Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

moonspinner55 Two young brothers, motherless and now relying on their workaholic father, try becoming closer to their only surviving parent while stationed in Tunisia. Director Jerry Schatzberg, working from an incredibly dull screenplay by Barra Grant, via Florence Montgomery's novel, never shakes the lead out, and the picture seems stillborn as a result. Henry Thomas, one of the most intuitive child actors of this era, doesn't match up well with Gene Hackman; the two are supposed to be estranged, but there's no connection between them at the finale, either. A depressing experience, with the curious location not helping matters. * from ****

Atreyu_II 'Misunderstood' is an adaptation of a novel by Florence Montgomery but most of all a remake of Luigi Comencini's masterpiece 'Incompreso'.This review is destined to evaluate 'Misunderstood', so here it goes. It's certainly not a bad movie if judged without comparing to the original. However, when compared to the original, it seems artificial in many aspects. The gorgeous Italy is replaced by Tunisia (in North Africa), the settings look unnatural and unrefined, the house looks crude, the scenes seem forced and lack authenticity, the actors lack emotion in their roles (including Henry Thomas, who was brilliant in 'E.T.'), many detailed scenes were removed or modified and there are additional scenes that don't quite fit in the plot. Not even the uncle saves the movie. Here the uncle is a very serious man who rarely laughs, he has nothing to do with the playful uncle from the original.The ending feels somewhat vague comparing to the original and far less emotional too but also leaves you wondering if Andrew survives or not. It ends suddenly and we never really get to know the answer to this question. Gene Hackman is okay but nowhere near as good as Anthony Quayle. Huckleberry Fox is adorable but not in the same league as the kid of the original. Same for Henry Thomas in comparison to the boy of the original.

brothersdinsdale I saw this movie on its release in 1984. I had much the same relationship with my Dad as the boy in this story, so it touched a raw nerve. When you have an experience like this boy, and you can closely identify with him the storyline takes an on an extremely emotional roller-coaster ride, and needless to say I broke down at the end of the film. I have just connected to the internet and I have been searching for this film for the past 20 years. Now I finally have a copy and I'm going to watch it with my wife and Daughter. Needless to say I have a very close relationship with them because I made sure things with my kids would be different. I never got close to my Dad.

beulahbailey I have been enjoying this film for 20 years and it makes me cry buckets every time.....but in a good way - the feeling of release is immense.Gene Hackman's performance is superb but it's Henry Thomas who is the star; forget E.T., this is real acting. While I admit that the plot-line of two young children losing their mother is depressing, it is sadly a fact of life and I think the film more than adequately portrays the sudden devastating impact on the both the surviving parent and the children. Moreover, it shows the lesson to be learned by all workaholic fathers at how important a hands-on role is to their children and themselves. As an English nanny, I have seen and experienced the sadness all too often. Women - watch and weep. Men - watch, weep and learn! This film should be on DVD NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!