Change Your Image
llindith
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Brother Can You Spare a Dime (1975)
Not useful
This was labeled as a documentary, so I expected there to be actual interviews or at least a narrative explaining what the references were. Instead, it's just a melange of clips and archival footage without any context. There's no script, no identification of anyone who's speaking, no labeling on the film clips, no explanation of the significance of what's been included.
I'm fairly knowledgeable about this era, and even I didn't recognize half of the archival footage used or the personalities who appeared in it. I certainly didn't learn anything more from it, which is a shame.
Anyone actually wanting to learn about the Depression era should give this a pass. The PBS series on the 1930s was far more interesting and informative.
Man of Steel (2013)
Critics are morons. This is GREAT.
I'd say that I can't believe critics can be so wrong about a movie, but unfortunately, I've had enough lousy nights watching crap they thought was gold not to realize how wrong they can be.
In this case, they are STUPIDLY WRONG.
This does for Superman what the Dark Knight trilogy did for Batman. DC's biggest problem in comics is that while they had good stories, they rarely had good characterization. (Marvel in comics, OTOH, has had pretty decent characterization, but their plots make soap operas look logical.) For years, Superman was (no pun) a fairly two-dimensional character. That doesn't translate well to the big screen. Batman was an easier transition, thanks in part to the ground prepared by Frank Miller's Dark Knight series, but also because Batman is human. Batman can be hurt. Therefore, Batman is a character who, at heart, we can understand and sympathize with. If you can't understand or empathize with a character, it's nearly impossible to develop real sympathy for them.
This Superman does what I have always, ALWAYS wished SOMEONE could do with Superman (at least, outside of the series Smallville) and let us see what life was like through his eyes. We can understand someone who doesn't fit in, someone who's had to endure bullying. And, I admit, as a parent of an autistic child, one scene of the movie completely struck home to me. I've always *liked* Superman, largely because I have a weakness for Boy Scout-paladin types, but I've never really empathized with him. This time, I could. They managed to give us a 3D Superman (again, no pun intended.) Not only did it give us a Superman we could empathize with, but it finally, FINALLY gave us a Lois Lane we could like and understand. She isn't just an air-headed, screaming bimbo who gets herself in trouble; she's a nervy, tough reporter who likes an adrenaline rush and isn't cowed by anything. *This* is someone who has enough backbone to hook up with the Man of Steel! Zod as a villain is so far improved over the Donner version it isn't even funny. And he is a GOOD villain -- tougher than the hero, ruthless, and in many ways, a perfect dark mirror of Superman himself. This Zod's vices stem from his virtues.
Crowe as Jor-El was incredible, and Costner as Pa Kent was as well. I also loved Diane Lane as Ma Kent...although forget about tugging on Superman's cape, Jim Croce; that ain't nothing compared to hitting his mother! I even enjoyed the minor characters. I especially liked the way the humans contributed to the fight, and in doing so, demonstrated to the battle-bred Kryptonians that even though humans may be physically not as strong, their courage can still prevail.
I thought that was a particularly strong message, because in the end, it's Superman's humanity, not any superpowers, which makes him truly Superman.
If you have not seen this movie, go. Go NOW. You won't regret you did.
The Business of Being Born (2008)
Informative? No. Pressing an ill-informed agenda? Yes.
I watched this dreck after I had my own child and I'm SO glad I didn't watch it beforehand. I would never, EVER recommend it for a mother-to-be. I mean, come on, it's RICKI LAKE. It's not like it's a real documentary. It's biased beyond all rationality and the whole reason for its being was that Lake herself was brainwashed into grieving over some fulfilling birth process she didn't get. Gee, think she's going to be balanced and fair? Maybe by Fox News's definition, but not any other.
In short: I'm sick of midwives being portrayed as being incredible medical experts when they simply aren't. At least if a doctor screws up, I can sue him for malpractice. S/he knows it and I know it. If nothing else, I'd think that would serve to keep a doctor on his/her toes, especially with malpractice rates being what they are. What option do I have with a midwife? Have her say she's sorry when she screws up and kills my child (or me?) I had contact with THREE midwives during my own pregnancy, and the advice of ANY of them would have resulted not only in my child's death, but in mine as well. All three of them pooh-poohed my several miscarriages and my advanced age, insisted I'd do just fine at home, shrugged off my preeclampsia and rising blood pressure.
Fortunately, I ignored all three of these so-called experts and took my doctor's advice. As a result, my baby got an extra month of growth, even though she did have to be taken two months early, and most importantly, because I was in a hospital, where I could be monitored, we quickly realized that the baby's heartbeat was being affected every time I had a contraction. Had I insisted upon my 'natural' delivery instead of having an emergency c-section, my daughter would have been born dead and I probably would have hemorrhaged to death...because the placenta was partially separated. NOT something a midwife at home could EVER have handled!!
Obviously, chalk ME down as someone who isn't going to be giving any credit to midwives and their 'birth is oh-so-natural' garbage. Sure, it's natural, and in its natural state, it kills a lot of women and infants. How natural do we really want to be? I'm not denying some of the accusations directed at the medical industry, and I certainly don't have a problem taking on insurance. However, is there really a difference between the doctors who want to deliver in a timely fashion and the midwives who out and out lie to their patients and tell them that birth is natural and there's no danger? Well, I guess there is one: The midwife will be far more likely to kill the mother and the patient.
Which is how I arrive at the crux of my problem with this documentary and other natural-everything brainwashing like it. What's important in the birth process is NOT how 'natural' the mother feels the experience is, or, in fact, HER 'experience' at all. The one and ONLY important thing in a birth is that the mother and child come through it alive and healthy.
However, what I'm seeing because of this documentary and other garbage like it is that women are ignoring danger signs and warning signals because they think 'natural' equals 'less danger', or because they're so selfish they don't even consider the needs of the baby, only their own emotional ones. I've even seen some women say they'll turn down a c-section, even an emergency one, because they're convinced by this crowd that they're being poor mothers if they do! That's just insane. Lake is doing her best to promote this ill-advised and downright stupid point of view.
If Lake wanted to put time and effort into something, she should have done something which assured women that *every* birth experience is worth valuing, not try to place worth and weight on how they've given birth. If they did what was necessary to end up with a living, healthy child, they did something right.
As for me, I had an emergency c-section, and you know what? I consider it a totally rewarding birth experience. I don't think I missed out on a thing by not having to hurt and sweat through hours of agonizing labor, and I really, really don't think I missed out on what would have happened had I gone through the natural process -- a dead baby.
As it turns out, the sweetest sound I ever heard was my daughter's first cry, and I'm more grateful than I can say to the doctor who saved us both. And I say that as someone who is, by and large, extremely skeptical of doctors and who lost her own mother to malpractice.
And news flash, people: birth hurts even when it's done oh-so-naturally. I notice several of the reviewers either don't have children or are male, so they really can't comment on the accuracy. 'Thought birth in a hospital didn't hurt'...oh, please!
Love Comes Softly (2003)
Boring, predictable and barely kept me awake.
Where do I begin? First, let's start on the predictability of the story. I could have predicted the bones of the entire story, including the baby by the dead husband, after watching the first five minutes of the movie.
Could there be any more Western clichés? Let's see: Pregnant by a dead husband, instructing someone to boil the water when the baby's born, the stranger you're married to has to deliver the baby, the greenhorn woman who, in the words of the rather spiteful child she's caring for, "can't do anything useful." Oh, and let's not forget the complete unbelievability of having a just-born baby and his mother fully dressed and completely free of any blood or bodily fluids within just minutes after the birth. Boy, I wish I'd been able to invoke that cliché after my daughter was born.
I also slapped my forehead several times at the complete idiocy of some of the scenes. First, any idiot who's ever ridden a horse knows you don't go chasing after it, like Heigl's first husband did. Let's see, it's not carrying the burden of a man, and you don't even have a lasso if you do catch up with it. D'oh. The man's handled horses halfway across the country and he doesn't know to get a little corn or sweet feed or a carrot and lure the horse over to him?? Next, having Missy fire the gun during the whiteout. Okay, I can see the logic there, but what does she do? Stands there with the *door open* in the middle of a howling blizzard. Hello? Can you say, letting out all the heat *and* probably making the fire go out?? And last but not least, when the barn that's about 50 feet away from the house is burning down, Clark tells Matty to stay in the house with the children. Hello again? If you're that close to a burning building, get OUT of the building, in case the one you're in gets set ablaze! And while you're at it, start trucking out your valuables from the house, in case.
I simply could not see people with the experience these people were supposed to have had making these kind of errors. It really threw me out of the story.
The character of Matty was all right, probably the best in the film (which isn't saying much). Clark, however, was two-dimensional and pious to the point of nausea. I realize it's a Christian film, but do they have to drive the point home with a sledgehammer? The little girl was so predictable in everything she did, it was unreal. Gee, she's a brat. Gee, she wears pants, because, of course, every little girl without a mom becomes a horrible tomboy! And gee, of course, she hates Matty, until Matty makes her a dress, at which point, she does the predictable 180.
I also saw absolutely no reason these two would have suddenly fallen for each other. There was simply no character development along that line. One day, Matty's barely speaking to Clark, and the next -- how droll! -- she's pushing him over in the garden and he's tickling her. It's almost like I heard the director say, "Okay, you're in love now!" Totally unbelievable.
This isn't family entertainment. We can think of a lot more entertaining things to do than watch this dreck. C'mon, people, throw some plot into a story for a change!