Reviews

This film is a study of a Good Guy, who wants funding to start a national boys' camp for the "Boy Rangers", going against the Bad Guys, who want to build a dam on the same land only for their own selfish interests (not hydro-electricity or anything, you fool). You may ask why taxpayers would want to pay for a camp only a few of the nation's boys could live near; you may ask why the camp couldn't be built on a different piece of land; you may ask why a private organization should get federal funds; you may ask if there were any issues that constituents would have found more pressing. Well, apparently that's because you're one of the Bad Guys too.

Let's be honest-- at 500 pages most of us aren't going to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories." This film serves as a much easier introduction to the theories and realities about why we get fat, what causes coronary heart disease and diabetes, and what we can do to reverse those conditions. In an easy-to-understand and humorous way, the film explains why the "obvious" reasons we are fat (access to fast food, fat in the diet, etc) are often the wrong answers. If you are trying to lose weight, have heart disease or type-2 diabetes, or just want to live a healthier lifestyle, grab a friend and sit down to watch this film.

The best thing about this film is the light-up "electric horseman" outfit that Redford wears in the beginning of the film-- as I recall, it inspired many a Halloween costume when the film was released. Otherwise, this film is utterly ridiculous. We are supposed to believe a corporation spends million of dollars on a winning racehorse not to breed it, but to serve as a corporate mascot, despite the fact that most people can't tell one brown horse from another. We are supposed to believe that a rodeo champion would be a useful spokesman to sell cereal, even though almost no Americans can name a single rodeo champion from any point in history, five-time winner or not. We are supposed to believe that after days adventuring in the desert, neither Redford or Fonda looks like they've been more than three feet away from a blow-dryer and can of Final Net for touch-ups. This film was less inspiring than insulting.

This was definitely above-average fare for the Travel Channel. Loretta Lynn and her grown children explain (with truly spooky personal stories) why they think that the house and surrounding land on their plantation is surrounded. Ms. Lynn is charming as always and reveals much about her personal life at Hurricane Mills as well. Most of the "most haunted" type shows are tacky and seem to be made in order to drum up business for various ghost-infested pubs and hotels, but this was more about a family's personal beliefs. They have shown this several times on cable and it is still worth a look-- I don't know if it is available on videotape. One note-- Ms. Lynn does not perform any music in the program as I recall.

This is one of those strange movies where you can tell that someone who wanted to put in the effort could have done a much better job. Instead, the filmmakers went ahead with a really awful script and decided not to bother themselves with too many historic details. The dialogue is clearly meant to inform the ignorant about the era, but reveals very little about the inner lives of the characters. Further, despite much hand wringing about the proper roles of women at the time, we are treated to situations such as 1. open-mouthed kissing between an unmarried, upper-class couple 2. an obviously pregnant matron traveling in the city and 3. a lady repeatedly walking the streets of London at night unescorted. Finally, this film has far too little information about the actual domestic life of women that Mrs. Beeton sought to address, chamber-pots, hand-washed laundry, and all. A real disappointment to anyone interested in Mrs. Beeton's book.

Even as a child I never really liked this show. It was extremely repetitive and gross, with lots of jokes about rotting food, etc. The child actors were very run-of-the-mill and the adults looked like they were sitting out a spell in purgatory. I think much of people's adulation of this show comes from the fact that at the time it was on the air, cable was still quite a luxury and being able to watch it was one of the bragging rights of elementary school. Perhaps this show should have been named "This Program Is Not Up To The Standards Of Network Television" to help clear up any confusion. I am not surprised that most of the actors involved (excluding the little-seen Alanis, of course) faded into obscurity.

I admit that I don't find the bickering on the show all that entertaining, and I agree that a little more background on the marriage should be provided-- what, for example, was Rochelle prepared for when she married this guy? Anyway, I do find the show a nice counterpoint to the endless remodeling shows on HGTV. People on the other programs are constantly tearing out serviceable but "dated" fixtures only to replace them with new ones that will be dated in a few years as well, and energy and resource conservation is rarely discussed. The gadgets that Begley has installed are pretty interesting, and I would like to see him host a "how-to" show about running a green household.

I certainly cannot agree with the previous poster who found this episode partly humorous-- in fact, this is one of the few almost unbearably frightening Twilight Zone shows. A young boy's power to control his community through his childish whims is an excellent allegory of the power of any dictator. I imagine that office holders in North Korea spend most of their day saying something similar to "it's good that you did that." This episode powerfully portrays unchecked narcissism. I do agree that the "special effects" version in the Twilight Zone movie is inferior, not only because it is overproduced but because the little boy is presented as brilliant and perhaps even redeemable.

This film is only available to those who are "temple worthy" members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons). It is shown to attendees at the Mormon temples throughout the country. While perhaps millions of people have seen this film (or the original live-action version), you will never see it on television, never be able to rent it from Blockbuster or Netflix, and never download it from a web site. Even devout Mormons will concede that this film is not well-produced and many consider it the low point of their temple experience. Nonetheless, that it is supposed to be a secret, and it is a secret kept by millions of people, makes this probably one of the most important low-budget films in American history.

This film deals with the unusual subject of bringing up a severely disabled child. Although the plot does get a little convoluted, the film does convey a deeper pro-life message: all life, no matter how short, how precarious, how humble, is worthwhile. This message applies not only to the disabled child, but to the mother who cares for her constantly. The mother's sacrifice is not, as one character states, "six years wasted." Instead, the film tries to give some dignity to people society would like to forget. Unfortunately some of the subplots and flashback techniques can make the film hard to follow at times. I would definitely recommend this film for adolescents and adults-- the subject matter may be too intense for elementary-age viewers.

This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.

Marsha Mason is alright in this film, but Susan Swift (the little girl) delivers all of her lines in two ways-- a happy whine, or a sad whine. The sad whines are a lot louder. Perhaps that is why her parents seem oddly underwhelmed by the mishaps that befall her in the film. At any rate, the script is pretty terrible, mixing real Hindu theology about reincarnation, which should be respected,--- with crappy 1970's hypnotic regression crap that belongs in the new-age dustbin. I can't believe anyone ever found this movie to be scary, but perhaps the subject matter itself-- reincarnation-- was seen as forbidden and "occult." Today it is just a snooze, and Anthony Hopkins must be glad to be out of the career slump that had him taking on films like this.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen is not just a clever romance. It contains strong criticism against a society that punished women for their intelligence, created an upper class for whom working for a living was disgraceful, and operated through social interactions that could make true, intimate friendship difficult. The novel depicts intense pressure on young women to marry, and marry early-- and shows how such marriages can end in tragedy. This movie, however, is almost completely free of serious criticism of Mormon society. Instead, it is full of silly characters doing silly things, wearing foolish outfits and lobbing objects at each other in case you didn't understand that it was supposed to be a comedy. Apparently the pressure to marry that young Mormons feel is really kind of a hoot.

This film seems to be missing the main motivation for its heroine. It is made clear throughout the film, particularly in the epilogue, that Linda Lavin's character is an extremely devout Catholic. She is raising her 11 children by herself in the Australian Outback while her husband is away-- money is short-- the children hate their new life on the ranch-- she has a surly ranch hand to contend with-- but you never see her praying, let alone gathering everyone 'round for the family rosary. Sure, she mentions she loves being pregnant, a veiled reference to her adherence to the Catholic Church's ban on artificial contraception, and a Catholic priest shows up occasionally as a family friend, but surely in real life this woman's spiritual life was so much richer. The only intense spiritual practice in this film is the aboriginal belief, immediately adopted by the children, that magical stones can make it rain.

Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.

Based on the book by the same name, Mark, I Love You is about a young widower's battle for custody of his son Mark. After the death of his young wife, Hal Painter allowed his in-laws to care for his son for a time, but they refused to return the child to him when he had settled into his new home. Because he was not only a single man, but something of a hippie, Painter's in-laws felt that they had a plausible case for keeping Mark-- and at the time, they did. The actors in this small, serious film do a good job and avoid "movie of the week" histrionics, despite the emotional subject matter. An interesting look into old prejudices concerning child custody and family ties.

While the actors in the film try their best, the script is really terrible, and the film has fairly cheap and crummy production values. Oddly enough, there are only the slightest references to surfing and the beach lifestyle that "Gidget" represents-- for example, Gidget buys her husband a pair of surfboard cuff links, and they honeymoon at the beach. The story is a generic sitcom one about Gidget's struggles as a "young married"-- her husband works too hard for a demanding company, etc. that was already out of date by the time this film was made. For example, as soon as she marries, Gidget quits her job as a schoolteacher to become a full-time housewife, even though she doesn't have any children yet.