Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I feel like there's a really great film hidden somewhere inside here. If not great, at least good. I don't think it really develops into anything too interesting, even if it's never outright bad. The performances are good enough to sustain some interest in what is going on, and the initial premise of it really does seem intriguing enough. Maybe it's just where the film went that it all seems sort of disappointing, and because of that I do think that the first half is noticeably stronger. Laura Dern really is brilliant in this though, as is both Duvall and Ladd. I can't really say I disliked, but I wouldn't really recommend it either. Seek it out if you must.

I haven't seen this film in quite a while but I have pretty good memories about it. It's an intriguing film, something different and appealing even though some of the subject matter is "inappropriate."I saw the last word because it involves a 13-year-old boy whose hormones are raging and his brief relationship with a grown woman. There is one sex scene that may make people squirm a bit, so be forewarned. Other than that, I don't remember anything else objectionable.I like the photography and always enjoy seeing the old days - here it's the 1920s and 1930s - portrayed on today's films with the great cameramen and directors of today. Also, the South has some beautiful scenery that is eloquently on display here.The story is well-acted with real-life mother-daughter Diane Ladd and Laura Dern, along with Robert Duvall and Lukas Haas. The latter plays the young man and was already somewhat of a star after playing the young Amish boy in the 1985 film "Witness." Duvall is one of the finest actors of his generation so you always get a good performance out of him.This is a pretty low-key story but never puts you to sleep. Modern day feminists might like this film was Ladd plays that role to the hilt. Dern also delivered, making a very believable "Rose."

This movie takes place in the 30's and 40's. It's a great story about a young woman trying to start a new life by living with a family and taking care of the children and helping the mother out with household chores. She falls in love with the husband, Robert Duvall, and the 13 year-old, Buddy, played by Lukas Haas falls in love with her. Her real life mother, Diane Ladd, plays Robert Duvall's wife. It's a great plot and keeps you interested until the very end. I've watched this movie many times...I think it was wonderfully put together. My best friend is Evan Lockwood, the one who played Waski, Robert Duvall's youngest son in the movie. I love hearing tales about his experience in this movie with Laura Dern, Robert Duvall, and the rest of this great cast. I own this movie and recommend everyone to watch it at least once and admit to falling in love with Rose.

First of all, I gave it an 8 out of ten. The acting was really quite wonderful all around, and Laura Dern can absolutely steam up a room. Her Rose was always sweet and always on a sexual hair-trigger. She was a bit dim-witted, but always quite endearing.And even this warm, feel-good, sweetheart of a film made me think...So here's the question: If a young adult woman gets into bed with a thirteen year-old boy, and then allows him to fondle her to orgasm, does that make her a criminal? In this day and age, the answer's yes. But every person commenting on the film (rightfully) loves Rose, and loves her motives.and consider this: Would there ever be a film where a young adult male gets into bed with a thirteen year-old girl, and where one or the other fondles the other to orgasm, and the film goes on to develop that adult male into a sympathetic character? The answer is No. Such a film produced in the 1930s or today, would have had the perp rightfully jailed or rightfully shot.Now,it seems to me, that while Rose today would go to jail, in more sensible times Rose would not be a sexual offender. In fact, I figure that the boy would be universally recognized as one really lucky fellow. But our current social norms would see poor steamy Rose placed under arrest.In today's wacky, feminized legal system (in which ideology must regard males and females as always the same, all the time), Rose would have to be regarded as a criminal, simply because any male who had a sexual relationship with a minor female is a criminal --and rightfully so.In this wacky, feminized time, we read all about fabulously gorgeous 20-something high school teachers who get arrested for having sex with under-age boys. A generation ago, what would have been a boy's fantasy come true, is now portrayed as a boy's nightmare. Talk about screwing around with a kid's head!Is there anything at all about 1932's Buddy that is so different from young teenage boys of today? If not, how can the encounter between Buddy and Rose be so okay in the eyes of every commentator (and in my eyes, too, by the way), while similar encounters today between 14-15 year-old boys and 30 year-old women is now called a "crime"? What am I missing here?