Reviews

If you want some sense of accuracty or truth in your movies, don't look for it in this one. I am a former resident of Ruidoso, New Mexico and have been to the ski resort there on multiple occasions. I can tell you that:

It is called Ski Apache and not Ski Alto. While you do turn in the small town of Alto to go up the mountain to the resort, that is not the name of the resort.

The ski resort has been owned by the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe for over sixty years. It is not owned by a local family (or been in their family for generations).

A character asks why there are no hotels in the area. THERE ARE!!!! Tourism because of the ski resort, the horse racing track, the lakes, the casinos, and many other things make this town into a tourist destination and the area towns (Ruidoso, Alto, and Ruidoso Downs) are full of hotels and motels. It is the main industry for the area.

Ski Apache is not a dumpy little ski run. As the southern most ski resort in the United States, it is full every week with skiers for the nearby cities of El Paso and Lubbock (Texas) and Juarez and Chihuahua (Mexico) as well as people from further away in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.

There isn't a Christmas Tree lot on the top of the mountain in the parking lot for the resort. That is honestly not a financially viable plan for the square footage.

The constant Dick jokes in the movie because of a main characters name were also unappreciated as well as unwelcome and should have gotten this a PG-13 rating.

Avoid this film like the plague.

This is the obligatory, propaganda, leftist, anti-gun episode. Like most of these episodes on other shows, it is fully opposed to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights of the American Citizens. It uses a lot of falsehoods in the story about how "easy" it is to obtain and automatic weapon and states that they can be sold at gun shows. It demonizes the gun and not the shooter (while people who engage in and commit drive by shootings are all lowlifes who belong behind bars or on death row). While many of the episodes of this television series are wonderful, this is one of those that should be avoided.

Awful remake and interpretation of The Father of the Bride, which was done well by Spencer Tracy and Steve Martin. They had to make this one political as the bride is going to Mexico to try to help illegal aliens (she uses the politically correct term migrants for these criminals) get across the border as part of her "non profit organization." We also have to get politically correct by making the younger sister a lesbian. This movie, even with the talents of Andy Garcia, was still painfully bad to watch. There really were no likeable characters in the main cast as the girls were both spoiled brats (and so were the parents).

Tom Cruise was never Jack Reacher (just like he will never be as good as Jim Phelps in Mission Impossible). His films in both series are/were a travesty.

This is enjoyable. While the acting wasn't the greatest at times, it was decent overall and the first eight episode arc was very enjoyable. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys the genre.

P. S. If. I were Reacher, I'd have broken one of my cardinal rules and stayed in town with Roscoe. That actress was about the most watchable thing in this series. To reference Spinal Tap, she was an eleven!

This is easily the worst non-church produced church movie ever! It is even worse than The Home Teachers or The Work and The Glory films.

At least the Work and the Glory tried to get Joseph Smith right by getting a charismatic actor to play the part. In this movie, Joseph can best be described as nerdy and mostly clueless.

The history is definitely revisionist and inaccurate. My least favorite was the part where Martin Harris browbeat Joseph into giving him the manuscript at the exact moment when Emma was having a stillborn baby.

They also refer to something as history that first appeared in the famous forged Salamander letter (remember Mark Hoffman?), and was then seized on in several anti publications for a few years. It's nice to know that the author did his research from anti-Mormon histories!

I wasted twenty bucks buying this one. Don't waste your money too!!!!

Okay, this was kind of mediocre up until the end, when it left everything hanging and did not resolve several of the major plot points. Are we looking at a series of films here?

Unresolved issues included:

1. Does she get to see her mother before she dies?

2. Do her parents and the busy body midwife get into trouble for violating the shunning?

3. If her former boyfriend who taught her how to play the guitar (and who she promised to marry) still actually alive and living in a city somewhere? We are told that he drowned and that they never recovered the body, but he obviously wanted "out." (and where did he ever get that guitar in the first place?)

4. Will she, if she returns, end up with The Bishop?

Another thing... the shunning itself happened for the wrong reasons. You don't shun someone just because they left you at the altar and have some unresolved issues with their parents. This seemed like a contrived way to move along the plot.

In reality, the Amish are a very forgiving people. They would not treat someone like this girl was treated for such minor things.

Overall, I'd say that this was a very weak 4/10 (and that is probably being generous).

Okay, I'm generally a sucker for Christmas movies. I also enjoy the Merchant-Ivory style films about the prim and proper Victorian age. This should have both, right? Wrong.

The acting from some of the principles is bad. The story is pretty lame. The ending is predictable. Having the Bissett character show affection for a character she loathes (and who despises her) is out of character and doesn't fit in with the movie.

The local romantic figure is such a loser that we wonder what Tillie ever saw in him or why she would even question her relationship with Gideon/Gad.

Yawn is a good description. "Lame" would work just as well.

For those who are members of the LDS Church (for whom this movie was made), you'll know exactly what I mean when I say that this is nothing more than an extended seminary video (better than Tom Trails, but somewhat along the lines of Like Unto Us).

The acting is awful (especially by the people playing the male lead's parents). The special effects do not exist (where they could have done more than some quick flashback pictures for the "death" scene). No one kisses or hits anyone else. What you suppose to be beer is seen only in colored plastic cups so that you are not sure.

I'll give it three stars just because the female lead seems to be trying, though her facial expressions in some scenes show how frustrated she is with the really bad material.

Watch this movie only if you enjoy seminary videos.

There have been some really good movies made in the "Mormon Universe" the last few years (The Best Two Years, The Other Side of Heaven). There have been a few enjoyable films (The Singles Ward, Passage To Zarahemla). There have also been a lot of stinkers (The Home Teachers, Baptists at our BBQ).

This falls into the latter category.

Once again, a film maker has decided that it is okay to make a "moralistic, 90 minute seminary video" and pass it off as a feature length movie. Sorry, it didn't work for seminary (remember Tom Trails?) and it does not work here. It also didn't work for Out of Step or Charly or many of the other LDS films that try to take this approach.

Once you get the set up, you can always see the punchline coming. My wife and I sat there and told you what was coming next each and every time! "Now, she's going to pray." "When they get off the island, he's going to take credit for making the flares." There were also some big plot holes. Notice that she loses her flip flops when she almost falls down a cliff. 15 minutes later, she is wearing them again. Because of the ever changing beard growths, it is also obvious that this movie was shot out of sequence. The opening scene shows a city obviously on the ocean, but the scenes in the office show the Wasatch Mountains in the background.

I am being generous in giving this a two, and that is only because some of the scenery was pretty.

This is an incredible dysfuncional family story that is simply ruined by the sub-plot of the country artist.

Everything he paints involves penises and scrotums in poor quality work that is supposed to be brilliant. I am not prude, but this turned what could have been a great movie into a piece of crap. It was impossible to look and see past this as we have it in the beginning and all through the story.

It does not tie in to anything, is not really symbolic of anything, and ruins what could have been another "Ordinary People."

Amy Adams (Enchanted) was brilliant in her role and deserved the Oscar nomination. The acting was mostly superb and the interaction was heart rending and heart felt.

It's bad. It's awful. It's not so bad that it is funny or campy, but it is just plain terrible.

I thought that Out of Step or Pride and Prejudice were the worst of the Mormon cinema sub-genre, but this is worse.

The story can't seem to decide if people are LDS or not. You have two guys on bikes in white shirts and ties (obviously missionaries) who are bug sprayers? You have an Idaho community with everyone being brother and sister, but they are some kind of protestants? You can also see every plot twist coming from a mile away (such as where both guys get their girls in the end). Even when that happens, neither guy kisses either girl! The script sucks.

If you want good, funny LDS cinema, stick to the original Singles Ward or The Best Two Years. Leave this one behind.

Excellent. This simple, sweet, family film is the best motion picture that I have seen in a long time. I am a natural born cynic, and yet I loved this movie! Amy Adams is wonderful as Giselle and deserves an Oscar nomination for the role. Her acting is fantastic, from the voice over cartoons in the beginning, through the fish out of water scenes, through the production numbers, through the emotions displayed and the dancing at the ball, to the kick butt action in the climactic fight on the outside of the skyscraper. She was wonderful! The second star, and big scene stealer, was the chipmunk. The scene where he plays both the princess and the overweight side kick to pantomime what is going to happen is hilarious.

The other characters are magnificent in their parts. The prince has the required charm along with the inflated ego (Think Gaston from Beauty and the Beast). He stays in character the entire movie. The lawyer puts just the right amount of confusion and frustration into his role. Susan Sarandon shows that she could also be Cruella DeVille brought to life.

This is the best family movie since the original Shrek, without all of the adult jokes from that film. It may also be the best overall movie of the last three or four years.

It was strange, but the vast majority of the audience that I saw this movie with were adults. Most did not have children with them! It was an audience of adults enjoying and laughing at a pure, sweet, children's film.

SHOULDN'T THAT, BY ITSELF, SEND "HOLLYWOOD" A MESSAGE THAT WE WANT MORE FILMS LIKE THIS!!!!!

I can't wait until the movie comes out on DVD.

I'm from Texas. I've lived all but about two years of my life in Texas or New Mexico. That guy on the screen isn't a cowboy and can't play a cowboy. That horse just don't buck! The plot is formulaic and you can see everything coming at you five minutes in advance. In fact, you could probably guess the ending just by reading a short synopsis. Nothing new here, it's all been done before.

While this is not as bad as "Out of Step", it is as bad as the LDS version of "Pride and Prejudice" and does have some of the feel of an extended, two hour seminary video.

I had hoped the quality made LDS cinema like "The Best Two Years" might start leading to other good stuff. I got really happy when "Saints and Soldiers" came out and begin to see it happening. Work like this, and other recent movies in the genre, have moved us back to square one again.

Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.

If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.

Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog "Shoeshine" (in reference to the dog being "Shoeshine Boy" in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.

My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.

The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a "smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults" attitude.

As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.

The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent "C" at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.

I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values.

Slightly longer than a fifteen minute seminary video. Just as bad, just as cheesy, just as predictable. The bad kids really are not that bad, the kid who falls doesn't really fall that far, you know...all the clichés.

Still, like most LDS films (Seminary and mainstream), the acting is mediocre, the scenery is always Provo (are there any other mountains in the world that can be used as background), and you start looking at your watch.

Avoid the movie. Yes, he does go on a mission (as if you couldn't guess) and does get the girl. That's all you need to remember.

Okay, as an action movie, it isn't too bad. As an espionage movie, it isn't too bad. As a Bond movie, however, it's (to use the vernacular) bloody awful.

Daniel Craig is not James Bond. He cannot bring off the suave playboy. The film's apologists try to say that this is because they are showing us the development of the character. No, they are just giving us excuses because of the shortcomings of their actor. Daniel Craig belongs in the class of Stallone and Van Damme, two other men who can beat people up but could never be James Bond.

This movie is not as bad as Die Another Day or View to a Kill, the two worst Bond movies ever made. It is, however, less than the Lazenby film.

From the beginning action scene, which has always given us a thrill ride, I knew we were in for a yawner. This action scene is Bond shooting a man in an office and attempting to drown a man in a bathroom. Nothing spectacular or exciting.

The credits, which have always featured silhouettes of often naked women with guns, was instead lousy cut-outs of fighting men and playing card images. It got no better after this.

I will admit that I was not disturbed by the fact that there was little or no of the famous Bond gadgetry (at least John Cleese was not here this time as comic relief!). This did, however, bother my 13 year old son and his buddies.

The general grumble and chatter of the people walking out of the theatre was not positive. There were a lot of "okays" but no "greats" were overheard. The dominant word would have been "fair" or just "ehhh." Proper sentiment for a mediocre film.

Sean Connery has nothing to worry about, the role is still his. Craig, in fact, may be the second of the one movie Bonds.

This is an incredible movie. It has everything: great acting, an Oscar winning performance (Heckart as the mother), believable characters, and a young, hot Goldie running around for thirty minutes in her undies.

The acting of the three principles deserved three Oscar nods, but only one was given (for the top performance). Mother Bird goes from being overprotective to having to push her son from the nest. The different emotions portrayed by the character are wonderful and we can all see ourselves as overprotective parents in her role.

Edward Albert's performance makes us wonder why he never became an A list actor.

With Goldies performance in this film, along with her other early performance and Oscar in Cactus Flower, I wonder why she lowered herself to the stupid comedies she made the next several years (Protocol, etc.). The ditsy, dumb blonde was and is a better actress, as is evidenced by her work here.

Why does Paul Michael Glaser seem to show up in bit parts in all the great 60's and 70's films? He was also in Fiddler on the Roof! This is one of the great romantic comedies of all time.

Yep, the acting is poor, the story is poor, the plot is poor, there are a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies, it is not believable on any level, and it probably got panned by every film critic on the planet.

The only problem with that is that this movie is so funny you will wet yourself. My wife and I died laughing. When we stood up at the conclusion of the movie, we felt discussed it with the people around us. Everyone said the same thing: "Man, that was one stupid, lame movie,...but it was really funny."

I always considered Larry to be the weak link in the Blue Collar quartet, but he definitely comes into his own with this movie. Yep, he makes fun of just about everyone on the planet that the politically correct want to protect. Yep, you might be offended once or twice if he skewers your group!

It looks like a lot of people are giving it a "1" in the ratings, but I'll bet money 90% of them never saw it. Sure, it is a "1" quality wise, but it's an "11" on the laugh meter, so I averaged it out to a solid "6."

Remember, if you're one of those (as Larry calls them) "Tofu Fartin' Fairys," you'll hate this. If you are a real human being, enjoy the laughs.