La véritable histoire de Laura Ingalls

When I saw the previews for this movie, I thought "Good they are making a movie about one of the greatest authors." When I watched it I thought "True? Which part is true?"

First off the girl looked nothing like Laura. She was blonde and reminded me of Mary. I mean, she would have done well for married Laura, but they had her portraying Laura when she was 14 years old. Not many people in the mid-twenties can do that. And she wasn't feisty like Laura. Melissa Gilbert did a terrific job as Laura.

And where was the Nellie character? I mean, they put in some girl named Patsy. And you hardly even knew Laura had sisters. I mean in the TV series they had Laura interacting with her sisters, but in this movie it was like that they didn't matter.

And now, I hear, they are making another one. Beyond the Prairie: The True Story of Laura Ingalls Wilder 2.

If they do, I hope it's better than the first one. And more truthful.

To say that this is the "True" story of Laura Ingalls Wilder is stretching it a bit. The story is more true to her real life (or at least her version of it) than the TV series ever was, but it doesn't quite get there.

Richard Thomas as Pa however is much better than Michael Landon and more true to the character portrayed in the books. Lindsay Crouse also does a credible job as Ma. The only thing that I would disagree with is the writer's insistance that Charles' wanderlust was a sticking point in their marriage so much so that Caroline couldn't contain her bitterness. While it was an issue in their lives, Ma has never been portrayed as being bitter and she and Pa would have never have been so out of control about it that they would air their grievances in front of the girls.

Oddly enough the girl playing Laura resembles illustrator Garth Williams' depiction of her in the book series. Meredith Monroe is charming, but some times her performance seems a little too quiet.

Unfortunately the modern world begins to intrude here and the innocence of the books seems to have been lost to make the story more interesting. Also there is a great deal that is left out for the simplification of the story. Characters that contribute to forming the Laura that eventually becomes attractive to Almanzo.

In addition, the beautifully innocent courtship that is portrayed in the books seems to be a little muddled here in the movie. While on the one hand, Almanzo has to be asked to kiss Laura after they become engaged on the other he can't wait to get her in bed once they get married.

All in all, to me, it is a more serious endeavor to portray the books. It will be interesting to see what the rumored version for the big screen to be written by Horton Foote will bring

Saying this movie is more true than the TV series is like saying a tiger is a better pet than a lion. Neither of them make good pets, regardless.

I enjoyed the fact that some of the details were not overlooked. Pa (well played by Richard Thomas) had a beard and played the violin. However, I was disappointed in the script overall.

One of my favorite parts of the Little House series is the confrontation between Laura and her future sister-in-law, Eliza Jane Wilder. I also disliked the way Laura was forced into teaching by her father. This is how Laura told the story in any of her books. Another irritating point, Almanzo Wilder had a matched pair of Morgans. Skip and Barnum came later. Laura did not nearly break her engagement because she wanted to travel.

Like many movies these days, The Powers That Be were determined to re-write history and place feminists in roles. I recall nothing in the book that has Caroline Ingalls going off on Charles about wanting to move further west. I recall nothing about Laura Ingalls wanting to consumate her marriage in an abandoned homesite out in the open. This film couldn't even keep Laura in a sun bonnet, placing her instead in a beat up man's hat that looked like something Indiana Jones threw out.

I wouldn't have this big of a problem with the movie if it did not claim to be the "true" story. I had no problem with the flights of fancy the TV show took because it only claimed to be based on the life and works of Laura Ingalls. But if you claim it is the "true" story, then make it the true story. Or don't do it.

First and Formost I feel I have the right to comment on this movie as someone who once when she was 10 almost got the tour guide fired from the Farmer Boy Museum because I knew more about the house then the tour guide did.

I have to say the writers and the directors of this film did a horrible job. A lot of things in this movie really just tick me off, for starters in the beginning when they were searching for the lost children in the storm, they found one of the children with a baby whom was still alive and it made me wonder, why in the world would someone have a baby outside in a snow storm?! it just doesn't make sense to me. They also showed during the snowstorm that the teacher was Almanzo's sister Eliza Jane Wilder which also in fact is wrong because she didn't on appear until after all of the blizzards. *They had a Redheaded Mary when in fact Mary had Blonde hair *The Laura they cast did a horrible job, she's not a great actress to begin with and she also had blonde hair when laura had brown. *The hail storm wasn't even close to looking realistic *They had a brown haired Grace, when really Grace had blonde hair. *In one scene Almanzo mentioned going with his brother Royal to visit there parents in New York, however when Almanzo was 18 his family moved to Spring Valley, Minnesota. At that time Laura was only 8. *The said Laura's teaching Job was 30 miles away when in fact it was only 12

There is so much more but I don't want to run out of space, however I would like to say that truly the little things do count and had they fixed these problems along with the others this movie would have been much more enjoyable.

As an avid Laura Ingalls Wilder fan for many years, I really looked forward to this "true story". Within minutes I was deflated. While some of the performances were good, I could not believe how the writers took license with the real facts; it makes one wonder if they ever read any of Laura's books.

Setting the tone for the distortion was the incident depicting Pa and Laura coming across a house under construction where Laura finds an envelope marked "Almanzo" in the pocket of a man's coat and proceeds to dreamily repeat his name. This incident was not only schmaltzy, but totally fictional. In "The Long Winter," Laura describes her first encounter with Almanzo, but does not mention him by name. She was 14 (he was 10 years her senior) when she and Carrie became lost in the Big Slough and accidentally stumbled into his hayfield. Later in the same book Laura describes the horrid blizzard season and tells of Almanzo's and Cap Garland's brave quest for the wheat; however, the depiction of the exchange of romantic looks between them upon his return is again inaccurate. Almanzo did not seriously show an interest in her for another couple of years, which she describes in "Little Town on the Prairie" and "These Happy Golden Years."

I also had a problem with Laura being presented as a blonde. Throughout her books she mentions her envy of her sister Mary's beautiful golden hair while disparaging her own plain brown locks. Yet the producers chose to make Mary a redhead in addition to changing Laura's hair. While on the subject of hair, I doubt that Laura went around most of the time with her hair hanging loose and unkempt. While she was inwardly in many ways a free spirit, she still adhered to the way young ladies were expected to appear in that era; in fact, she describes in her books the painstaking efforts to use the curling iron and cutting bangs to make her appear more stylish.

It was also disappointing that the makers of this film did not focus on the uniqueness of the relationships among the entire Ingalls family, which again Laura described so lovingly. Instead they chose to depict a sharp altercation between Ma and Pa about moving West again. The writers should have placed more emphasis on the closeness between Laura and Mary, especially after Mary became blind, and also on how well Mary did after attending a college for the blind; she, too, was a special person.

If the producers of this film had enough respect for Laura to want to tell her story, then they should have respected what she wrote. Their choosing not to do so smacks of commercialism. Perhaps they could not believe that such good (though not "goody goodies") people actually existed and that the viewers would not care to watch. Then why bother?