lsavron I LOVED this movie - and I not only watch a lot of them, but I'm pretty discerning about not watching garbage. This movie not only had a great moral point; the acting was superb and the character development was fantastic. Nothing shallow here. Some of it was a bit far-fetched - such as the overnight decision to allow custody without court hearing, no comments about HOW they arrived in Oregon - did they fly? If so, what did the kids think of that? Also, after seeing the cut scenes I had to wonder why they were omitted, especially the endearing part with the littlest girl - SO sweet.I was, overall, transfixed and touched. I live not far from a huge Amish community, and will now look at these hardy, committed folks as individuals, not oddities.It's also GREAT to have a movie that affirms FAITH! We need more like this one!

hjason-241-603474 There is little that is good about this movie. So lets get those out of the way right off the bat. The soundtrack to the movie very good. Its easy to caught up in the lyrics and the themes they convey. On the other hand the score of the movie is God awful. It just makes every scene more sappy and over dramatic. The other good part of the movie the photography. The landscapes are shot beautifully and convey a great bit.Now on with the rest. The actors is bad in many facets. The lines are delivered in the worst ways. I can hardly believe a single accent in the movie. Most every line is delivered flat and wooden, just drippingly awkward. I'm not sure why the director thought every person should give their dialogue as slowly as possible. The relationship between Sara and her boyfriend is laughable. I'm not sure how anyone can feel for Sara and consider her a likable protagonist. Also why do Amish people speak German. This isn't the case with the Amish I've ever met. The movie also seems like it wants to be respectful to the Amish but ends up insulting them at every turn.Do your best to steer clear of this stinker. If you want to watch a night of bad movies throw this one in English.

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!