My Antonia

This dramatization follows the novel faithfully, and is a tribute to its producers and to the cable network who aired it. Although Willa Cather had intended that her works not be filmed, I believe that she would have been proud of this production. Most persons agree that Antonia Shimerda is one of Cather's most memorable heroines. I found the casting for the role of Lena Lingard to be uncannily on target for Jim's sweetheart. Willa Cather stands alone, in my opinion, for her ability to create characters that you not only feel you know, but do not want to give up when you have finished the book. In my case, I choose to re-read them several times.

This film version (the only one for this book, as far as I know) is a good, though simple and very Hollywood-ized production of the Willa Cather classic. After enjoying the book, I was looking forward to the movie- but was disappointed. The filmmakers stayed mostly faithful to the novel, though the actors could have done better jobs. This is partly because of the script, however, and though it sticks to the main events in the novel, it just barely covers them. The setting is beautiful, and I agree that the Lena-portrayal was right on track. However, in the novel, there was no romance between Antonia and Jim, as is "started" in the movie. He loved her, but she always thought of him more as a brother than a beau, according to the book.

Overall, this film version was okay- but definitely not exceptional.

How many chances do you need? It seemed like Jimmy got so many possibilities, but he did not take any. I always thought/still think that true love is much stronger.

Overall the film was pretty disappointing. The aging process was like a bad comedy, no themes we have not seen before and the acting of most of them not catching. And why is a Rumanian girl pretending to speak czech, for Eastern countries this film is a joke! Only Jan Triska, the only real czech, shows how to speak the language. Was it so difficult to find native czech speakers, who was casting? But if you still decide to watch this film, the scenery is beautiful and Jason Robards sr. always a pleasure to watch.

Doogie Howser plays Doogie Howser if he were sent back 100 years to Nebraska. Not a flaw on him, body or soul. He falls for a poor immigrant girl, Antonia, who lives in a sod hut and whose father commits suicide. And he's always true to her in spirit, as she is true to him.

The story is a good one, and the setting is beautiful--actually filmed in Nebraska, it seems. The setting is also unique in that rarely are prairie stories filmed. There are no cowboys and Indians, and no canyons and buttes: it's just flat earth, and people growing wheat, wheat and more wheat. The woman playing Antonia (Elina Löwensohn) was exceptional, but the others all looked too Hollywood to be in 1880s Nebraska. The grandparents(Jason Robards & Eva-Marie Saint) just seemed to be in a Celebrex commercial rather than in an adaptation of a classic novel set in a long-ago time. And Doogie Howser was great to look at--no wonder he was so easy for the girls to love--but his whole character was too good to be true. Yet, the film delivers, even if it definitely has the feel of a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation. No swearin', no sex, even though it seems as though Antonia got herself employed at a whorehouse. I guess we're seeing it through Doogie's eyes, and to him she's just a waitress and a dime-a-dance girl.

I don't know if this has been made into a real movie, but it would be good to see it without the feel-good gloss. At least the ending is not the expected one.

In many ways a book can be made into an excellent film. This of course, was not one of those occasions. As boring as the book was, the film version was even worse. There were so many inaccuracies. So many in fact; I could not keep track of what was in the movie that was not in the book and vice versa. It was like a nightmare. First of all, the introduction in the book where we learned that Jim and the author met on a train out west was not in the film, so as a viewer, I was lost. Another thing I noticed right off was the fact that in the film, Jim's grandfather has no beard, yet in the book, Jim talks about his grandfather's long white beard. The storyline itself in the film was so far out of whack; it did not follow the book very well at all. There were points in the film that occurred before they did in the book, quite a lot of them. In the book, Jim's grandfather seems to be jovial, but in the film, he is shown to be a wretched old man. Also, in the book, when the reader learns about Pavel being hurt and his imminent death, the grandmother encourages Jimmy to go, as well as making sandwiches. In the film however, the grandfather tried to persuade Jimmy not to go. At Christmastime in the book, Antonia's father stays for dinner with the Burden's, but in the film, says he must leave, and does without eating. By this time, I was starting to wonder where Jack was at. He was nowhere to be found in the film. In the book though, he comes with Jim from Virginia. Towards the end of the film when Jim returns to visit Antonia and her husband and children, the narrator states that it has been fifteen years since he last saw her. In the book, the time between when Jim last saw Antonia and when he goes back is set at twenty years. The film could have been much better, but the quality shines through a television film and keeps on going, causing dullness. The acting was mediocre, both by Jason Robards and Neil Patrick Harris who I have seen much better work from. The scenery and cinematography of the film were most likely the best part.