I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Having done quite a bit of research on the Ingalls family, I can't watch the TV series without being almost physically ill, Landon took so MANY liberties with the real story of the family. There were NO adopted siblings, no Albert (they couldn't afford to feed another mouth), but there was a baby boy who only lived approximately nine months."Pa" was a wanderer, and someone who wasn't really trustworthy, and "Ma" was indeed tired of pulling up stakes and moving AGAIN. Laura grew up to be an absolute shrew, Mary was NEVER a teacher, and also NEVER married. Laura was forced into teaching by her father, as the family was in dire straits by that time. I've seen this movie, and it's not bad.I'd strongly suggest that for REAL background on the series, read Alison Arngrim's excellent book "Confessions of a Prairie B****".

This could have been an AMAZING movie, using the real life of Laura to show that sometimes, even when you are a good, hard-working human being, life can still get you down. I've done a lot of research on Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder and I know their life was FAR from easy. So I was very excited to hear that this movie was coming out.And then I watched it.I can't even describe how mad I was. Right off the bat -- Laura did not have BLONDE HAIR. MARY had blonde hair and Laura had brown hair and that was part of Laura's characterization--from the childhood fights with Mary over who had the prettier hair to the ribbons they were allowed to wear on their braids to Laura gradually accepting that her hair was pretty in its own way. It's the pattern of many typical teen-aged girls, which helped readers relate to her. It's a huge part of who she is. If this were not a revered historical figure, obviously hair color would not matter. Couldn't they have at least dyed it? Geeze Louise!The acting was also pretty sub-par. I don't think Meredith Monroe was right for the part at all. When Laura was a child she was a bit mischievous and tomboyish, but as she grew up she matured and settled down. Monroe couldn't effectively capture that -- the spirit of a tomboy with a naughty streak encased in a (relatively) proper young lady. Laura was not a wild woman by any account, and though she usually spoke her mind, she didn't really defy social conventions of the time period in drastic ways. Monroe was too contemporary, for a movie that claimed to be historically accurate. She may be a good actress in other respects, but not in this movie.It was done sloppily all around. The way the Bouchies treated Laura, her courtship with Almanzo who was 10 years her senior, her feelings about teaching, the birth of her daughter and the loss of her son were all excellent chances to showcase that Laura's life at times could be pretty extraordinary. I gave it 2 stars because I liked the way they didn't skirt around Laura and Almanzo's relationship--I was always curious as to how their dynamic was, and the romance in the books was downplayed for children's sake. But the actors were just wrong, so the effect was not good.

Okay, this movie was absolutely horrible. I am a very loyal Laura Ingalls Wilder fan and I have read biographies about her and believe me almost NONE of this was factual. First off, Laura Ingalls Wilder was an obvious brunette and it was pointed out in almost every book. Even though she did not like some of the customs of ladies, she still followed those customs. Like, she even put her hair up! Plus, she was no where near ditzy. She was smart and sincere and very honest. Honestly, if I was going to make a movie based on this wonderful woman's life, I would be as loyal to it as possible! Another thing, Laura and Almanzo lost their second child about a few weeks after he was born, he was not stillborn. Furthermore, she did not have a passion for writing until she was much older. And the girls who played Laura's sisters were underplayed and her parents were not loveable like they were in the book. Laura did not truly love Almanzo Wilder until they became engaged actually. She liked him and admired him but she did not actually love him until they were engaged. Obviously the makers of this movie took some creative liberties with this movie, and I did not like them. Don't waste your time seeing this movie.

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?