Am not sure if this is how Janet Oke wrote the story or not, because i haven't read the book...but i was expecting it to be moslty about the two main characters (Marty & Clark), from the first film. It is not.

It was somewhat dissapointing. Not that i didn't enjoy it, and not that it wasn't a good story, it was, but overall, it could have been much better. For one, it's obvious the director, Michael Landon, jr., showed us he is a good Catholic and never wants to offend any other religions...keeping the name of Jesus Christ (or even just, 'Jesus'), out of the entire dialogue. To say that a devoutly Christian man, living circa 1880, never used the name of his Lord and Savior, even during prayers, is ludicrous. Not only would they have ended every prayer in the name of Jesus, His name was a common part of every day language of the period. I've noticed that most films produced by Jews rarely use the name of our Lord, unless in the abstract, or unless said by a church authority figure, such as a priest of professor. As if the common believer was not educated enough to properly express His name. That flaw was inexcusable.

There are other flaws too, although not as appalling...none-the-less they take away from the power of the story (as i do feel the author, Janet Oke, intended it to be inspiring!?), and degrade it to 'B'-class status.

Too bad. The acting, costumes, locations, sound quality, etc. were all superb...what a waste.

One flaw i noticed might have been intentional, when Missie (now a young woman), was riding her horse, she was not riding side-saddle...and she was wearing a dress. I know she grew up kind of a tom-boy, but a Christian lady of that time period, wearing a dress, i seriously doubt would've rode like a man, tom-boy or no. Since i haven't read the book, then i can't say if that was intended or not. Not to be too critical, but that seemed to be an inaccurate portrayal of a Christian lady, circa 1880.

 The other flaw was not as obvious. If you noticed, when Missie had to plow the fields, they first showed her wearing a dress. Then they show a scene of her wearing trousers. The final scene she is again wearing a dress. Now i don't know about you but as far as i know, Christian ladies back then did not wear men's trousers, period. The only pants they wore were their bloomers, and that was under their petticoat. Women were extremely modest in those days...especially when outdoors. We're not talkin about Annie Oakly here...we're talking about the daughter of a very devout Christian man. Again, i don't know if this was part of the original story, but i do know it was not historically accurate. Either that or the director just couldn't make up his mind, or the editors just botched the scenes.

 Other than that, the only other thing i didn't like, was the fact that the story centered around other than the two original characters. My question is, why? We barely got to experince life with Marty and Clark, and now they have two young boys, and Missie is all grown up. Excuse me, but this is not how you make a series of films on this type of story. We need to get to know the characters better. Yes, i cried in both films, but hey, I'm a big cry-baby anyways . But they could have done a much better job. Overall though, it is a good family film, and certainly better than all the immoral sex, violence and drug crap put out by Hollywood every day. So i do commend them on that. But if you watch the film, Time Changer, then you'll know why i had a major complaint about this poor effort.

*** 3 Stars.
Am not sure if this is how Janet Oke wrote the story or not, because i haven't read the book... but i was expecting it to be moslty about the two main characters (Marty & Clark), from the first film. It is not. It was somewhat dissapointing. Not that i didn't enjoy it, and not that it wasn't a good story, it was, but overall, it could have been much better. For one, it's obvious the director, Michael Landon, jr. , showed us he is a good Catholic and never wants to offend any other religions... keeping the name of Jesus Christ (or even just, 'Jesus'), out of the entire dialogue. To say that a devoutly Christian man, living circa 1880, never used the name of his Lord and Savior, even during prayers, is ludicrous. Not only would they have ended every prayer in the name of Jesus, His name was a common part of every day language of the period. I've noticed that most films produced by Jews rarely use the name of our Lord, unless in the abstract, or unless said by a church authority figure, such as a priest of professor. As if the common believer was not educated enough to properly express His name. That flaw was inexcusable. There are other flaws too, although not as appalling... none-the-less they take away from the power of the story (as i do feel the author, Janet Oke, intended it to be inspiring!? ), and degrade it to 'B'-class status. Too bad. The acting, costumes, locations, sound quality, etc. were all superb... what a waste. One flaw i noticed might have been intentional, when Missie (now a young woman), was riding her horse, she was not riding side-saddle... and she was wearing a dress. I know she grew up kind of a tom-boy, but a Christian lady of that time period, wearing a dress, i seriously doubt would've rode like a man, tom-boy or no. Since i haven't read the book, then i can't say if that was intended or not. Not to be too critical, but that seemed to be an inaccurate portrayal of a Christian lady, circa 1880. The other flaw was not as obvious. If you noticed, when Missie had to plow the fields, they first showed her wearing a dress. Then they show a scene of her wearing trousers. The final scene she is again wearing a dress. Now i don't know about you but as far as i know, Christian ladies back then did not wear men's trousers, period. The only pants they wore were their bloomers, and that was under their petticoat. Women were extremely modest in those days... especially when outdoors. We're not talkin about Annie Oakly here... we're talking about the daughter of a very devout Christian man. Again, i don't know if this was part of the original story, but i do know it was not historically accurate. Either that or the director just couldn't make up his mind, or the editors just botched the scenes. Other than that, the only other thing i didn't like, was the fact that the story centered around other than the two original characters. My question is, why? We barely got to experince life with Marty and Clark, and now they have two young boys, and Missie is all grown up. Excuse me, but this is not how you make a series of films on this type of story. We need to get to know the characters better. Yes, i cried in both films, but hey, I'm a big cry-baby anyways. But they could have done a much better job. Overall though, it is a good family film, and certainly better than all the immoral sex, violence and drug crap put out by Hollywood every day. So i do commend them on that. But if you watch the film, Time Changer, then you'll know why i had a major complaint about this poor effort. *** 3 Stars.