Like Dandelion Dust

Like Dandelion Dust

Like Dandelion Dust

"Like Dandelion Dust" shouldn't work at all, but modern cinema is now so absent of human beings that this low key drama, directed by Jon Gunn, manages to garner praise and accolades. The film tells the fairly familiar story of a young boy, Joey, who is the centre of a bitter custody battle. On one side of the fight we have Joey's poverty, alcoholism and crime stricken genetic parents and on the other we have his wealthy foster parents. Both groups love Joey, but his genetic parents eventually decide that "it's in Joey's best interest" to live with his wealthy, foster parents. Cue much tear-jerking. Though the film removes all the offencive religious overtones of the novel it's based on, other contrivances, rampant stereotyping and dubious social and class implications remain present and unexamined. Maxwell Cotton, who plays Joey, turns in an excellent, naturalistic performance. Mira Sorvino, who plays his foster Mom, is excellent as well. Barry Pepper, who plays Joey's deadbeat but sympathetically portrayed dad, overacts, as has become typical of Pepper. Jon Gunn's script is slight but directed in a agreeably low-key way. He wisely gives several unconventional scenes times to breathe. Like the similar "Kramer vs Kramer", these moments of naturalism can't overcome the film's larger implications. 7.9/10 – Worth one viewing.

Get ready to get your heart strings ripped out. At least they'll be sewn together good as new by the ending. An abusive man goes to jail and while there, his wife at home discovers she's pregnant with his baby. Instead of aborting the baby or keeping it, she gives it away, fortuitously to incredibly caring, financially comfortable adoptive parents. Then there's an interruption. Apparently basic biology trumps good parenting and a legal contract. Six years later, through a minor technicality, the contract was deemed void upon the biological father release from jail. He returns to the biological mother, renews their relationship and eager to have an instant family. Of course this entails tearing the boy from the only parents he's known. It should be noted that the biological father is excited to know he has a son but it makes the viewer wonder if he would have been so enthusiastic about a girl. The biological parents are irresponsible; they're ignorant (which isn't a crime) but also have anger and codependency issues that are so severe they quickly effect the child negatively: Actual bruises on the little boy's body. The adoptive parents wind up taking matters into their own hands and running off to Haiti with their Christian neighbors who have a charity program there. They make the decision to give up contact with their other friends, relatives, to live in a strange new country essentially to protect their child. The scene where they separate from their Christian friends in Haiti is underplayed and well done. Secretly they know they are not saying goodbye for the day but possibly forever, into hiding. Afterward, the Christian wife and husband have a private conversation challenging their perspectives on faith and philosophy: She makes the decision to report them to the Haitian authorities. He strongly disagrees with that choice and tries to warn them. Apparently the Christian wife has more faith in biology and a stupid law than thinking for herself. Ironically, this winds up helping everyone become aware of the fact that the biological parents are a blatant failure which means the adoptive parents can regain custody and return to their homeland safely. However, this is only because the abuse is severe (the biological mother's face is black and blue and the social worker is persistent enough to witness it). Think about all the other cases where this doesn't happen.

After 7 years in prison Rip Porter (Pepper) is released and comes home to find out he has a son that was given up for adoption. He sets out to get him back. A father who never knew his son (Pepper) wants a chance to raise him. The only father the boy has known (Hauser) fights to keep him. Due to a flaw in the prison system the adoption of the boy turns out to be fraudulent and a fight begins. I have a feeling this kind of thing really happens. This is not as good as I want it to be. It was good, but TV movie good, like a really good Lifetime movie. This movie is very emotional and you feel for the little boy the entire time and wish for his ordeal to be over. This is yet another movie with a lot of potential but also falls flat. It is a good movie just, again, could have been better. When you watch make sure you give your lady Kleenex. I give it a B. Would I watch again? - No

This movie tells me one thing: some people should NEVER have children. What I saw was a man who hit his wife, spent time in prison and is rewarded only for biology. A lie is a lie: that the Mother LIED when she signed LEGAL paperwork and then LIED in front of a judge? She should have been put in jail. I was disappointed that the adoptive Father offered money for his kid. Stupid for the rich guy to start a fight. But there is a certain type of people who should NEVER reproduce. I realize it sounds like class snobbery and it probably is, but what I saw was a class of people acting like they were brought up by their parents to act.

To me, the film was well-written; well-cast; marvelously acted (especially Barry Pepper, Cole Hauser, and Abby Brammell--though all the leads were good); and believable. And, it allowed viewers to learn a little something when they were watching--which is always a good thing. Note 1. As an educator I would not recommend it for children under 12. The premise, of parents being able to be taken away from them and exchanged for new ones is too scary for those under their teenage years, I believe. Note 2. I was surprised to learn that this was labeled a "Christian" film, because I was never aware of it (and as a non-Christian, I would have been).

Others can discuss the nuts and bolts and the philosophical questions raised by this film. All I have to say is... by the end of this film my wife and I were running to our children with hugs, kisses, and tears a plenty. There are some moments in this film that are beyond poignant. One line of dialog rates up there with the best I've ever heard in any film. Watch it and hurt for both sides and then realize the treasure and wonder that are your children. If you want something to loosely compare this to, I would have to go with GONE BABY GONE. The only thing that could've made this one any better was Morgan Freeman. One film related note...Mira Sorvino... just wow.

After reading the Karen Kingsbury novel that the movie 'Like Dandelion Dust' was based on, I was very much looking forward to watching it. However, I was disheartened to see that there was no mention of Christ Jesus at all in the movie. The whole premise of the story in the novel was to show that faith in Jesus and prayer will overcome all odds. Instead, the movie portrayed Christians as righteous and overbearing. And that making wishes on dandelions works better than prayer. The movie also left out a lot of detail that although made it work, I felt that it rushed the story. I understand that when you sell the rights to your novel, the movie producer has the right to change certain aspects of it, but I'm disappointed that Ms. Kingsbury would allow the removal of faith in Christ. On a positive note, I found the acting very good, especially by Mira Sorvino and Cole Hauser and I was impressed with Maxwell Perry Cotton as little Joey Campbell. I had a good cry throughout the movie. Would still recommend to others.

I read the book and was anticipating the movie. I didn't expect it to be exactly like the book, but I felt the movie missed the mark entirely. I almost bought the movie for $23 at the bookstore, I was so sure I would like it. I'm so glad I rented it at Redbox for $1! This IS a faith based book, so I didn't realize the movie could be made and ignore the primary theme of the book. I think the acting was quite decent overall, and the movie was fairly well made. My complaint doesn't really lie with that. It's just so much of the book is missing, made to fit the movie, and the only barely there elements of faith are to support the character attempt to "run off" with the child. In no way does it make people of faith look good, just the opposite. They look rather stupid and involved. I just didn't get it. I'm very very disappointed with Karen Kingsbury. I would never have sold my book rights to a film maker if they were going to leave out the entire point of the movie. Sorry, I just didn't care for it. The book was far better at grabbing my attention and pulling me in. Yawn.