Did you people see the same film I saw?

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

"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.

When I heard that they were making "Like Dandelion Dust" into a film, I was excited. But then I watched the film, and was sorely disappointed and mad. Why do movie producers/screenwriters think they have to change a book in order to make it into a film? If fans love the book, then why mess with success? The film is nothing like the book. If you like the book, save yourself the sorrow and skip this film.The movie gives humanity to Rip's character, a humanity that is not found in the book. Instead of making Rip out to be the jerk that he is in the book, you actually feel sorry for him here. I realize that people can change, but that's not what Karen Kingsbury intended to write about.Jack and Molly's characters are nowhere near as good as those Kingsbury wrote about. They aren't portrayed as the loving couple she makes them out to be. The complete second half of the film is all screenwriters' ideas, with only a few nods to Kingsbury. All the Christianity, faith, and prayer from the book have been scrapped. The book had such potential and would have made a great movie, if it hadn't been rewritten. I understand that due to time constraints some changes had to be made to the original book, but they didn't make some changes, they changed the whole film. If you're thinking about renting the movie, save yourself the money, and go to the library. The book is amazing and you won't regret reading it!

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.

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.