Beyond the Prairie: The True Story of Laura Ingalls Wilder (1999) watch online HD

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?

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.

So much more could have been done with this wonderful literary series. Instead, at least four books were hastily sped through, leaving a dizzying series of events, most of which were so condensed and convoluted in this film to be unrecognizable to any reader of the books. The prairie settings were very realistic and true to life, some of the casting was good (particularly Lindsay Crouse and Richard Thomas and Ma and Pa) but I was not impressed by Meridith Monroe's portrayal of Laura. Much attention was given to setting and costuming, but Monroe's flowing 90's hair and boisterous mannerisms left me cold. The movie does improve a bit towards the end, but for the first hour I was wondering where in the world it was going. Perhaps if this were produced instead as a miniseries, it would have had more impact. For those only familiar with the totally fictional "Little House" TV series it will give some insight to her life that was completely passed over; for others who want to know the real story of Laura, her books, and all the wonderful autobiographical material out there, will serve you much better than this.

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.

This film claimed to tell the "true" story of Laura Ingalls Wilder. What it really did was turn the author's life and into TV-movie melodrama. The few bits that were from the author's biography and other writings, not from the nine books, were distorted almost beyond recognition in a desperate attempt to get ratings. It also ignored many of the basic facts of life in Victorian times. I watched this film with my jaw hanging open in disbelief. Sorry, but the endless repetition of the word "backtracking" and the use of the real name Bouchie (instead of Brewster, which Wilder used in the book to protect the guilty) do not a "true story" make.

Do yourself a favor--check a decent biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder out of the library instead of watching this travesty, an insult to the Ingalls and Wilder families and to all of Wilder's fans through the years.

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.

This movie was trash, I have read an reread all of the Little house books since I was five years old, also biographies on Laura Ingalls Wilder. I thought they should have found a brunette Laura and that actress could hardly be though of being anywhere close to this great woman. Who was patsy??? What happened to Nellie??? Plus I hardly believe that Laura would ever have been making love in a field, she was from Victorian times for crying out loud. Even though she didn't like the restrictions of corsets and all the petticoats, but she was a lady, and would have never been seen with her hair unkempt, and wearing that hat! ugh I thought that was in poor taste, and wasn't Mary a blonde not a redhead. What happened to Carrie and Baby grace ?? They were just in the background once in awhile. Pa was portrayed as mean, and Ma was so cold I thought she was a loving woman, that was the way she was described in the books. I think a new movie should be made and it should include the whole life of Laura Ingalls Wilder, this movie was terrible and to think I looked forward to it so much. I do not recommend it to anyone.

As a fan of both the Little House books and television series, as well as someone who is very interested in the "real life" of Laura Ingalls Wilder, I was looking forward to this movie for months and months. Maybe too much excitement over the fact that it took so long to air in the US raised my expectations to an unrealistic level. Or maybe I'm irritated of the use of the word "TRUE" in the title. Or maybe it was because I kept wanting to call "Pa" by the name of "John Boy." I'm left unsatisfied by this movie. I had problems with this movie from the opening scene(was that a meteor?) with the prairie fire that took place in Kansas transplanted to De Smet, to Laura being all smitten with Almanzo as a girl (she never portrays herself that way in her novels - she didn't seem to like him at first!)...to the COMPLETELY unrealistic loss of Laura's virginity to her husband outdoors (COME ON, this was the Victorian era for crying out loud! Good women didn't do that! Rose Wilder Lane admits that her mother seemed to detest sex in her biography.) While the plot line may have been more "true" than the Michael Landon version... to call this the TRUE STORY is laughable. This movie seems to take enough liberties with a few details that would have made old Mike Landon proud. Overall it's not a bad movie, especially for those of us who have been waiting so long for a new Little House movie. However, it's not the completely "True" story the title claims it to be.

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

I stumbled across this film on the satellite grid tonight, and was interested because I grew up reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. What a pity that the writer of this script never so much as lifted the cover of one of Wilder's books. There is far more factual information to be found on the Wikipedia site than in this film. I watched through to the end, but I made it only by pretending that this was not a film about Laura Ingalls Wilder.

The little girl who portrayed young Rose gave a good performance, but everyone else left me cold. I heartily recommend that LIW fans avoid this film.

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.

The 1970's TV series was more accurate than this sensationalized, shallow version of Laura's life. Whoever greenlighted it should at least have titled it "Beyond Dawson's Prairie: The Completely Inaccurate Life of Laura Ingalls Wilder Which will Make You Wish Richard Thomas had Stayed on Walton's Mountain".

First of all, Laura was a brunette, not a blonde. In fact, she deeply envied her older sister Mary's "golden" hair and wished her own could be that color. (I will give this adaptation some small credit, though -- at least they didn't have Mary get married and lose two children like the TV series did.) Second of all, the reason Almanzo decided to call Laura "Bessie" was because he had a sister named Laura and never cared for the name, and Laura, whose middle name was Elizabeth, repeated a rhyme about "Elizabeth, Elspeth, Betsy and Bess," rather than the dumb, badly-acted scene in this TV movie. Third of all, Laura and Almanzo's unnamed son did not die immediately after birth; he lived for a couple of weeks. Fourth of all, Laura's teacher, whom she fashioned an unkind chant about, was Almanzo's sister. Fifth of all...

Oh, to heck with it. This adaptation contains so many inaccuracies that I lost count half an hour in. It's very annoying for a movie which claims to be the true story about Mrs. Wilder. Her fascinating and often heartbreaking life deserves better than this corny, sappy, lame tripe.

YUCK. This movie was soooooooo fake, totally untrue. I've read all of her Little House books and several biographies. None of them give me the impression that the real Laura was in any way like this fictional Laura. Meredith Monroe was so annoying, sniping, and so plainly terrible. I cannot stand her even on Dawson's Creek. Richard Thomas was the only halfway believable character. Sigh...... Needless to say, I was disappointed! Both thumbs down and would not in any way recommend this to ANYONE!!!!!

that's about the biggest lie since the pope ain't Catholic. I was really excited when I heard that they would be doing a movie about her life. I've read all of her books and biographies on her to boot, but the stupid producers of this movie have totally made a mockery of Laura Ingalls Wilder's life. First off, Pa was way too crass. I mean, it wasn't even on for 7 minutes and he was swearing in front of his daughters like a modern day jerk. And they made Laura out to be some ditzy blonde who was romantiscizing over Almonzo. Who's Patsy? Whatever happened to Nellie? That seems like one of the easiest details to keep in the script. And Ma was way too cold and unloving towards her family. This was a terrible adaption of a wonderful series of books. (Even the TV show was better than this garbage.)

It's a pity when moviemakers take a popular book or books and

then make a movie with elements that contain very little of what's in

the books. Don't they know that readers will be terribly

disappointed? This movie diverges from Laura Ingalls Wilder's

books in so many ways that it's ludicrous.

A blond Laura? Ma with her hair in a braid? Charles offering to go

for the wheat during the Hard Winter and being stopped not by

Caroline but by Almanzo? Almanzo's horses "PT and Barnum?"

(they were SKIP and Barnum). Where are Prince and Lady? The

teacher was Miss Wilder, Almanzo's sister, not some stranger?

And who was "Patsy?" Where's Laura's nemesis, Nellie Olson?

Just awful. Don't bother. Reread the books.

The Little House on the Prairie series is much more entertaining and well-done! Merideth Monroe, who played Laura, was too modern and independent. That guyish hat she wore was annoying! The most obvious and disappointing thing, though, was that the family seemed distant to each other most of the time, more like mismatched cardboard stage props pretending to go together. The actor who played Pa did pretty well in the situation, but he still seemed too gruff, and Ma seemed way too cold! I'd rather see the Little House on the Prairie series any day!

As a lifelong fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder, her writings-- and the real story of her life on the Dakota prairies [and beyond], I was embarrassed by this movie. It was visually beautiful, but events were changed, names changed, hair color and personality traits changed. You may say that these are small details, and perhaps they are if you are dealing with *fictional* characters, but the Ingalls family were real people who lived their lives as best as they could. It is a disservice to play around with the facts of their lives. This movie was not true to their stoic heroism. It also mauled the relationship between Laura and Almanzo, which it tried to update into the 90's [1990's, that is!] with inappropriate intimate scenes. The TRUE story of Laura Ingalls Wilder can only be done justice in a format longer than 2 hours by a writer who has actually READ her life story and her works and who CARES.

I bought this movie thinking it would be the true story of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her life in a movie form. It definitely was not. I love the original Michael Landon TV series even though it is only loosely based on the books because it kind of took on a life of its own while still staying true enough to the books and characters so that they were recognizable and lovable. This movie did none of that. It claims to be the "true story" of LIW, but there are tons of inaccuracies. For starters, Laura's hair was brown, not blond. This is not just a superficial part of the Little House books, this fact was mentioned over and over because Laura was envious of Mary's blond hair and so forth. (Why did Mary have red hair?!) There were things that bothered me more than that, however. The actress who played Laura was not well suited to play her, in my opinion. Laura was portrayed in her books and in any biographies as a spunky, tomboyish girl who grows into a independent and sincere young woman. In this movie, Laura came across as very...not like Laura. She wasn't feisty at all, she seemed shy and too sweet and altogether not like Laura. The scene where Laura finds the envelope stuck in the pocket with Almanzo's name in it and dreamily repeats his name...well, that's just cheesy. Also it is not factual. All I could keep thinking when I saw Pa was "John Boy Walton" which was not the actor's fault and I thought he did an okay job. He looked the part. The way the producers/writers portrayed Ma and Pa's relationship was odd and a little unnerving. It might have been true, but it was never mentioned straightforwardly in Laura's books and this is supposed to be the "true" story. Also, there was one scene that bothered me more than anything else. It was the scene where Laura and Almanzo had just gotten married and they drove out to a field and you could assume what they were trying to infer was going to happen when the scene cut out. Okay, of course that's true, they were married of course. But I just did not think it was classy to be putting it in the "True Story of LIW" when small children watch this and it never said anything about it in the books. I don't usually mind those sorts of scenes in other movies, but this sort of felt weird and unnecessary. 2/10

This was a very good movie, MUCH better than the usual Sunday night made for TV fare. The story was very absorbing, and Meredith Monroe was absolutely charming as Laura. (She also has an uncanny resemblance to Melissa Gilbert, who played Laura on the TV show in the 70s and 80s.) The acting and scenery and costuming were all great. I give it 5 stars.

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****".

OK, I agree...this movie had a lot of inaccuracies. However, it did a much better job than the series in portraying Laura's adult life. At least she was in Dakota, and not in Walnut Grove, which the Ingalls left when Laura was about 13. And I agree 100% that Laura should have been brunette. Also, the books do a much better job showing her struggle to be a "proper" lady than this movie, in which Laura seems to run wild.

BUT...for those of you looking for Nellie -- the producers were correct, she shouldn't be in De Smet! Nellie was her nemesis in Walnut Grove, MN, as portrayed in "On the Banks of Plum Creek". This movie portrays her years in Dakota Territory, which start with "By the Shores of Silver Lake", then the years of "The Long Winter", "Little Town on the Prairie", "These Happy Golden Years", and "The First Four Years". No Nellie in any of those books.

I was spoon-fed generous portions of Laura Ingalls Wilder when I was a child. It was good to see "The Long Winter" finally make it onto film. But the romantic stuff shown after Laura and Almanzo got married? Gee, I don't remember that from "These Happy Golden Years" or "The First Four Years"! I thought the hailstorm was realistic. When the house burned down, it was a hot summer day as I recall. This movie says the fire was caused by a hay tie in the winter time. I see on IMDb that other people found other stuff wrong. I don't really have a problem with the casting, but I never thought about it. I agree that the TV series took great liberties with Laura Ingalls Wilder's material. The way I see it, the discrepancies could have been so easily avoided that the makers were stupid not to just make this movie right.

This movie is much truer to the books than the TV series was. The acting is excellent, and the filming is beautiful. The story has a lot of sadness and tears in it, but it wouldn't be fair for me to hold that against the movie! That's just how it was.