Reviews

This really is the funniest of the Lucy-Desi Comedy Hours. The first goof was when Lucy called Fred, Ricky. "Come on over here and sit down, Ricky boy." You can see Frawley's raised eyebrows at this gaff.

Now on to Miss Bankhead (and I think that if she were still alive she would be Miss not Ms. Bankhead.) It has been written that Tallulah Bankhead was drunk the night of the filming of this episode. I wasn't sure that I wanted to buy into that until I saw her on several other TV shows (including her own show) and her eyes tell the story: she really was plastered during the LDCH as compared with other performances. How she could rise above being lit and still deliver a consummate performance is beyond me. I do know that some alcoholics have a very high tolerance level and still maintain a degree of how to keep it together.

The other line that Tallulah delivers brings me laughter every time: first the withering look casting daggers: "When Miss Bankhead is bored, Miss Bankhead will let you know."

The other thing AND I HAVE NEVER FOUND OUT THE WHAT AND THE WHY: At 23:58-59 there is a glitch in the continuity of Ethel's comment, "Oh, (glitch) at these prices we should have unlimited bickering." There was obviously an edit made there by Dann Cahn or somebody else. Of all the interviews I have watched and reminiscences, this one really obvious edit has never been spoken of or commented on. These don't make it any less of an episode. Funny is funny.

Docu-dramas. Well told biographies. Honest autobiographical styles. These styles can be used to convey a message. Many times there can be a decided tone of edgy hatred and condemnation for that which was so deeply disturbing. Blame bad parenting. Trash the portion of the religious world which knows what God's will is and how to enforce it. This film has handled this so well where the author/screen writer have chosen to take the higher road. Even when we have been deeply hurt and ostracized, HATE is not a kindly value or positive emotion. Hatred only deepens bitterness. I know. I went down that path.

Showing the family in church, the sermon, the faith practices set in motion a careful emphasis that the Conley's really were doing what they thought was best for Garrard within their understanding and parental abilities. These parents were good people to their core. There was no doubt that they loved their son. It was ignorance that took them down the wrong road. This was portrayed so effectively at every level of this movie. And the development of the characters is most commendable. The religious establishment was not demonized. There was no message of recrimination and/or condemnation.

Seeing how Martha Conley overcame her own questioning in reality is remarkable. A southern belle, subservient to her husband, a supportive minister's wife was just how it was supposed to be. To admit that she was the one who needed change, it is obvious that love is the overriding principle in her life above anything else.

Could she become the next Tammy Faye Bakker? Could she be the one who starts a chapter of GLAAD where she lives? Who knows. The takeaway from this film blended an engaging story of the boy and the parents, told with honesty that didn't resort to overdramatic portrayals yet created a story of human interest worth sharing with the world. And Martha, if you were to ever move to California, I'd like to have you as my next door neighbor.

One doesn't have to stretch very far to know it is the typical gay story: Son is gay, serious rift in the relationship, a time of incommunicado, a reconciliation and/or realization that love is the most important principle, mother (at least) changes her views once she comes to know the friends, realizes that change can be a good thing. Prejudice: If everyone were blind, there would be no prejudice. Jacki Weaver shows a rare ability to first of all understand both sides of the argument that has too often divided families. She weaves the intricacies of the character in a way that could have never been done with scripted verbiage. She brings the fundamentalist and/or conservative Christian ethic into play without an "in-your-face" delivery. In some ways this subject matter has almost been overdone with so many different films weighing in on the same story line. Yet I was drawn in by her portrayal of the character and how she drew others into her sphere--most notably the part in the cafe where she caresses so gently the mother of another cross-dressing gay child.

There were three other disconnects for me: trying to make some other place to be San Francisco. Doesn't work. The unmistakable facades of the Fairmont and Mark Hopkins are followed up with a shot in a hotel room that looks like turnpike style of lodging. Number two: if someone is conducting a choir, why can't someone somewhere either in production or filming wake up and coordinate the sound track with the motions being made? It doesn't take a degree in music for an actor to learn upbeat, downbeat, cut offs, a 3/4 or 4/4 time signature, and then coordinate singers in a rhythm with a conductor that makes sense. It's not that hard.

For the most part the music as a whole in this film is not exactly stellar. Any more if someone has a PC, a keyboard or microphone, and a software composition program, anyone can become a composer. With so much good music literature in the public domain, low budget films don't need to rely on low to no budget songs. These were terrible. There's not a tune within ear shot that is memorable. Nobody is going to be humming these tunes in the shower tomorrow morning.

This was a show that made the competition pale in comparison. It is an Aaron Spelling production made before he became a sleaze machine. "Family" was the highlight of my viewing week when I was a student in grad school--too busy for everything but Family.

I was unfamiliar with Sada Thompson's work. Her portrayal gave the character a ring of genuine realness (not reality--realness). She portrayed a character that was a lady of elegance, honesty, compassion, nurturing--qualities that were so real the apple need not fall far from the tree on this one to realize that this was who she was at heart in her real family life. I never could see enough of her work. As a character and an actress who could draw you in, she and her supporting cast mates were always welcome guests in our home. There was never another show like it before or since. And frankly nobody but Sada could ever fill this role should a new series be mounted. It was a sad day when we found out that Family would not be returning. It left a void in our lives. Would that actors could launch the same effect in the current entertainment market of TV shows. I have a feeling that this series wouldn't get past 13 weeks.

After finding a recipe as given by Rick Nineg taken from the I Love Lucy cookbook I tried making AMOFSD. First of all, both in colorized and B&W, the salad dressing is a dead ringer for Miracle Whip. The consistency that is poured from the bottle into the bowl is more liquid than MW. Lucy's comment that "it's a mighty pretty color" could hardly describe the color seen gushing from the container.

And...the point is? Based upon the recipe from the I Love Lucy Cookbook, Aunt Martha's Old Fashioned Salad Dressing is a "boiled dressing." Although a foodie, I had no idea that a salad dressing could be boiled. Well, come to find out the base is fundamentally a simple syrup which by its very nature requires bringing the 1 cup of water and 7/8 cup of sugar up to 230 degrees. Then into the syrup goes a few herbs and spices by which the syrup is "flavored." It sits for a while on very low heat then the syrup is cooled enough to be strained leaving a flavored base without leaving a lumpy texture. The final step is adding catsup and vegetable oil in a very small stream using a handheld mixer with a wire whip attachment (one could use a blender on lowest speed possible). The result is an indescribably rich and beautiful color akin to burnt sienna. Then into the fridge.

There are several things about the recipe as originally given in which a lot of steps are left out, requiring a "cooking sense". The first couple of times making this I was in the "huh?" reaction. I finally put all of the steps in for those with less than stellar kitchen skills and to serve as a reminder each time I make it.

Even so, there are a lot of variables and every batch comes out slightly different--still the same character fundamentally. The sizes and types of onions varies and one has to consider the sizes of onions in the 1950s. And while the recipe calls for ketchup, I use my own homemade catsup and that also makes a big difference. BUT WITHOUT FAIL, UNCOACHED COMMENTS FROM MY GUESTS: "THIS IS THE BEST SALAD DRESSING I'VE EVER TASTED." And it's true. There is nothing in a bottle that comes even remotely close. As well, you know all the ingredients rather than all of the stabilizers and flavor enhancers that commercial dressing manufacturers use to lengthen shelf life and allow for year-round viability of their product.

THIS SALAD DRESSING IS AN ABSOLUTE KEEPER AND THE OOHs AND AHHs FROM YOUR GUESTS IS THE PAYOFF OF SUCCESS FOR THIS COMPLETELY UNIQUE DRESSING.

Being of monumentally bad proportions in premise and execution, I'm surprised that I actually got through the first episode in its entirety, much less admit to having done so. It would have been less painful to have bamboo skewers driven under my fingernails.

Poor everything: eyewitnesses, research, presentation of forensic details even in its 1988 capabilities (if that's the year this really happened). With every single frame of every single minute, even my flat-screen TV nearly jumped off the wall screaming "WARNING WILL ROBINSON: SCRIPTED, SCRIPTED." Ashley's "mother" was interviewed. Where were Charlie's parents? Had they refused to speak, did anybody think of accessing the transcript of the trial? Too much work for a low budget unreality series. Just make stuff up and who is going to bother checking facts? How about some expert witnesses that weren't scripted? "I think I've seen that face before." Oh, but wait: from what I saw of Episode 2. Weren't these the same expert witnesses as seen in Episode 1? Did anybody try Googling Charlie/Charles Gerber? And what did I find?.......In the never to be forgotten words of the abrasive telephone operator, Ernestine Tomlin, "Go look it up yourself. I've got better things to do." (Snort, snort).

Ms. Sheindlin's demeanor and overall tone toward the defendant was harsh--and it was well deserved. AND it was her golden opportunity to send a message to any and all drivers that are 1- unlicensed, 2--incompetent, 3--incapable of passing multiple driving tests, 4--uninsured, 5--driving while high on pot, 6--operating a lethal weapon without the owner's permission, and 7--unwilling to accept responsibility. Add to the mix unabashed and unbridled stupidity. By not showing up to court, the mother was teaching her daughter irresponsibility and how to skirt the laws of California, while also condoning her daughter's deplorable behavior. The mother is role modeling that one doesn't need to abide by the laws governing the operation of a vehicle. "They," referencing the plaintiffs, "weren't watching where they were walking--they ran into me, I didn't hit them." Outrageous. The judge nailed her about her "pat" answers. The defendant wouldn't listen. Apparently the time in jail was not enough for the defendant to fully contemplate the gravity of her actions since the time of the accident and the date of taping this episode. Did the Judge get through to a remorseless and calloused defendant? Did anyone in Sacramento listen to the Judge about not issuing driver's licenses until 25 years of age with this kind of history? Unfortunately, It still would not prevent illegal and irresponsible driving. And the judge was TOTALLY in-line by calling her "stupid". It was the wrong day and the wrong judge to appear before and not know that an unlicensed driver had just killed 6 people the day before. I continue to remain a great admirer of Judge Sheindlin's quick ferreting out of the truth. "Don't Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." Yes, your honor.

And just what DID she say? "If you don't have anything good to say,...come sit by me". That pretty much describes my sentiments about this cinematic reduction.

A self-respecting Swiss village would never be found with dreadful and gauche displays--of everything. The general store? On the street where you shop? The village Christmas tree? In the inn? Pointy, plastic, scantily dressed garland? Another commercial for the 12-days of Christmas starting in early October? And filming, in part, on a Warner Brothers backlot and green screens? A chef that couldn't microwave a seal-a-meal? And then...not knowing wines appropriate to a frozen dinner? Tell me not.

And just how could an attempt be made for some degree of authenticity--a nod to the real stuff? If on-site visits are not possible due to budget or pandemic constraints, watch some famous tour group leaders' DVDs on the REAL Christmases in Switzerland (and many other places in Europe as well). Find the richness of the many European traditions noting the lack of materialism as the primary reason for the season. (I'm not against capitalism--just how it is used, displayed and perceived.)

Seeing that this movie was a 2022 production it was a surety that I hadn't seen it before. Although sounding like a Scrooge, I actually love Christmas movies. A couple of weeks before Thanksgiving my quest begins for a variety of holiday flat-screen events. And it provides me some degree of pain to have to admit that I was taken in by the year of release and movie title. I have a hope that the new Christmas movies will blow our socks off given the pent-up well of creativity so badly stifled by Covid--and I'm going to keep hoping.

As for the final analysis? Come sit by me...I still have nothing good to say.

WHY? What was accomplished in this disastu-drama? As entertainment that capitalizes on misfortunes brought about by natural causes, all we need to do is watch the evening news. At least the reporting is current, even when it may be inaccurate. Having experienced devastating loss as a fire survivor, I have little interest in viewing more disaster-related cinemas. This is a lackluster production whose current relevance, never brilliant at best, is fading. Five years from now it will very likely be forgotten reporting of something that really didn't matter to begin with. The troubles of an amusement park going belly up pales in comparison to our current real-life disasters. For entertainment I need something, well, entertaining, not another dose of disasters.

Casting delivered seasoned actors who had not just good but very good chemistry. The lack of a 10th star? My Pollyanna side got the best of me, wanting the story line to be a boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl- boy-wins-girl--next seen carrying the box for Doris as the elevator door closes..off they go to Staten Island, pack a suitcase for Doris leaving everything else behind, get a surprise makeover on the Oprah show, shed the unsupportive brother and now-envious sister-in-law to clean out the house, and ride off into the sunset to a blissful long term relationship in Santa Fe (we're talking a Doris'-like fantasy). In reality the character development showed a very skillful blending of script and actors who approach their profession as true crafts-people. I would recommend this movie when a near-mindless bit of fluff is needed to take the edge and seriousness out of life--even if only for a couple of hours.

Well, JJ is as brilliant as she ever was. But the cases and people are in serious decline. A battle over a chest of drawers, squabbling over a 20-year old car, and people who can barely count from one to ten (much less speak intelligibly). Are the producers desperate for cases? There have been some that are both interesting and funny like the bride who didn't get spandex in her wedding dress (I loved her honesty!), or the ins and outs of dog breeding (one case was enough--didn't need two and counting), selling a vehicle twice, renting the same room seven times, etc. Some of the cases where the charges are patently wrong or unreasonable are made interesting watching her powers of logic and reasoning. But I have yet to hear my favorite slap-down: "SPEAK NOT!" Somehow, this phrase loses something in the written recounting. So, JJ, SPEAK MORE!

UPDATE: Since I wrote my initial review based upon the first few episodes, cases have come and come again. Well, take heart: the Old Girl still has the blood and guts for which she has become famous/infamous.. The quality of the cases has improved substantially through Season 1. "Speak Not" seems to be replaced with "I'm speaking, not you". Would that her common sense and unvarnished rhetoric could be making a difference beyond just the entertaining aspect of this series.

NEXT UPDATE: I just watched Season 2, Episode 40. To be said of both cases: How is it that people seek a judgment and are totally unprepared to provide documentation. Somewhere in the many clauses of a contract there must be specific instructions of what will be needed. There may also be some verbal instructions to ensure the accuracy of a claim/case to be heard.

The second case was very troublesome. The plaintiff paid the defendant $2700 for a truck and he never delivered the goods. The defendant had no written documentation nor provide accurate and honest information about the auction and the date--and verging on incoherency. The defendant was either drunk or high, or both. Are there no clauses in the contracts which permit the producers to 86 a guest if they show up plastered? And if they did show up drunk/high would there be a forfeiture of their fee for appearing? I am really surprised that this case ever made it to the point of taping. But in this case it would not have been fair to the plaintiff who was able to communicate very well. Here is one more example of the death of common sense and honesty.

The writing here seems to pander to the lowest common denominator propped up by a laugh track to make up for a poor script. I got through one episode--but only with the liberal application of my mute key. Who makes up the rules that a sit-com isn't funny unless there is canned laughter after every sentence? The studio? The producers? The unions? The sponsors? The network? I knew nothing of the ratings and approached with an open mind. I knew the name of only one actor which is why I watched an episode. But within a very short time it was obvious that the days of "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" are gone.

I love sappy, feel good, Pollyanna type movies that have good moral values. This movie has neither. I've given it a 2 so that it will give me some room to revise it downward should I feel charitable. Forty five minutes into and I was still in the "huh?" category. The script could have been taken straight out of the files of Tammy Faye Baker where nobody could be enlisted to provide story continuity or serve as script editor. Find a colorized Shirley Temple movie. You'll be glad you did.

Who can argue about the wholesome all-American(?) boy who rescues a wolf? I will attempt an argument.

I would like to think that in the 23 years since this movie was made that as a society we have become more sensitive as we learn to share, preserve, respect, and live with wild animals. They are not pets nor should we attempt to anthropomorphize them. A film like this sends the entirely wrong message, not just to kids but adults as well. I am amazed how it is that a story, an image, something on a TV or movie screen can be seen as reality, even if the movie is based on a true story. It is still just a story.

In Jean Stapleton's Foundation Interview she recounted an experience where she was working on another project at the time her character, Edith Bunker, died on All In the Family. The following morning she stepped out of her hotel room walking down the hall, and a housekeeper nearly fainted upon seeing her. "Didn't you die last night?". When the Beverly Hillbillies was first on the air, the tourists mobbed the home of Carlotta Kirkeby in Bel Air. There would be a knock at the door whereupon opening it the visitors would ask, "Are Jed and Granny around? Are Ellie May and Jethro home?" My point is that there seems to be a challenge for some to differentiate between entertainment and real life for whatever reason. The idea that you could rescue a wild animal, nurse it back to health, subdue it, put it on a leash and muzzle it creates an unrealistic and very tenuous line between story and reality. It creates unrealistic expectations that humans can rescue a wild animal in an attempt to help by just being kind and speaking softly.

Beyond this very flawed aspect, the sound track is utterly deplorable.

Ghastly. Horrible. Even though there are some beautiful scenes showing the incomparable majesty of British Columbia it's not enough to perform a movie rescue on this bit of cinema.

I'm glad I didn't read the plot line/synopsis prior to viewing. I also had no idea who the actors were. I find that it is easier to hold an open mind about the story, actors' abilities--appropriately cast--to bring life to the script, and then a director who knows what he/she wants from each actor.

The story as told held my attention. The cinematography for the scenes where Logan has powerful lines--not just the delivery but the stance, the lighting, etc.--which imparted an even more dramatic punch. I found the character of Logan very likeable. The protagonists, the antagonists, whatever, had just enough despicable-ness to bring the audience along in detesting a character without going so far as to hate them. Zac Efron studied this role and the character, delivering a most convincing performance. Overall, the script, the actors, and the director(s) shared a symbiotic relationship which resulted in a fine movie.

There aren't enough movies where truths are told about the horrors of war. We take our liberties for granted. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have shed blood to protect our democracy. These are the real heroes of keeping our democracy alive and protecting it at any cost. Zac spun a very believable tale of those who re-live the painful post-war traumatic stress. The end was worth the wait--and I'm glad I didn't open my present before Christmas.

"... and today our movie special is a very bland flick, served in a cup or a bowl of bad scripting; it is a cold soup because there is no heat being generated by the actors, and finished off with a taste-free director."

A warm-hearted flop. I kept hoping that this flick would take off and start to fly. Just give me something worthwhile to sink my teeth into. Reality? Really? Character study? Even two reasonably seasoned actors are still bound by a contract, a script and a director. The one thing that can't be fabricated: chemistry. The electric charge, the joy of watching how one actor plays off the other just didn't happen. A cold flick-flop-du-jour to be sure.

The one thing good that I can say about the movie is its filming location and the correct season. It's real--not conjured up by a clever green screen engineer. There was a notable absence of cotton batting strewn about carelessly pretending to look like snow. Uninspired and dull acting made its way around. And the (ob)scene with the two Janice's was downright painful. All of the actors turned in performances that were either tepid or overplayed. Add to the pot and give a stir: there was no spark between the characters or actors as individuals. Other movie felonies: 1) poor script, and 2) poor directing. Aside from these drawbacks, it's a wonderful movie that barely breaks a 5 with me.

POMS--Doesn't tell me a darn thing. A medical diagnosis, you know like PTSD? Then the fed 3-letter agencies--IRS, CIA, FBI. Or religion: UMC, LDS, SDA. It is a Diane Keaton movie: doesn't exceptionally rattle my teacup. So what's this all about? And you want to use seniors now? Patronizing. Pandering.

The commencement and the unfolding of the story lines are hardly anything new, But I'm always up for a story line that studies human character. And this movie was a success--not perfect, just successful. It is a really good thing that we can now see a diverseness emerging from Hollywood that more accurately reflects the racial make-up of America. You can't hit every social subject in any one film. This one does a good job to pick and choose. The seniors are delightfully ribald and their sparse invocation of cuss words and flipping the birdy come off even funnier.

But the movie does put into the consciousness of America the value of seniors. This is a really good thing. Eyesight starts to fail, bones start to collapse and break, the things you wish would get hard--don't, and the things you wish would stay soft--won't.

And was it funny? It had its moments. I didn't keep track but there were several belly laughs that I thought were funny enough that I had to hit "pause" so that I could hear the dialogue. This happens less and less in the current movie production climate--how to get a laugh without being crude.

And why only a 9? If I gave it a perfect 10 I would have no room to edit my comments later should I wish to add something not noted previously. Just some reviewer wiggle room. Add the extra star for yourself on this one!

Maybe I'm not the most objective reviewer for this title. I have known Mr. Sung's sister, Mary, since 1959. The conditions under which they fled China were never spoken of. But when Mary turned 80 it seemed like she had reached a rite of passage and now she was ready to open up.

There's only so much you can put in a documentary. One thing that continued playing through my mind was how successful the family had been before leaving China, and arriving in the U. S. with nothing--except business savvy and a drive to rebuild. Watching the documentary unfold I couldn't help but thinking, "Twice in one lifetime--loss of everything--again." And while I would never wish anything bad for the powers that sought to put Mr. Sung and what he had built out of business, there is this thing called Karma. I remember with clarity a conversation with a friend many years ago: "The mill of the gods grinds exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine." And just one more for the road: "Time wounds all heels."

And the aftermath? Moving ahead to serve their community. The documentary is a powerful reminder that marginalization along racial lines is alive and, unfortunately, much too well in America.

First of all I am always skeptical of sequels, especially when of a documentary twist nature. This sequel confirmed my opinion. My tepid rating was based upon the lack of insight and depth in reporting, not the subject matter. What is very interesting is how Michael and his wife have shucked their very conservative bible college association and why.

Michael made a strong case for how the religious right was rooted in greed and desire for political power, standing with his wife in calling out the anti-feminist agenda. However, she was nearly motionless, rarely looked up, but was ever-present at every point of the filming (that's how it appeared after the filmmakers final edits were made). Her silence was deafening. A very loud silence.

This was what I observed, right or wrong. But I will not speculate as to her frame of mind as the interview proceeded. If you viewed the 2015 production, then this follow-up would make sense. But I'm still not convinced that it was worth revisiting.

WARNING, WARNING, WILL ROBINSON:

The only reason I'm reviewing this is to warn others who might consider watching it. On the flip side I wanted to see another script from Jake Helgren and more from the actor Kate Bailess having watched Dashing in December ad infinitum (can't get enough of her dance with Juan Pablo Di Pace--wish that sequence was longer--they were brilliant together).

But I digress: back to the mess at hand: So, I realize that the path to stardom in Hollerwood is to just get your name out there and do things and more things--even if them things is baaaaaad. Even Lucille Ball had to kiss a lot of frogs as she clawed her way to the top.

In the Cast and Crew category, Ms. Bailess' topped the list. Going down the list of names and without exception all are in the "One Off" category. But not wanting to say anything negative about them, I still wish them well. Maybe they'll find their niche in dinner theaters across the land.

And the other thing: the studio that produced this ghastly "who-didn't-done-it" should be levied a stiff fine from the EPA for air pollution. And my Fast Forward and Mute keys? Let's just put it this way: I had to put new batteries in my remote after panning through this ghastly spectacle. If this one crashes and burns, don't bother going for the fire extinguisher.

Every drama must have its protagonist. But why did the producers introduce Eklund in MDLLA? What was wrong with leaving him to languish in Manhattan? And my final answer is: as long as Eklund is on the screen, I am mute and fast forward.

I also realize that those behind the camera can request some drama moments--"we need some anger, raised voices, interpersonal flare-ups, arguments, face slapping, vice, anger, jealousy, greed, avarice, dishonesty, alcohol abuse (one of the cast undeniably appears to be in serious trouble with booze in seemingly any form). Of the seven deadly sins this series covers them quite well without much effort.

As for the cast member who seems to slide noticeably further and further into alcoholism, the others might very well be prepared to deliver the mantra, "Lo how the mighty hath fallen." Time for an intervention? It might be a good thing to see this show address a social issue amidst the self-indulgence and greed being bought and sold.

It's just plain good old new fashioned Christmas hokum. Don't start this movie with any preconceived notions. I did--and it wasn't a good idea. Allow the fun of a Christmas fantasy to take you out even just for a little while into a world of real make believe. Don't make of it something that it never intended to be in the first place. BUT, if you are uncertain of your ability to separate reality from fantasity, you probably ought not watch this. But if you can, there will be more than a few moments of amusement--no great belly laffs but a lot of fun nevertheless.

Good message. Unfortunately those who are probably in the greatest need of seeing something like this wouldn't be watching it anyway unless it was a movie reward night at a boot camp for brats in Utah's boondocks.

And then.... Whoever did makeup and continuity of story line was devastatingly clueless about the ravages of chemo. The hair, the complexion--the father figure looked as though HE was the one dealing with cancer. Utterly dreadful inattention to detail insofar as makeup.

In terms of the daughter's selfish/narcissistic traits, it would be easy to cover up illnesses when texting seems to be the preferred manner of family communication, even if the person is in the next room or at the opposite end of the sofa.

The message? Serve others. Empty ourselves of self, give something from the heart to/with others, and the importance of sharing regardless of the season. The novel and its cinematic realization is weak in many areas, but the sentiment rises above the mediocrity and how it is presented.

By the 30 minute mark the plot line was still fuzzy. There were no apparent character flaws. When well done, however, flaws can add fiber to the plot line. The characters, characteristics, plot, no plot, coupled with actors who seem disengaged, uninspired and devoid of any magic spark, whisked me away to a whole new world of cinematic boredom.

If you suffer from insomnia or any other sleep disorder, the doctor prescribes this movie for bedtime viewing--and your problems will be solved. (There should also be a disclaimer about not operating heavy machinery while under the influence of this movie.)