THE AMERICAN GIRL MOVIES WERE BETTER WHEN THE WB HAD THEM!

I agree completely. But then the WB became the CW, I'm guessing that's why Disney made this one.

Please check your facts before you post. It was produced by Warner Brothers (aka the company who OWNED the WB). Their emblem was at the end. I have a feeling this was already IN production when the WB went under and the Disney Channel picked it up. Probably due to the fan base. The Disney Channel does not show things exclusively MADE by or for the Disney Company (although most of it is).

The screenplay was written by the same person who wrote "Felecity: An American Girl Adventure." The casting was by the same people as "Felecity: An American Girl Adventure" The costumer worked on the "Samantha" movie. You can look this all up on IMDB.Com, with just a click. I'm sure there are more connections, but I do not have the time or will to point them out. Just trying to educate someone on getting their facts straight before they make comments that could cause other types of posters on these boards to tear you to shreds and leave you embarrassed. People tend to reference other posts made and will use them against you.

I would be interested to know why you thought the set, the lighting, and the acting "sucked".

As a mother and an actress myself, I can tell you this production was top notch (very well researched AND costumed). I don't know how much you know about the early 1940's, but it was NOT the glamour you tend to see in modern (or even period) movies. America was still reeling from the depression AND most people were scraping by to give to the war effort. "Nice" things were a luxury. England would still be on rashons until 1952 or so. SEVEN years after the war ended.

Also, when you deal with child actors you are always going to get a performance that is probably not PERFECT. (Unless it is Dakota Fanning or someone who does bigger budget movies for a living). Look at the resume's of these children. For most of them this is their only film listed. If your only complaint is that it is on the Disney Channel instead of the WB, I would, again, look at the fact that Disney really had nothing to do with producing, directing, or casting this film (and the WB is now defunct due to low ratings).

Please research before you post. I am sorry you do not like the Disney Channel, but this of course was NOT a Disney made movie (such as "Lizzie McGuire" or "High School Musical").
**************************************

Lady Dulcinea

When it was announced that American Girl was gonna start having it's own tradition of having movies based on their characters and dolls it seemed like a smart idea. So beginning with the movie Samantha An American Girl Holiday and teaming up with The WB to air them it seemed like a perfect match made in heaven. After the success of the Samantha movie and the release of the Felicity movie American Girl knew these movies were hits. But when Molly An American Girl On The Home Front premiered you could tell American Girl was going downhill and the reason why this movie aired on Disney Channel rather than The WB was due to money reasons. But I think the movie was rushed because American Girl retired Molly after the movie premiered and starting with the Kit Kittridge movie released to theaters American Girl began to go more downhill and I think in general these movies and Netflix movies are just meant to sell dolls and to get people to buy one for their daughters