Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Micransix Crappy film

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

lstrom Do family films have to be devoid of edge and energy? This rather bloodless, tepid story should have been good. Even with an interesting concept, the story line has no surprises or revelations, and from time to time makes no sense. The main character and her boyfriend have zero, and I mean ZERO chemistry. Elliot Gould has the newspaper editor she works for is wasted, with some ploddingly delivered lines that might have been brighter had it not seemed as though everyone's dialog was delivered very slowly on purpose. The charming kid actors struggle to bring something believable to the boring dialog and for the most part do the best job of making the film watchable. The omnipresent and cliché score got on my nerves, never letting the story tell itself. This is worth watching, though, for the utterly breathtaking look of the film, especially the Amish farms in winter. Every frame is painterly and perfectly composed.

paulreid99 Michael Landon Jr. is great at writing for his core audience. My wife and I loved the movie and even my 8-year-old came in and started watching it. It has solid acting (*except* for Elliot Gould, IMO), especially for children in difficult roles.I can't believe that a movie of this quality was originally made on a cable network budget! The soundtrack is among the top 5 that I have ever heard. It really captures the emotion and drama and features some great modern but sensitive tracks by Mark Mckenzie featuring a couple outstanding tracks by Sixpence None The Richer and Barlowgirl. I rarely say "Wow, that was a great soundtrack," (last time was The Mission, I think) so it really stood out, especially since TV movies usually have lousy soundtracks.If you like Michael Landon Jr.'s other movies (or the typical "Hallmark" movie), you will love this one.

newsview This comment is an attempt to balance out a "review" that broad brushed the acting in "Saving Sarah Cain" as wooden, the situations unrealistic, and the movie nothing more than sappy and clichéd. There was no sense of giving the reader the pros and cons to this film. As such, the author's "take" on the film had more to say about his or her film preferences than it did about the merits of the film itself. While the premise of "Saving Sarah Cain" is somewhat of a stretch — relocating orphaned Amish children to a big city in order to live with an "English outsider" — the film is nevertheless intriguing and heartwarming. To read such harsh criticism, however, one has to wonder if there some "rule" that says a good movie must be dark, depraved, brash, violent, sardonic or just plain jaded? If these harsh criticisms had been applied to yet another romantic comedy, I would say that the man-meets-woman premise has been milked to death and probably does deserve some of those criticisms. However, "Saving Sarah Cain" is not at all shallow, shows no disrespect or flippancy toward Amish culture, and the subject matter itself is not at all overdone. The acting on the part of the Amish children's characters was sensitive and convincing to the point of wondering if they somehow WERE drawn from among the Amish (or had lived among them in order to become true to their mannerisms). In addition, the situations and the psychological reactions to them were portrayed well enough to make the characters believable, though it is, in fact, based upon a work of fiction.It would seem that the review presently leading the pack for this film advanced the idea that a "real movie" cannot be touching. However, I would say that sentimentality is not the problem. To the contrary, it is much harder to portray that which is innocent, earnest, restrained, modest or pure than it is to portray the hardened, jaded, disturbed, dysfunctional or brash characters that many dramas either call for. Of course, we're not living in the Silver Screen era, so it should be no surprise that this sort of movie — the director, script and its actors — would draw criticism from those who think there's only one way to make a decent movie: the way everyone else is doing it. I cannot name one film or work of fiction that does not follow a protagonist/antagonist formula, so the "cliché" criticism in the prior review is nothing more than a Red Herring. In conclusion, if films that focus on an uplifting ending and steer clear of violence and stereotypical subjects and characters do not appeal, don't blame the director. Blame it on the fact that NO such movie is one's cup of tea. You'll never see me write a horror movie review because I would not do the subtleties of the horror genre justice. Likewise, I do not wish to read another review written by someone who obviously doesn't "get" the audience to whom "Saving Sarah Cain" is directed. There are some people who like to post reviews simply because they are contrarians and are under the impression that intellectual and artistic prowess must be demonstrated via criticism. The art is never good enough. The wine is never good enough. The films are never good enough. You get the idea… Ignore them. "Saving Sarah Cain" gets my vote for a movie well worth watching.

james higgins Michael Landon Jr. comes up with yet another one of his sappy, unlikely and totally predictable movie. The acting by the entire cast, (save Elliott Gould), is wooden and not at all convincing. Over sentimental and filled with cliché's. It is supposed to be a "feel good" movie, but instead it becomes a "feel nauseated" movie. The script is not written with any feeling of living in the real world. The way people talk, their situations are completely made up by director Landon's vision is what real people are like. He apparently has no clue as to how people are in the real world. Diabetics beware! This sugar coated concoction could be fatal!