paultrefzger-1
dic 2004 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas8
Clasificación de paultrefzger-1
What a waste of time and actors. I guess Melissa Gilbert couldn't get hired to do a Lifetime "based on a true story" so she or her agent picked this bomb, exploiting the "kidnap a child" story. Writing fiction about a subject that so many GOOD TV-movies have been made and try to spice it up.
Michael Reilly Burke did a tour de force with "Ted Bundy" but stepped way down with "Childhood Sweetheart?" I'd venture a guess that any movie with a title ending in a question mark is going to be bad. By the end of this mess I didn't think his love affair with the deceptive woman Gilbert played, was romantic, I thought it was bizarre and it left me hoping for "unhappiness ever after" for the pair.
I thought that the Gilbert character was responsible for her "would be father" Ronny Cox's death. If not, I must have missed it... but by then I couldn't care less, I still had no sympathy for the deceptive woman and her loyal "Childhood Sweetheart?" Please Lifetime fans, don't waste your time.
Michael Reilly Burke did a tour de force with "Ted Bundy" but stepped way down with "Childhood Sweetheart?" I'd venture a guess that any movie with a title ending in a question mark is going to be bad. By the end of this mess I didn't think his love affair with the deceptive woman Gilbert played, was romantic, I thought it was bizarre and it left me hoping for "unhappiness ever after" for the pair.
I thought that the Gilbert character was responsible for her "would be father" Ronny Cox's death. If not, I must have missed it... but by then I couldn't care less, I still had no sympathy for the deceptive woman and her loyal "Childhood Sweetheart?" Please Lifetime fans, don't waste your time.
It's hard to believe sometimes, in a new century, that movies like this, were made and viewed as acceptable behavior. The message is not only "only the strong survive", it's that the violent and the pushy survive and that what we now accept as correct behavior was looked upon as incorrect.
An example of how ridiculous the premise is made when Wayne Morris, the hero, who was raised by his mother, is criticized for preferring tennis to football, by macho old dad. Dad had even criticized Mom for not "fighting" (literally) for him earier in the movie. Well,Wayne falls for childhood girlfriend Priscilla Lane, whose philosophy is not unlike that of his schmuck father's. Priscilla wants a man who looks good, (as does Wayne Morris) but she wants him to be as physical and morally ambiguous as his father was. Very soon tere are marital problems because hero can't find a decent job (it's the depression and he quit med school to marry her). She still wants to party with a male friend while Morris wants her to stay home discuss a job that would mean their living on a lot less.
The "happy ending" and our "lesson in life" is when she manipulates him into physically fighting the guy who comes to take her out, and physically abuses her for not sticking with him. Both sets of parents watching from outside the front window (and are amazingly amused and satisfied) are told by Priscilla Lane's character to "leave them alone" (She appears tojoy his new-found penchant for domestic violence). The "older folks" present think it's all cute.
It's a movie with good actors but it's message makes it really difficult to watch. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that there are some people who may watch this movie and think of it as merely a screwball comedy, with an appropriate message. I pity them.
An example of how ridiculous the premise is made when Wayne Morris, the hero, who was raised by his mother, is criticized for preferring tennis to football, by macho old dad. Dad had even criticized Mom for not "fighting" (literally) for him earier in the movie. Well,Wayne falls for childhood girlfriend Priscilla Lane, whose philosophy is not unlike that of his schmuck father's. Priscilla wants a man who looks good, (as does Wayne Morris) but she wants him to be as physical and morally ambiguous as his father was. Very soon tere are marital problems because hero can't find a decent job (it's the depression and he quit med school to marry her). She still wants to party with a male friend while Morris wants her to stay home discuss a job that would mean their living on a lot less.
The "happy ending" and our "lesson in life" is when she manipulates him into physically fighting the guy who comes to take her out, and physically abuses her for not sticking with him. Both sets of parents watching from outside the front window (and are amazingly amused and satisfied) are told by Priscilla Lane's character to "leave them alone" (She appears tojoy his new-found penchant for domestic violence). The "older folks" present think it's all cute.
It's a movie with good actors but it's message makes it really difficult to watch. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that there are some people who may watch this movie and think of it as merely a screwball comedy, with an appropriate message. I pity them.
The acting was OK. This problem of the week was "addictive gambling". My problem today was watching this TV-movie. I loved Shelley Fabares in, I think it was "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" or one of its spin-offs. She plays the concerned mother of the teenage girl (played by Lisa Dean Ryan) that follows every suggestion her new boyfriend (played by David Lascher) gives her, to get money, short of armed robbery.
In the very beginning when he's talking to her about how "you never lose" at gambling, a thug (well played by Gordon Currie)comes up to boyfriend and tells him, very audibly to our heroine, that if he doesn't repay him the $200 he owes him he'll do something akin to breaking his kneecaps. "Dana" cheerfully goes gambling with her new boyfriend. She loses, learns how to steal, gambles some more with prince charming, wins a little, loses much hore, steals some more, pawns her mother's wedding ring, etc.
If that seems unbelievable, you should hear her mom (Fabares) when she finds out that her jewelry and the girl's stereo, etc. are all missing,(also Dana's been fired from her job and been arrested) and it's because she's lied, cheated and stolen so she could gamble. Mom says to the boyfriend's dad, after "the kids" are let off because of his "connections" with the judge, "I was relieved it was gambling." and then, "You mean gambling is addictive?" Have she and her family been living in a bubble?
The other thing that bothered me was that neither women......the daughter nor the mother was strong enough, nor capable enough to figure out the obvious. Daughter did everything "new boyfriend" suggested without question, then eventually, after the "thug" threatened her and her family, she told her mom the truth about how she'd been doing about anything to get money and what did mom do when daughter asked her advice? She said "I don't know, but I'll find out from .....(HER new acquaintance)", the "jerk boyfriend's" father, an alcoholic.
The answer ultimately, of course, was to join gambler's anonymous. Nothing was said about the outcome of the thug's threats. But, more important, the flick ignored both women's inability to say "no" and to make intelligent decisions on their own. You'd think they had never watched a TV-movie.
In the very beginning when he's talking to her about how "you never lose" at gambling, a thug (well played by Gordon Currie)comes up to boyfriend and tells him, very audibly to our heroine, that if he doesn't repay him the $200 he owes him he'll do something akin to breaking his kneecaps. "Dana" cheerfully goes gambling with her new boyfriend. She loses, learns how to steal, gambles some more with prince charming, wins a little, loses much hore, steals some more, pawns her mother's wedding ring, etc.
If that seems unbelievable, you should hear her mom (Fabares) when she finds out that her jewelry and the girl's stereo, etc. are all missing,(also Dana's been fired from her job and been arrested) and it's because she's lied, cheated and stolen so she could gamble. Mom says to the boyfriend's dad, after "the kids" are let off because of his "connections" with the judge, "I was relieved it was gambling." and then, "You mean gambling is addictive?" Have she and her family been living in a bubble?
The other thing that bothered me was that neither women......the daughter nor the mother was strong enough, nor capable enough to figure out the obvious. Daughter did everything "new boyfriend" suggested without question, then eventually, after the "thug" threatened her and her family, she told her mom the truth about how she'd been doing about anything to get money and what did mom do when daughter asked her advice? She said "I don't know, but I'll find out from .....(HER new acquaintance)", the "jerk boyfriend's" father, an alcoholic.
The answer ultimately, of course, was to join gambler's anonymous. Nothing was said about the outcome of the thug's threats. But, more important, the flick ignored both women's inability to say "no" and to make intelligent decisions on their own. You'd think they had never watched a TV-movie.