Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

edwagreen Bring in Katharine Hepburn in 1956's "The Rainmaker" to the rescue for this utterly boring film.Glenn Close and Christopher Walken star as a couple living in the prairie faced by a terrible drought. Walken's daughter writes poetry and the boy looks like a Van Trapp member.Conditions steadily worsen and Close flees with the children to her maiden aunts. The latter could easily qualify as the daffy Brewster Sisters from "Arsenic and Old Lace" fame. Naturally, one is immediately able to tell that Close is with child.The film is so dull that you actually root for the fires that erupt along the parched field and barn.The rain eventually comes and Walken comes back for his family. They all head back to the farm and the film mercifully ends.

kellyleighcrutcher I don't know if my message has spoilers or not, but I'm marking it just in case. I saw the first movie and "Skylark" for the first time on November 4, 2004 (I'm watching Skylark as I'm typing this, in fact) and I think they're both wonderful movies. Glenn Close (Sarah) and Christopher Walken (Jacob Witting) are wonderful playing together. I saw Close in the 101 Dalmatian movies as Cruella DeVil, but I think she's better in the role of Sarah Wheaton/Witting. Sarah, her cat, Seal, (Seal's a lovely cat) and the Wittings are my favorite characters from this. If I could rate higher than a ten, I would. Has anyone thought of making a fourth movie in this series?

ccthemovieman-1 The was the second segment in the trilogy of "Sarah, Plain and Tall." That opening movie, with the same title, was excellent and third in the series was very good, but this middle edition stunk.It simply did not have the charm of the other two. The story was too much of a downer, with the family spending a lot of time battling a drought. The young boy, who was cute in "Sarah," was just a whiner in this movie, constantly asking questions in his whiny, annoying voice. Overall, it committed the ultimate film sin - it was boring which is hard to do in a Christopher Walken movie. The film is the weakest of the three segments in the trilogy. Well, perhaps "unappealing" would be a better description than "weak."

S0METHlNGWlCKED A Short Synopsis: Jacob and Sarah Whitting (Christopher Walken and Glenn Close) and their children are struggling through a drought on their farm in Kansas in 1912. Their friends are all giving up on the land and packing up their families. The Whittings struggle to save the home they love, though Sarah doesn't believe she truly loves it. Throughout this hard time, Sarah selfishly wishes to have a child. A series of fires destroy crops and property, and as their water supply runs down, Jacob sends Sarah and the children, Caleb and Anna, to visit Sarah's relatives in Maine. After the long train ride, Sarah is reunited with old friends and relatives. Aunt Lou recognizes that Sarah is expecting, though she hasn't told anyone, and the children enjoy their first view of the sea that Sarah had so vividly described. Time passes, and both Jacob and Sarah suffer in their separation, longing for each other. Finally, the drought ends and Jacob comes to Maine. Sarah finally tells Jacob that they will soon be parents, and upon returning to Kansas, Sarah realizes her love of the land.A Short Commentary: The first shot is of the dog, and the dog is really the only character who has not been drastically and horribly changed between the first and second movies. The writing was clichéd and the plot especially was childishly conceived and lacked complexity and sophistication. Both Christopher Walken and Glenn Close were one-dimensional, which is to be expected from Christopher and was very effective for his character in the first movie, but Glenn was equally unrealistic and unemotional. Considering that she was able to play a convincingly real Cruella DeVil, this must be chalked up to truly bad direction. Cinematographically, the film was quite poorly made: Scenes were repeatedly begun with a badly focused tracking shot, and the camera angles were less imaginative and more juvenile than the worst amateur filmmakers. The lighting, especially in the fire scenes, was atrocious. In short, it is quite bad.