Where the Red Fern Grows

Today's young people should really take a look a look at this family movie. The morals and the lessons learned are very good. The story is simple, a boy and his dogs. What's important about this film is how different life was without television, cellphones, the internet, children did chores and helped their parents, and listened to what their parents had to say. The film is good, the acting okay, the animal scenes are very good, a good wholesome film. If your kids are acting up, force them to watch this movie, and then they will appreciate on how easy they have it. I liked the movie because it takes place in Oklahoma, rural Oklahoma, far from major cities like Tulsa. Life was simple then, and family values were high, I especially liked when Billy spent the extra ten dollars on his family, rather then spend it on himself, try getting your kids to do the same, I really doubt that would happen these days. I haven't seen the remake of this film, but it would have to be awfully good to top this one.

An adaptation of one of the best children's books ever written, while a good production, does not capture the magic of the book. I should know. I have read this book three times, and I love it more each time.

The atmosphere present in the book is very well morphed onto the screen. Most of the characters are very believable, and Billy is pretty good himself too. The movie also follows the book almost to a tee. The only main difference is the chemistry between the two dogs. While the dogs seemed well trained in the movie, only the human imagination can actually create the love that emulates from both of these animals.

And of course, the book is always just a little bit better anyway. If you've read the book and wish to see the movie, it might be a little disappointing. If you've seen the movie and want to read the book, do so immediately! It'll have you in tears.

Set in the Depression Era Ozark country, the Coleman family has it pretty tough as most did in those years. But they are a wholesome lot without getting too sticky sentimental. The parents are Jack Ging and Beverly Garland and their oldest Stewart Petersen a slightly pre- pubescent adolescent has only one thing in mind. He's a country kid who has his heart set on getting and training a pair of hunting dogs for coon hunting and on the advice of his grandfather James Whitmore works like a dog to get the money to buy a pair of puppies to train.

Coon hunting is both a profession and a labor of love for those who get into it. We see young Petersen train his canines to be the best. But it comes at a tragic price.

Where The Red Fern grows is a fine family film that most likely never played in the cosmopolitan east during its release. Stewart Petersen was a Mormon Kid who did a bunch of these of varying quality during the 70s. He comes across as a real and not a Hollywood kid and he gets good support from the veteran cast. Note the Osmonds as producers. Petersen did films for the LDS church itself as well as other family features in the 70s.

Where The Red Fern Grows holds up well today. Dig the Quo Vadis type ending which explains about the significance of the Red Fern.

I take issue with the one negative review on this site. Some people might just be mad that they did not have a great life like that young boy...

This film showed a young boy taking responsibility in life to earn something instead of expecting it to be handed to him. That's something that many grown-ups today don't even do. As a high school student who watches a lot of movies, I haven't seen many films that show a kid working hard for what he's got and being happy with what he has. These values are missing today and this is movie is a refreshing change from what I'm used to seeing. It is a great movie!

While the movie version of Where the Red Fern Grows is not quite as good as the book by Wilson Rawls, the film is still a quality family film and very much worth watching if you are a fan of the novel.

The changes in the plot for the movie version are minor, and most of the same themes Rawls intended for his readers can be found in the movie. However, one glaring difference is the fact that the characterization in the movie cannot touch the novel. The movie does little to build up Billy's "dog wanting" disease as well as Billy's dogged (pun intended) determination to secure himself some hunting hounds. This takes away from the reader's sympathy for and identification with the protagonist. Grandpa's character also does not come off as well as he does in the novel. In the novel, Grandpa is clearly a wise man despite his one irrational act; in the movie, he seems plain irrational, and there is no sign of his wisdom on the subjects of life and coon hunting. The extent to which the dogs are given characters and personalities in the book is not found in the movie, either. Billy's mother and father do translate fairly well from the book to the big screen, but the fact that the protagonist and his dogs do not is the major weakness of the film.

In closing, if you're a fan of the novel, then you should definitely watch this movie version, but don't expect it to be as good as the classic children's novel.