User reviews

Little House is my all time favorite show but it was also full of plot holes through the years. This movie was no exception. Originally airing after the official series ended, this is supposed to be a Christmas movie. They got Michael Landon to narrate but couldn't get him to make an appearance? The lack of familiar characters in this one is noticeable.

But so many plot holes:

A disturbed woman kidnaps toddler Rose but she goes willingly and never throws a fit? You'd think a child who is with her stay at home mom all the time would have a different reaction instead of just smiles all the time.

Mr. Edwards never apologizes nor do Laura and Almanzo blame him for anything. Also, why is he at the saloon if he no longer drinks?

Laura should have gotten angry sooner and shouldn't have let Almanzo off so easy.

1896? Wasn't Baby Boy Wilder born in 1889? Rose should be closer to 10.

Was that adoption even legal? And why didn't Laura and Almanzo consider adopting?

Anyway, it's a Christmas movie so of course there is a happy ending. But long time fans need to suspend some belief.

I watched little house since i wad a little girl and i still do. Me and my mom used to watch it together

Though Michael Landon explains in the beginning in a very poetic way why it is so warm at Christmas in Minnesota, it's still a little hard to believe. Why they let it be so warm - they didn't want to deal with snow and coats, perhaps? Finding Rose would be easier in unseasonably warm weather, and the Wilder's traveling to Walnut Grove would be a lot more convenient as well I suppose.

I'm not going to rehash the entire plot. I'm sure most have seen this episode or can read the main plot on IMDb for themselves. The happenings in Walnut Grove are believable (except for the afore mentioned missing snow and cold) But the happenings with Rose/Sam are a little bit unbelievable...

The fact they found Rose on such a wide prairie in itself was a bit unbelievable. But the conclusion was just downright bizarre! I will tell you that if someone took my child and took him to be their own, I wouldn't have just shrugged it off! I would have turned them into the law and let the law deal with it! And even back then, I seriously doubt they could just leave a orphan with a couple - especially someone who had just kidnapped a little girl!

The star and the "manger" was a bit over the top as well. I'm surprised they didn't find Rose that way! This has always left a sour taste in my stomach at the end....

I love little house on the prairie but this movie is too far fetched, I know Charles explains it as being a unusually warm winter but when you hear loud crickets on the night they are looking for Sam (The orphaned boy who is with them while they are looking for rose who was kidnapped) it's just crazy. We have yet to have winter crickets. Also they act like they must find the boy because it's gonna get colder that night and they show a steaming hot thermos in Edwards hand and the exhaling of their breath for the scene when they find the boy but you still hear the crickets and then the rest of the scenes no more breath being seen. Oh and another flaw before they found out the boy was with them they camped out one night and you can see the boy sleeping near Edwards then the next day Edwards find's him in stowed away in the wagon. Seeing as during the whole movie one of the adults had to be in the back of the wagon since three do not fit on a seat, they would have known he was with them on the first day.. Anyways still love little house but the writers were having an off day when they came up with this plot.

Michael Landon's opening narration ruins the whole movie. He quotes it's 1896 some nine years after he and the Ingalls family left Walnut Grove. Laura Ingalls daughter Rose should be 9 years old but she is still a toddler and the other children should be young adults. I know that this is before computers but still it is poor script management by the producers.