so. Even if you have already seen the movie, before reading the book, you'll still be surprised throughout the story. It is truly an emotional, life-changing story. Upon reading it, you'll never forget the way it made you feel.

You either have no emotion or you didn't watch the movie properly, how could you say it has no storyline? This movie brilliantly captured what it means to love, in the beginning if you listened, the title was explained at the dinner table by the youngest child who refered to a drawing she did of a red fern of that being from a story the grandfather *(shop owner) told her of two indian lovers who died next to each other as a result of the bitter snow, when their bodies were found there was a red fern growing between them, which signified true love.

The boy is told by his grandfather that should he truly want something he has to meet God half way, he works hard and earns a plenty sum which allows for him to buy his pup coonhounds.
After lengthy training they become the best coonhounds around.
When one attempts to save the boy from being attacked by a Cougar it is so badly injured it dies, the other hound so heartbroken literally dies lying beside the grave of her brother.
It is then at the end this story gives the viewer a lump in the throat and as previously mentioned by the beginning where the story is told of the red fern, does this take on its true impact.

Highly commended for the storyline.
Highly commended for the acting.
Highly commended for being one true family classic no home should not have in it, to remind everyone that sometimes you just need a good old movie once in a while, instead of the sleazy crap that floods our screens of today.

There were alot of differnt thing going on in this video but there were also alot of similarities.

In the movie there was no Samie which was the cat that would get cought in the traps for the coons, in the movie there were also no coon traps either. A humongouse difference waa that Billys grandpa never told him that racoons were attracted to shiney tin. When billy was saving for his pups he kept his money in a sock not in a baking soda can in the hay stacks. An ever going list of differences is right here, The pritchards bought a dog at Billys grandpas store, Billys mom would make him do school work, on the way to get his dogs Billy took a shortcut in a no trasspassing zone and someone tried to shoot him but failed, in the book Billy tried sliding down a slid in a school yard that he passes by in the movie he sees it but doesnt go down, overnight Billy and his pups did not sleep in a cave they sleept out in the woods, and Billy has a bike. billy bought shoes in tealequad. In the movie Billy only calls his dogs Ann and Dan not Old Dan and Little Ann. Billys dad gave Billy a huge axe and gloves to help him chop done this huge tree. Billy and his grandpa never made a scarcrow. Both of the Pritchard boys were skinny, and they betted $5 not $2. Billys family ate dinner ate grandpas house. During the hunting contest there was rain not snow like in the book. Billy gave all of his trophy money to his mother. Also Billy dod not kill the mountain lion. Billy buried his dogs by the river. All the rest of the movie was the same as the book. Both the movie and the book were good, but I liked the book was better in my opinion.
BY: Helena cassilly 12

Its a sad and pathetic world when a book this good has not one, but TWO crappy movies!!(no, i wont count the sequel.. it was actually better than these because it WASN'T based off of a book!)
Instead of copying word for word from the first movie they could have made it so much better by using different scenes that were more important! There were a LOT of scenes to choose from like when Billy trapped the first coon, or saving Little Anne from the frozen river, or when Old Dan is stuck in a tree and the scene where Little Anne wins the beauty contest.

Seriously.... this is a waste of time. waste of money. waste of space. I feel bad for those poor dogs and the little girls who had to be in this. i know i need to read the book again but i could have sworn there were three sisters..... not two..
Most of all the older actors, directors, and scrip writers should hang their heads in shame for being so shallow and unoriginal. they even had the nerve to do a remake of the Andy Williams song at the very very end of the credits! and thats another thing. the songs from this version were so ill timed and out of place, not to mention out of time! Wynonna indeed... were they trying to lure in the audience with that song??

All i am happy about is... my instincts were right. I'm glad i waited so long to finally see this because i was worried it would be as bad as the first.. I'm glad i didnt pay to see it(unless you count netflix) and I'm GLAD i watched it online instead of wasting a movie rental and ruining my weekend!

Trust me if you are a fan of the book this will leave a BAD taste in your mouth. Sorry, spoiler alert!!! The lion isn't killed, Billy DOESN'T trip Prichard, and you don't even get to see hounds sliding around on wet floors. i admit i liked the first movie for their attempt at humour. this movie didn't even TRY! their one attempt involved Billy trespassing on his way to get the pups and getting shot at. wow.....

if it was possible i would delete this version from my memory. Now i'm off to read the book instead. thats the best i can do.

I showed this movie to my 4th graders after reading the book to them. They were a little disappointed with the movie. It left out some crucial scenes that lead the reader/watcher to make a connection to Billy and so the movie is not as meaningful as the book. There were lots of tears in the book, not so many during the movie. My students were also disappointed in the lack of details of some of the biggest scenes in the book, the boy dying with the ax, the hunting competion, the death scene. It's a good movie, but no where near as good as the book.

I think the biggest problem with this movie is the casting. The actress who plays the supposed mother living in the middle of nowhere looks like a model, and has very odd and awkward expressions. The gentleman who plays the father acts poorly, the young man who plays the lead character feels much older than he is supposed to be, and plays the part a bit too goody goody for believability. The only part well played in the movie is the part played by Dabney Coleman. This movie feels like a cheap made for TV movie, which is a real shame given the pedigree of the book to which it represents.

In my opinion, the book Where the Red Fern Grows was much better than the movie. I think because the movie had to be cut to a certain length, the directors were not able to capture a lot of the concepts the author of the book Where the Red Fern Grows was able to capture. For example, by leaving out the part when Little Ann fell into the freezing lake we were not able to see Old Dan panic for her, which showed us how much he cared for her. Also, in the book, it was clearly stated that Old Dan was brave and curious while Little Ann was smart, laid back, and wise. In the movie, I felt these characteristics were overlooked. I think the movie had a low budget and the directors were not able to hire the best actors. I think if they had been able to hire more experienced actors the movie would have seemed a lot more real and would have caught a lot more interest from its viewers.
I did not like the movie as much as the book because I thought the most important detail in it was how close Billy was to his dogs. It was important how he loved them so much and that he changed from a young boy to a young man because of having Old Dan and Little Ann. The book emphasized that a lot while it did not seem to be shown in the movie. I liked how in the book, you could relate to Billy and understand how Billy felt a lot more because he practically told you his feelings as the book went along. In the movie, you saw it happening but could not easily relate. That is a problem in many movies because it is very difficult to show the character's feelings by filming what is happening. Overall, I think each tiny detail in the book was what made it so interesting while I think the movie was simply boring!

Where the Red Fern Grows Review By Amelia Solano, period 6


Movies that are based on books usually have to leave out or change scenes or characters. For the readers of the book leaving out the smallest character, or changing the way somebody dresses could make them leave the theatre very annoyed. Where the Red fern Grows, being a novel based movie, had many scenes and characters left out. The movie itself was good, but it was not true to the book.

Where the Red Fern Grows did have take out and change many characters for the movie to be a reasonable length. Sammy the cat was not included but that is understandable, for he did not have a very important role in the book. The one thing that annoyed me and many other readers most was the change in the dogs. Old Dan and Little Ann, Billy's dogs, were to have shared a special bond with Billy and have distinctive personalities. Old Dan being aggressive and Little Ann being clever were some traits that I did not see in his movie. The two dogs wouldn't hunt with any other person but Billy, and there was a very strong connection between him and his dogs. I do not feel that the dogs in this movie really cared for Billy and they were just ordinary dogs that knew how to kill raccoons.

In every book there are a few scenes that are added to give a certain effect, or exaggerate a characters feeling. Naturally, directors leave these scenes out to make that movie enjoyable rather that boring. Directors might change scenes too to help with the story line. But the change in his movie did not really help the story line at all. At the end of the big coon-hunting tournament Billy is supposed to win first prize. In this movie somebody else wins, but gives Billy the trophy and the prize money. Billy was supposed to have won but the directors probably left it out because it would be too obvious. To me that is not a strong enough reason.

I know that movies have to change the story a little but this movie changed it a little too much for my liking. If you are considering watching this movie please rent it, for you shouldn't waste your money on a movie you will see once and then forget about.