Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

VividSimon Simply Perfect

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

donaldricco 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.

dudemark 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.

tampaman24 This movie was a very good adaptation of the book, and this coming from someone who is very critical. I have, like most, read the book many times, which I think makes it harder to like any film adaptation. However, the movie follows the book very well, omitting small things that really didn't have a lot to do with the plot-line. I would say the movie had a little more of a religious slant than the book did. The acting was nice. I would say the major criticism would be they didn't really get into the dog's personalities much. The book did a great job of showing Dan as a clutz with a big heart and Ann as the smart one. However, I would recommend this and it was a million times better than the original movie adaptation.

terrillwhite-1 To start, I am a huge Red Fern fan. I have the first one on DVD and video and also have read the book several times. I am from Tahlequah, OK where the movies were filmed and so it does strike a home chord for me. I finally purchased the remake today and I must say that I am so disappointed. Usually remakes kind of mix things up a little bit to make it a little more interesting than the first . . . this is exactly like the first, almost word for word and the acting leaves you wondering where they come up with these people at. Dave Matthews should stick with his singing gig and the boy that played Billy Coleman was awful. Also the movie was very unrealistic. I have been coon hunting several times and you let the dogs do the hunting and just wait until they bark treed. This poor kid is running all over the woods right behind the coon. UNREALISTIC. Also, I love how it is pouring down rain and they are fogging up dust. Poor special effects! Dust doesn't fog up in the rain! This movie was a good waste of $21 and also a good waste of Tahlequah's money since most of the bills were left unpaid here by the production crew! BAD MOVIE!