Katherine Heigl is beautiful. She's also developing as an actress. In Love Comes Softly she demonstrates a wider acting range than she ever showed in Roswell. With a great script she could do wonders.
The intent of the makers of this movie was obviously was to make a movie that would be morally uplifting, wholesome, and inspiring. But it demonstrates Hollywood's willingness to make movies with implausible premises, carelessly sketched and implausible settings, and unexplained inconsistencies. It was full of errors.
Heigl's character Marty is recently married, recently widowed, and recently arrived in the old West from an East Coast city. She needs a way to survive the winter (too late to make her way all the way East before winter sets in) and therefore makes a platonic marriage with a fellow named Clark (played by Dale Midkiff who used to play Darien Lambert the time travelling future cop sent to hunt down escape criminals from the future in the science fiction TV series Time Trax) who has lost his own wife a couple of years previously and wants Marty's help teaching his daughter Missy over the coming winter. Well, why the need for the platonic marriage if she's just going to live on his farm and take care of his daughter for the winter? The old West was not that proper. Also, a platonic fake marriage seems disrespectful of the institution of marriage and therefore seemingly defeats the purpose of the filmmakers to be morally inspiring. So this basic premise doesn't seem plausible or wise.
The platonic marriage premise is at least debatable. But there are aspects of the farm setting that are totally unreasonable. Where to start? Well, Marty supposedly shows up at Clark's farm in the fall. So then why do we see her watching Clark out the window tilling the ground behind a horse if its the fall? What's the point of tilling some bare ground at that point? Certainly not to plant a new crop. So what's he doing?
Also, what kind of farm ranch does Clark have? Its not clear from the scenes how he could feed himself and his daughter from that piece of land. There's no obvious area where he's been planting grain crops that looks large enough to grow enough food to make the famr viable. Also, there's not a big fenced in area where he could have a lot of cows or sheep grazing and he doesn't have a lot of cows or any sheep. So how does the farm support Clark and his daughter Missy and how did it also support his late wife?
A serious farmer wouldn't build a chicken coop building with such large gaps between the wall planks. The chickens would need better protection from the elements during the winter. Also, rain could blow thru them in storms.
In one scene meant to demonstrate Marty's lack of skills as a cook Marty walks across the room to put a log in the fire and leaves the stove to do so. In that scene how can the pancakes on the stove start burning in less than 15 seconds? Also, why is she cooking pancakes for supper? Also, why does Clark respond to the burnt pancakes by saying "I'll see what we got for supper in the ice box."? What ice box? There's no electricity. There's no ice. Its still the fall and not yet cold enough.
Its not that hard to catch a chicken in a small coop. Also, when she walks away with a chicken with a freshly cut off head the chicken's body is not twitching and there is no blood dripping out of the neck. That't not plausible. Though its amazing that a newly made movie would come so close to showing a chicken getting killed for eating.
Early on Clark tells her he's moving his stuff out to sleep in a lean-to. But when he comes in while she's bathing the building he exits which must be where he's sleeping is not a lean-to. But in the first place, why doesn't he just move out of the bedroom and sleep in the main room which has a fireplace and stove heat? After all, some other building would be way colder in the depth of winter.
There's a scene where Marty goes after a horse that has gotten loose. She catches the horse quickly because it does not run from her. She was not that far from the house when she saw the horse. The horse was not that far from here when she saw it. At the same time, when she saw it Clark was further from the house than she was. So how does she get caught out in a blizzard unable to find her way back? If there had been a real blizzard starting she could have started running back to the house with the horse. Also, it would not have been that hard for Clark to lead her back to the house once he found her with the horse because she was down the hill from the house. But how'd he even know which direction to go in to find her in the first place? Also, when he carried her back why didn't he put her on the horse and walk the horse back with them? And the next morning why did he say "A man loses a horse, he goes after it. Its as simple as that"? She was a woman who went after the horse.
The scene where Marty has a baby is not well timed. When Missy hears the baby start crying right after birth and she immediately goes into the room Marty is already sitting up smiling, covered in blankets, and holding the baby well bundled up after having a natural delivery with no pain killers. There was not enough time gone by to show her that way.
After the barn fire the remaining wood did not look partially burnt. It looked like regular wood with blackening added to it.
The final sequence has Clark galloping after her as she's riding away on a wagon train back east. There are problems with this sequence as well. First of all, why would travel across the old West in such sparsely populated areas have used multiple wagons in a train? Wouldn't one expect that for east bound traffic there'd be at most one stage coach moving by itself? Also, why were the passengers travelling in a covered wagon rather than in a stage coach? Did covered wagons get used for transportation for people who were not settlers headed outward?
But the worst of the sloppy writing comes at the end. Clark rode out after her with just his horse. But they return together to the farm with two horses pulling a wagon. Where'd the other horse and the wagon come from?
This movie is a human relationship story of hard living in the old West. The main characters are all morally good people. What is surprising is the portrayal of the religious faith of Clark. It is not trite and it comes up repeatedly in subtle and convincing ways. The story has no surprising plot twists. Its all fairly predictable.
Why don't movie makers try to make stories that make more sense? This was a made-for-cable movie. Therefore some of this story makes little sense because it must have been pretty low budget and they had to use what setting they could find to use easily. But other aspects of the movie are just plain sloppy.
Posted by Randall Parker at April 14, 2003 01:07 AMI think that Randal Parker's review of Love Comes Softly is not only wrong but he quite obviously took petty details from the movie that WOULD make sense back in the old west and put them into our time to come up with a bad review that seemingly took him five seconds to write. If he had sat down and looked up the true aspects behind the things he was protesting about, then perhaps he could write an actual validated review backing up his points of view with facts rather than his own personal opinion.
One of the first things he points out is Marty and Clark's platonic marriage. Yes, it was nessecary for these two to be married. You see, if Marty wasn't married to Clark and living in his house, her image and reputation would be tarnished as word and rumors spread turning her into a "loose woman" "sharing a bed" with an unmarried man. True, they were in two separate rooms, but it still brings out suspicion. Yes, this WAS done when a man and woman lived together back then, for this reason- so her reputation would not be damaged by her staying with the man whom was not a relative. In the book, Ma Graham explains how she did the same thing with Ben Graham- married platonically, not out of love.
Parker complained about Marty's making pancakes for supper. If he would have actually understood the movie and storyline, he would have known why. Marty only knew how to cook pancakes well. When she and her late husband Clem were out on the range in a wagon, neither of them minded. She was a city girl off on her own and they both ate pancakes all the time because she figured she'd learn how to cook well once they were settled in their new homestead. When she unexpecedly moves in with Clark, she is embarrassed by the fact that she only knows how to make pancakes, and he says nothing bad about it concerned about hurting her feelings.
Another point that Mr. Parker just couldn't get is how Clark found Marty in the blizzard. Well, if you noticed, they had a dog. Dogs are amazing at leading you to people and back home in a blizzard storm, anyone whom lives on a farm knows this. It's likely that he found her because they owned this reliable dog.
Parker just couldn't understand either why when Clark rode out after Marty on one horse they rode back with two. Well, if he understood the notion of GRAVITY, two horses pulling a heavy wagon doesn't move as fast as one horse just holding the weight of one man. It is likely that Clark left the wagon in town and rode after Marty. After all, the two of them riding back on one horse alone would not only been unpractical for the poor horse who just ran after a wagon train, but it may have seemed cheesy and given Mr. Parker another petty point to criticize.
Yes, this film was probably low budget. The scenery may not be up to par, and the special effects may be at the 90s level rather than the modern-day level, but the story behind this movie and the hardships that Marty faced make up for this 500%.
I disagree with Parker's review. I know that you have to look past the cost of the film and look to the message of it, the moral strength that the film has in it. If Parker doesn't see this, perhaps he should stop being a critic.
And for all those who had questions after the movie, read the book! Love Comes Softly is a book by Janette Oke, an eight-part series. All of the eight books are beautifully written. The first time I read them, I just kept going through the series. Oke did a beautiful job of portraying the lives of the Davis family.
Hopefully this gave some people more insight to the movie, and hopefully, Mr. Parker, you will stop judging a movie by it's cover.
Posted by: Dana on June 18, 2003 05:38 AMI agree with what you said Dana.
Posted by: Karen on November 29, 2003 07:48 PMAlso disagree with the first review...I'm so glad to see a decent movie produced. For some reason, this "sappy" movie gave Hallmark some of the highest ratings they've ever gotten. Also, about the fall plowing--if you'd know anything about farming, this scene is certainly plausible. It's called getting ready for winter, Mr. Parker. The first winter precip. soaks into the freshly furrowed ground much better, and is easier to plow up in the spring, than hard-packed earth. For someone so bent on finding implausibility, I find it hilarious that you would even consider watching "Roswell."
Posted by: Kay on December 2, 2003 06:13 PMI missed the ending when the movie showed on
the Hallmark Channel. I would like to see it
again. I thought it was a very touching movie,
especially the relationship between the daughter and step mom
I thought the movie was a very good wholesome movie and the movie was very touching to me i've gotten to read alot of the book's and i thought it was very true to the book's hallmark did a good thing when they played that movie on air
Posted by: Kate on January 1, 2004 02:49 PMOBVIOUSLY R. PARKER MISSED THE WHOLE POINT.
HOW SAD.
I agree that the review by Mr. Parker is a bunch of garbage from someone who has nothing better to do than cut up a wonderful movie. I have also read the whole series of books by Oake and loved every one of them. I am constantly looking on T.V. for reruns of the movie so I can watch it over and over again. The only thing that confused me about the movie was the age of Missy, in the book she was very little, and in the movie she was more along the lines of a 10yr old.
Posted by: Micki on February 13, 2004 01:04 AMMy husband and I were so touched by the movie. I know this was not a high budget film; however, there were so many wonderful points made, that it was totally refreshing. Would be interested in knowing what other films are available by this production company.
Posted by: Wanda Caulk on February 15, 2004 11:30 AMMy husband and I watched "Love Come Softly" Saturday night. I was wonderful. I wish there were more movies like this.
Posted by: Marlene Hunter on February 16, 2004 09:35 AMMy husband and I watched "Love Come Softly" Saturday night. It was wonderful. I wish there were more movies like this.
Posted by: Marlene Hunter on February 16, 2004 09:36 AMAnother point lost on Randall Parker...there would indeed have been that many wagons in the "wagon train", that's why it's called a "train". Anyone who wanted to travel in the Old West would have waited for one of these "trains" to come through, for safety and for guidance (no road signs!). That's why Marty couldn't just take the wagon and haul off by herself. It would be ridiculous for these people to travel in stagecoaches--where would they keep all their belongings that they were taking back East? Of course they needed covered wagons. Marty was only able to share a wagon with someone else because all her possessions had been lost in the fire. Anyone who knows anything about the Old West would understand this immediately.
Yes, some of the story was a bit choppy because it's hard to portray a whole book in a 2-hour made-for-TV movie. But overall it was a wonderful movie, good for the whole family and I will be watching it again. If some parts confused you, read the book! I particularly liked that they left in the "Marty only cooking pancakes" part.
Posted by: Adana Robinson on February 20, 2004 07:09 AMI watched the movie and I loved it,I must have I watched it about 5 times,I couldn't get enough of it.Each time it was on I made sure I watched it.Where I was, they had it on T.V. at least twice a week.I sure wish I can buy it,would you know where a person can find it on tape?I live in Alberta.
Posted by: Angela Russell on April 2, 2004 06:00 PMWhere do I begin. This is a wonderful story. I taped it and have watched it over and over. I'm embarrassed to say how many times I watched it. It's refreshing to watch a peaceful and holsome story like this.The story is so delightful that I don't mind the holes that other's see in it. Things would be a lot better in this world if we would only see the good positive things in a story rather than looking for negative things.
Posted by: Dianna Caldwell on May 17, 2004 08:26 AMI enjoyed 'Love comes softly'. It is refreshing and morally uplifting.It's so different from the usual infatuation-lust-sex we are bombarded with in most movies. There's an innocence portrayed in that period that I have missed so much in recent movies. This movie makes us see love in a different and it also makes you re-think conceptions of romance. Grief is portrayed so well by Katherine Heigl(Marty). Dale Midkiff's portrayal of Clark is impressive. To me, Clark is the decent and God-fearing kind of man I haven't seen in movies for a long time.
Posted by: Ayo Lawal on May 27, 2004 05:13 PMLove Comes Softly airs on Monday night (7/12/04) on the Hallmark channel. Check your listings for the time in your area. :)
Posted by: Monet on July 6, 2004 11:50 AMIt sound to me like Mr. Parker doesn't apperatiate a good movie that meant to show how two people who are thrown together for help and safty can overcome many hardships to find love. I loved the movie and I have read the whole sereis and I'm impressed at the job done on the movie
Posted by: Dee dee Simmons on July 13, 2004 11:36 AMAmazingly the original review makes one comment about Clark's faith. And that's the one redeeming statement of the entire critique.
The story is not about any preceived lame locational props and errors. The story is about the heart and how God weaves lives together for His purposes. It's about giving God the glory for the things He has done.
Sorry, Mr Parker...you must have missed the entire message behind the author's story.
Posted by: Mrs B on July 15, 2004 11:31 AMWhere can I purchase the Love Comes Softly series?
Posted by: Cindy on July 25, 2004 03:21 PMI have watched Loves Comes Softly over and over again. You see, I did not notice any of the "flaws" that Mr. Parker pointed out. I guess I was too caught up in the real meaning of the movie. It was wonderful to see a movie with the values and virtues shown as it was in Love Comes Softly. Rarely do you see that these days. If those of you who want to purchase the movie will go to Katherine Zeigl's website, it will show you that the movie should be for sale in September. They had such a demand for the movie, that they have decided to make it available for purchase. So you see Mr. Parker....of everyone that I know who has seen the movie, you are the only one with ANY negative remarks. Just doesn't sound like your type of movie.
Posted by: Sherry on September 1, 2004 12:05 PMthat scene where marty has a run-in with a skunk and missy has to give her a tomatoe soup bath that was priceless it was like she was going threw a hazing especialy with the missy character eventualy marty becomes a mother figure to little girl missy it has shades of "LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRARIE"
Posted by: art on September 17, 2004 01:48 PMa person can also take the "SKUNK"_-"SCENE" two ways it is also ignominous that you would get sprayed by a skunk and a child would give you a tomatoe soup bath but then marty was a city girl and missy was a farm girl
Posted by: art on September 18, 2004 09:59 AMI saw the DVD available to buy at a local store and it looked good, so I looked it up online to see the reviews. I am now planning on buying it. thankyou!
Posted by: Janan Welch on October 9, 2004 03:40 PMWhat a wonderful movie!!! I had read the whole series back in the 90's and loved them so much. They were the best books I had ever read and now to have Love Comes Softly on a DVD. The first night I got it I watched it 2 times in a row. It is so nice to get to enjoy such a decent, wholesome movie. I hope to see the rest of the series out. Thanks again for producing something that all members of the family can enjoy with out sex scenes or bad language.
Posted by: Jan Campbell on October 9, 2004 08:25 PMWell now lets not be to hard on Mr. Parker after all the movies Hollywood puts out are certainly believable, you know like supped up cars jumping open bridges, people getting hit 20 time in a kung fu fight and not getting hurt and of course falling off of building and being hit by cars only to shake them selves and keep on going! That is just sooo real!
I will say that if you really want to get the whole picture of the Davis' you need to read the whole series they are wonderful. I do hope to see more of them on the screen, then I won't have to use my G box.
I just watched this movie for the first time (I'm without cable) and I have to say that this Parker person needs to watch the movie without a critical eye. It's heartfelt and warming. It's nice not having a movie full of profanity, woman wearing skimpy clothes and men who aren't men. I've always like Dale Midkiff and he plays this part very well. I would have liked to seen what happens next. And when someone on here said Little House on the Prarie ...thats what I kept thinking during the movie... it reminds me of those same morals. I'm not that old (28) and I can't believe the drival that is on TV today. Instead of wholesome shows like Little House they have "road rules" or wardrobe malfunctions. It would be nice to see more films and series like this.
Posted by: Tina on November 17, 2004 12:10 AMThoroughly entertaining film. It was not perfect but then few films are, however it was certainly a cut above 99% of the Television programs on TV today.
Katherine Heigl is a truly wonderful actress and an extraordinarily beautiful woman.
Posted by: Eric Richards on December 31, 2004 03:28 AMGreat movie. It is so difficult to find a movie today that the entire family can sit together and watch. Our little ones call it family night. We would recommend this movie to everyone.
Posted by: Toby & Leslie on March 16, 2005 06:49 AMMy Husband and I just purchased the second movie, Love's Eduring Promise and we love it. We hope they will make a third. I haven't read the corresponding books but have read many Christian romance novels. Walmart is selling both movies at a steal!!! 10.00 for a wholesome movie is like a breath of fresh air. Hope all of you will enjoy this as much as us.
Posted by: Tina & Brian Desjardins on April 2, 2005 08:20 PM"But how'd he even know which direction to go in to find her in the first place? Also, when he carried her back why didn't he put her on the horse and walk the horse back with them? And the next morning why did he say "A man loses a horse, he goes after it. Its as simple as that"? She was a woman who went after the horse."
I just watched this for the second time last night since I bought it on DVD, and I think this is pretty self-evident. Marty seeing the horse reminded her of Aaron's death and made her question him going after the horse, which lead to his death. In essence, in her grief, she was angry with him (one of the stages of grief). Clark understood her question perfectly.
Posted by: Barbara on May 17, 2005 06:48 AMI loved this movie. It was so refreshing and touched me beyond explanation. My husband who is not a movie buff, and is very nit-picky, even thought it was touching and had a message. I can't wait for the other movies to be made! I am also a new fan of Katherine Heigl and Dale Midkiff...wonderful actors, who brought these characters to life!
Posted by: Karen on May 23, 2005 10:24 AMLoved this story.
I rented it and watched it over and over, then bought it.
I had no problem with the story line. It was a wonderfully
beautiful story.
My most favorite part was where Marty pushes Clark down and he takes off chasing her. Tickling her and the laughter is so sweet, he almost got a kiss. And the part where Clark goes after her, after he found the letter. This was my kind of movie.
Just loved it!
I thought the movie was worth watching...I recorded it, so I could enjoy watching it again. Let me say, that even in in 1950's houses in some communities looked just like that. I know because I live in one that did notlook that good.Also, on just a small piece of land, we had pigs, chickens & several cows, & a horse. The ice box was a cellar that most homes had. This would keep apples, pears some garden veggies good until mid winter. Most of the other foods were canned in jars. The pancakes...well this was good for breakfast, but also used as a different way to have bread with a meal...such as fried corn bread?
I am spoiled now to the modern world. After seeing this movie it brought back memories...even in the 1950"s...times had not change that much from where I came from. They were good times.
wonderful movies.such a refreshing blessing to see compassion and concern from Clark in his eyes and voice when he first met marty. no sex scenes! wonderful. A God fearing man .. espousing the quality of the Lord to Marty. .watched it several times and will again. .
This is the second time I've watched this movie, and both times I cried like a baby at the end.
I can see the reviewers points. From a pure cinamatic standpoint this isn't a great movie. But it is a GREAT STORY. Casabalanca is pretty silly if you watch it with a critical eye. The plane taking off at the end looks like 4th grade diarama. But like this "Come Softly," Casablanca's story draws you in, and touches your emotions.
I'm no prude. I watch plenty of R rated movies, and plenty of cutting edge TV (South Park, Desperate Housewives, etc.). This movie is not meant to shock, or even make you think out of the box. It is a simple love story, with a wonderful message about why we have faith, regardless of our circumstances. I'd love to know what Hallmarks ratings were when they showed this originally. I'm betting they did very well, and I'm also betting that the creative dopes in Hollywood have missed another opportunity to capture a viewing audience desperate for programing with high morals.
Posted by: Dan on October 17, 2005 08:17 PMI watch this great story with my 10 years old niece and we immersely loves it. She's rooting for the Missy to call her step-mom , Mommy.
I cried watching how happy Marty was seeing Clark came for dinner , smilling , thinking that Clark had read the letter she left by his bedside table & expecting him to say 'Please stay coz love with you too". She waited and waited with the book upside down, that word never came. Katherine expression really have me cried like a baby. And in town when Marty bid farewell to Missy, oh boy. These two really into their role. So do Dale. Thank you Hallmark.
My college friends and I sat down and watched love comes softly today. I was amazing to be able to watch a movie that surpasses the values and culture of movies today. It was great! We didn't have to worry about sex scenes or bad language. Amazing movie :)
Posted by: Kesha on November 21, 2005 12:23 AMMy college friends and I sat down and watched love comes softly today. I was amazing to be able to watch a movie that surpasses the values and culture of movies today. It was great! We didn't have to worry about sex scenes or bad language. Amazing movie :)
Posted by: Kesha on November 21, 2005 12:23 AMMy college friends and I sat down and watched love comes softly today. I was amazing to be able to watch a movie that surpasses the values and culture of movies today. It was great! We didn't have to worry about sex scenes or bad language. Amazing movie :)
Posted by: Kesha on November 21, 2005 12:23 AMi was curious about what is the breed of the dog "Buddy"
Posted by: diane on November 29, 2005 07:54 PMMr. Parker, First of all it did say that Marty and Aaaron were recently married, marty tells you that they had been traveling for a year in the movie, which means that they arrived in June to their destination, so flowers would have been in bloom, It was a platonic marriage because she had just lost her husband, and there is a certain time that was expected for grieving, platonic marriages back then were not uncommon and WERE NOT FAKE. I do believe that the filmakers were morally inspiring no matter what you think. and like you said clark would be tilling the ground for planting at that time of yearfor their garden, and back then there was wild grain all over the fields, which they didn'tharvest until it seeded, they kept the seeds in the barn for feed for the animals and for food for bread and such.if fact where clark prays overlooks fields of wild grain, of course to you it probably liked like grass, duh.In the snow blizzard, clark goes along the fence to find marty, which you odviously didn't notice and they had only one cow, that they kept and used for milk and would sell the calves to get money, and incase you don't understand how one cow could have calves, normally you would take your heifer to the nieghbor's bull, etc. then bring it home.I think you can figure out the rest.As for the chicken coop building, they were built that way on purpose, so that during the warm season, the chickens would'nt get too hot and stop laying eggs and then in the winter months, planks were nailed to the inside of the coop over the spaces to keep the chickens warm during the winter, Marty's lack of skills in the kitchen was that she didn't know how to make anything but pancakes, until she read the cookbook for chicken recipes. an Ice box was a term they used for the small ice cabinets they had back then, which was a wooden box that had blocks of ice put in it to keep things cold, Do you know anything about the old west or of history? You were right about the chicken body, when marty's baby was born, and the burnt barn remains, but on the sleeping arangments, in today's world, sleeping in the main room of the house would make sense, no matter what the circumstances, but back then, if she was grieving for her husband, and they were married right aftrwards , he had to sleep in a seperate building until she was done grieving.In the horse and blizzard scenes, you must have not understood what was going on, first of all, it was aaron's horse that she saw, and being in the state she was in, she lost her head and was unable to move, secondly, when you were in a blizzard back then, it excelerated very quickly, so you could not be able to see very far in a matter of minutes, clark was far from the house on his hill praying and marty found the horse close to where clark was except down the hill from him. he left as soon as he saw the snow start but marty being all tramitized would have gottencaught in the snow before realizing how bad it was going to get, so that's why he got to the house and she didn't, also during a blizzard, because there is no visability to see, a horse will not budge, and if clark would have used the horse it probably would have bucked marty off.When Clark said"A man loses his horse, he goes after it, it's as simple as that" he was repling to Marty saying, "Aaron, he should'nt have gone after the horse" (you know when he died, hitting his head on the rock). finally to answer your question about the covered wagons, they were multiple people, who always decided not to stay in the west after a hard winter there, and would leave in the spring to go back East again, and by traveling together, the wagons would make a circle at night to protect themselves from indian attacks. and because of the chance of attacks, there were only certain areas in the west that used stage coaches, the widely unpopulated area of the west, like the areas in this movie, didn't use them because of the chance of indian attacks,next time you decide to watch a movie like "love comes softly' maybe you'll be able to understand the reasoning behind the storyand also understand its HISTORY!
Posted by: Tracy Zimmerman on January 13, 2006 03:51 PMWhen Clark sing ..anybody know the song??? Please help
Posted by: Eva Torok on March 1, 2006 08:50 AMThe song was an old hymn, "Come Thou Fount".
Posted by: Jane Smith on March 1, 2006 11:31 AMThank you Jane
Posted by: Eva Torok on March 7, 2006 08:33 AMI think the reviewer was right; anyone who has actually planted crops or even read about history would know that the movie is bogus. The only people who are critical of this review seem to be Christian fundamentalists. But these are like Islamic fundamentalists. You could make a movie about early times in Saudi Arabia or North Africa and miss all the historical facts, but as long as you got the "feelings" and the "religious fervor" down pat, the Islamics wouldn't have a problem with the film. Some of us have a higher standard of film making however. We want to see a historical period depicted accurately. If the facts are sloppy like they were in this film, it just makes it harder to get the message that the film is trying to say. If there are any intelligent people out there who have even half a rational brain and aren't bogged down by religious dogma to the point of throwing facts out the window, a much better film is "The New Land" starring Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman, about Swedish immigrants to the Minnesota Territory in the 1850s. It came out in 1973, and it was much more accurate, down to the use of oxen to pull the wagons and do most of the heavy work, which is what my ancestors used when they helped found this country. They certainly didn't just rely on horses!
Posted by: Warren on April 25, 2006 12:19 PMI have watched this film over 50 times, and as a Christian I am touched by the Christian morals and values this film portrays..Also Gods Love!!!..After watching this film the first time, It gave me the structure for my sermon on Why do bad things Happen and how God moves at those times..Even if this was a low budget film, the morals and values were not!! This film I have to say has spoken to many through my sermon.If I may add? Dont look at the faults, or the structure on historical events, look more deeply into the moral aspect of the film and feel the Love of God come alive.
Posted by: Jean on September 16, 2006 10:33 AMColeridge once stated that the role of the reader (or audience) in appreciating any work of fiction is to willingly suspend disbelief so that the illusion of reality would prevail, thus allowing the reader to be entertained without worrying too much about the plausibility of the storyline. Most films must be enjoyed in this manner. The setting is not the most important aspect of this film--it really could take place anywhere at any time. The characters are the driving force here, as is the underlying theme of faith in God no matter what circumstances may come your way. I understand the difficulty some may have with certain incongruities in the film, but the overall proof of the value of this film is the answer to the questions: "Were you entertained?" and perhaps, "Did the message in this film change you for the better?"
Now in regards to a film like "The New Land," which happens to be one of my favourites since my ancestors were Swedish and came over to the US at about that time, the setting is extremely important as it is also making social commentary. The characters are driven by social forces that are in effect at the time, and are forced to adapt despite the oftentimes unjust circumstances. If events were portrayed inaccurately, the integrity of the film would be compromised. "Love Comes Softly" is a completely different genre, more of a light-hearted romance story than an historical drama, and appeals to a much broader audience. I love this film for the truth of its message and the hope it inspires in those of us who have suffered loss. This is an upfront, no surprises kind of film--a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) if you will. Dramas like "The New Land," which are making social commentary, are much more subversive and satirical because they have to be. It's difficult to get away with satirising a country's policies in an open manner. People just won't accept it.
I take some umbrage with the statement that those who disagree with the initial review are somehow like Islamic fundamentalists. There was the suggestion that Muslims would enjoy any film, no matter how inaccurate, so long as it maintained a "religious fervour" or "feeling." Well, this is true of everyone, not just religious groups. I'm sorry, but the majority of "historical" films are biased in favour of someone's opinion on what happened, and almost all have a political, religious, or philosophical agenda. And "feelings" are the stuff of films! Otherwise--what's the point? If you're going to the movies to get a history lesson--you're making a grievous error!
The truth is, this film is not for everyone. If it's not your cup of tea, move on. It entertained most people who have a Christian sensibility, and it brought hope and inspiration to many. Pretty good, I say, for a film with a low budget and small cast. I, for one, will keep this as one of my all time favourites--not because of its plausible plot, but because of its endearing characters and inspiring message.
Posted by: Kelly on September 17, 2006 01:02 PMa beautiful movie, ive seen a few times, i play guitar in church an i heard this music an song, seems as if i heard this somewhere many years ago, an it was done good by dale midkiff, he was so good in pet sematary, really scary, not good for the soul, at all, but love comes softly was so good, not a cussword or sex scene, so wholesome, surely well pleasing to god an many peole also so enjoyable, this is movies that ease your mind, an make you cry like a baby, such a beautiful young lady that katherine heigl, an that beautiful old music,, come thou fount, finlly, thats the name of it, maybe i heard it all my life, jesus is lord an he is coming soon to take us away, the saved people who received his payment for our sin, he died on the cross for us, an he rose again, for us, an he is preparing a place an making intercession to god,, for us, he said a man cannot enter into gods kingdom , unless he is born again, ill take my chances with jesus, yes the risen king of kings who is alive forever, .
Posted by: david ledford on October 22, 2006 09:30 PMWe loved this movie, There are not enough good moral movies today. We have the next 2 in the series and there is another one on TV today. (We hope to purchas it when it comes out on DVD) Our society needs more moral movies.
Posted by: steve on December 16, 2006 09:32 AMI think you all are so painfully nitpicky. I liked the movie. It was a movie right? Not real life? That is why I watch movies rather than sitting around focused on my real life 24/7. I hope that all your OCD tendencies produce and direct your own lives with complete perfection in all its rich detail. No speck of unexplainable dust, not a piece of stray cotton lint on any woolen surface, not an implausibly cold or warm day or a veggie on your plate that is not completely regionally and seasonally correct. And just for your edification...Ice boxes were stocked with ice year round, delivered by an iceman who worked at an ice house insulated by hay where ice was stored after being harvested off frozen lakes throughout the winter. Remember "The Iceman Cometh"? Well he came everyday if you placed a sign in your window. Did Marty and Clark have an Iceman? Probably not, but they may have had a primitive cellar where ice could be easily stored year round.
Posted by: Jayne on February 2, 2007 04:48 PMI love these series!! I am a young girl too!! There has been more movies to this series the latest is loves unending legacy. I love the movie and the guy that wrote the review is selfish and unreal. His job is to be a critic i know but it is an exceptional movie and who cares if it looks a little fake. I dont think that but still you need to give the people some credit!!!
Posted by: Amanda on April 25, 2007 03:27 PMOk. SO Oke will not be winning a pulitzer prize but this is a sweet series and fun to read. If these books can encourage me to be a better wife and mother, haven't they succeeded at something important?
BTW, Mr. Parker seems to base his specific criticisms on topics he is not familiar with. Why is she making pancakes for dinner? As stated before she didn't know how to make much else. And they are easy and fast- the reason my family had scrambled eggs, turkey sausage and toast for dinner tonight!
I cannot reconcile a "platonic" marriage with the teaching of the Bible.
1 Cor 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
I also cannot reconcile this "godly" man's proposal - he will help her seperate from him in the spring if that's what she wants - with the Bible. Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife (1 Cor 7:10,11). Also, Matt 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:8; 1 Cor 7:39; Mal 2:14-16).
The man gave his self-willed prayers precedence over the Word of God.