Where the Red Fern Grows (2003)
Set in the Ozark Mountains during the Great Depression, Billy Coleman works hard and saves his earnings for 2 years to achieve his dream of buying two coonhound pups. He develops a new trust in God as he faces overwhelming challenges in adventure and tragedy roaming the river bottoms of Cherokee country with "Old Dan" and "Little Ann."
Watch Trailer
Free Trial Channels
Cast
Reviews
Highly Overrated But Still Good
good back-story, and good acting
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Well, in all truth, I rented this because of Dave Matthews, because I love his music. I didn't know what to expect. And while he was OK, and this is a star filled cast, I did not like the movie. Very cheesy, very boring. And everyone looked way too clean for an old Oklahoma farm family setting. Definitely not my cup of tea.
Normally when i see a movie after I've read the book, i'm usually disappointed because my imagination is usually bigger than what they can put on the screen with time limitations and budgets - but not this movie. The minute i started watching this movie i was hooked. I haven't read the book in years, but I've read the book at least two or three times, and this movie brought back some great memories, and certain parts of the movie was almost exactly like i imagined (especially the coon contest).Set in the Ozarks in the 1930's, this movie shows what kids did before computers, cell phones and video games. It also shows that life is very fragile, with Rubin Pritchard dying by simply trying to break up a dog fight and falling on his hatchet. But overall this is a feel good movie for the whole family, even though both dogs die in the end - it ends nicely with a nice montage of Billy Coleman and his dogs, and knowing that Dan and Lil' Ann will live for eternity through the book, this movie and where the red fern grows.
After watching this movie I only have one question: why did they make it again?...Seriously, this movie is identical to the 1974 version, and its not as if its challenging movie as far as effects go so there wasn't even the excuse of remaking because the technology had improved. Also The actor who played the main character was just awful, and Dave Mathews.... What was he doing in this movie?Definitely left me shaking my head. It amazes me that films that are this useless can still get the green light. I think of how many people had to read this script before it was filmed and say "yeah that sounds like a great movie, we have a lot to add on the 1974 version" its almost comical... I give it 1 out of 10.
The problem with this movie is the pacing. I was, perhaps foolishly, anticipating something grand when I rented the DVD, since I love the book and quite liked the original 1974 film. I had been told that the 2003 remake was accurate to Wilson Rawls' novel. Strictly speaking, this is true, but therein lies it's downfall.Movies adapted from books often have to have sections removed or characters cut because, unlike films, no book is designed to be enjoyed in a single sitting. In this movie the acting is beyond hurried as people race through their lines, desperate to include every utterance of the novel in less than two hours. The results are dismal. The only time I've seen worse butchery of a good novel was the atrocious movie version of "The Hotel New Hampshire" by John Irving.If you love the book, read the book; or maybe get nostalgic and rent the original. Don't rent this version unless you just need something, anything, to sit some kids in front of for an afternoon while you balance your checkbook.