WO DER ROTE FARN WÄCHST

The movie is about a young boy named billy and his 2 hunting dogs. The boy loses bets and saves a life his friends bet him and he lost. He enters competitions to earn money for his family to move. He loves his dogs then one day that all changed the movie makes people cry. Billys grandfather runs a store and makes billy do a bet they called his grandfather pops or gramps. His store sells everything. Billy got into a fight with the whole towns boys. Billy works his butt off to buy his 2 dogs little anne and dane. The movie is a very said movie but i would highly recommend the movie

To start, I am a huge Red Fern fan. I have the first one on DVD and video and also have read the book several times. I am from Tahlequah, OK where the movies were filmed and so it does strike a home chord for me. I finally purchased the remake today and I must say that I am so disappointed. Usually remakes kind of mix things up a little bit to make it a little more interesting than the first . . . this is exactly like the first, almost word for word and the acting leaves you wondering where they come up with these people at. Dave Matthews should stick with his singing gig and the boy that played Billy Coleman was awful. Also the movie was very unrealistic. I have been coon hunting several times and you let the dogs do the hunting and just wait until they bark treed. This poor kid is running all over the woods right behind the coon. UNREALISTIC. Also, I love how it is pouring down rain and they are fogging up dust. Poor special effects! Dust doesn't fog up in the rain! This movie was a good waste of $21 and also a good waste of Tahlequah's money since most of the bills were left unpaid here by the production crew! BAD MOVIE!

Its not better. It's not worse; it's just different enough to make it as enjoyable and powerful as the original. Dave Matthews impresses with his believable portrayal; as does the rest of the cast. Dabney Coleman, who's characters are usually sleazy, did excellent and likable work. More "historically " accurate than the original movie, it seems. From the costumes to sets, to the acting. Only reason i gave it an 8 is so many tiny details overlooked that could have been included with little trouble.

The problem with this movie is the pacing. I was, perhaps foolishly, anticipating something grand when I rented the DVD, since I love the book and quite liked the original 1974 film. I had been told that the 2003 remake was accurate to Wilson Rawls' novel. Strictly speaking, this is true, but therein lies it's downfall.

Movies adapted from books often have to have sections removed or characters cut because, unlike films, no book is designed to be enjoyed in a single sitting. In this movie the acting is beyond hurried as people race through their lines, desperate to include every utterance of the novel in less than two hours. The results are dismal. The only time I've seen worse butchery of a good novel was the atrocious movie version of "The Hotel New Hampshire" by John Irving.

If you love the book, read the book; or maybe get nostalgic and rent the original. Don't rent this version unless you just need something, anything, to sit some kids in front of for an afternoon while you balance your checkbook.

This movie was a very good adaptation of the book, and this coming from someone who is very critical. I have, like most, read the book many times, which I think makes it harder to like any film adaptation. However, the movie follows the book very well, omitting small things that really didn't have a lot to do with the plot-line. I would say the movie had a little more of a religious slant than the book did. The acting was nice. I would say the major criticism would be they didn't really get into the dog's personalities much. The book did a great job of showing Dan as a clutz with a big heart and Ann as the smart one. However, I would recommend this and it was a million times better than the original movie adaptation.