Reviews written by registered user
|7 reviews in total|
The main focus of the film is a handful of people who were able to turn
their lives around using nutrition. These were not marginal people who
only had to improve a little to function. A few lost portions of their
lives to the pharmaceutical industry's treatment of their mental
illness. One person spent time so heavily medicated that she would sit
in a chair and drool. If she fell out of the chair, someone would pick
her up and put her back in the chair. That was her life.
Using sound nutrition, everyone involved in the film was able to turn their lives around and become normal, functioning members of society, throwing their meds in the trash in the process. The person mentioned above went on to have three more children and is healthy and happy.
Nothing about the film is bad, but it is a little short and could have stood to get more in depth. For those wanting more information on the subject, I recommend the book "Food & Behavior: A Natural Connection," by Barbara Reed Stitt.
One thing I found interesting in the film was the segment on Roger Williams and biochemical individuality. This was a helpful look at why some people may require more micronutrients than others. What Williams found was that intestinal disorders such as leaky gut syndrome in children stopped them from absorbing some micronutrients.
You have to keep in mind that America is running over with food. It's not running over with nutrition. Over farmed land is producing stuff to put in our mouths, it's not feeding our bodies or our brains. It only compounds the problem if people aren't properly absorbing what little nutrition is actually in our foods. Making and taking vitamins is not necessarily the answer to this problem, either.
One theory presented both in the film and in Stitt's "Food & Behavior," is that there is a host of sub-clinical diseases going on that is affecting mental health. For example, while few people have full-blown pellagra anymore -- a vitamin deficiency disease -- there may be a large number of people suffering from sub-clinical pellagra. Since a symptom of pellagra is dementia, someone suffering it may be giving a psychotropic drug (treat the symptom), when the root cause of the problem was simply a vitamin B3 deficiency.
In some way, we have to change the financial rewards in the medical industry to producing results, not selling pills, or treating sub-clinical pellagra by drugging people so hard they can only sit in a chair and drool will never change. The sad fact is, telling people to eat right is not profitable. We need people to get paid when they get people back to being fully functioning, and financially penalized when they sell pills.
Sadly, too many people in America benefit from the way things are now to really make meaningful changes. Because of this, as I always say, "when it all comes crashing down around us, we all had a hand in it!"
While another review described this movie as "liberal," I must say that
while it may be, it still had a lot of interesting information in it.
At one point in my life, I thought Rush Limbaugh was too liberal, but
yet I still enjoyed this movie and have watched it several times.
There were several turn offs, yes. The New Age vibe the movie gives off is one of them. However, this is also a plus, because New Agers must be one of the last groups in America that have an upbeat outlook for the future. I may not agree with them, yet it is totally refreshing to see what is an unusual stance in this day of "doomsday preppers."
The other negative of the film is the kind of glowing nostalgic view of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Yes, both of them may have really done some good in some way, but there were a lot of dark things about Mandela that were pushed under the carpet, and making him look like he could walk on water really does a disservice to history. The same with King, who in some ways did help move America to the "left" politically, but yes, he did accomplish some things that were needed in America.
That being said, there are some really positive things about the movie. The look at America as a consumer-based society. The look at community versus individualism is interesting. Really, all of the interviews in the film are pretty interesting and the movie is worth watching just for this reason.
Lynne Mctaggart, the author of one of my favorite books, "The Field," is interviewed in the film. For anyone wanting to look more at the scientific side of "I Am," I highly recommend getting a copy of "The Field."
I will add as a side note, that while it isn't totally fitting to "I Am," I recommend the book, "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt expands on some of the same issues, discussing community versus individualism, consumerism, etc., and even discusses some of the political views that affect these topics.
Rather than it being one or the other, Haidt points out that both Left and Right have some truth to them, and that America is better off because both sides exist.
I think that is how "I Am" should be viewed. There is some truth in it, and it should be watched even if you don't agree with every single minute of the movie.
In fact, I think people can grow from hearing different viewpoints even if they don't agree with them. In that respect, "I Am," offers a lot to think about, again, even if you don't agree with all of it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Tried to talk the kids out of this one but got stuck seeing it anyway.
This is another in a trend of kids movies where morals go right out the
window. Now, I like cute dog tricks as much as the next person, but
this movie takes the cake. A building is broken into, stuff is stolen,
numerous laws are broken, a work truck is repeatedly used without
permission, adults are physically assaulted...but hey, they saved some
dogs so all that stuff is cool and the kids "did the right thing" in
The acting is cardboard grade. And how on earth could a movie mess up pee pee and poop jokes in a movie aimed at children? I don't know, but this one sure did. In a crowded theater full of children, only a couple of them actually laughed at the toilet humor. That's a sad commentary on the movie itself...when even the poop jokes aren't funny to little kids.
As numerous comments have already pointed out, the only thing this movie had going for it was the dogs. I will give it three out of ten stars out of respect for the dogs. If the dogs were gone, the only thing stopping this movie from getting negative ratings would be the fact that you can't do that on IMDb.
Parents, if your kids love dogs, I'm sure there are better ways to let them see a movie about them than this movie.
Seeing as there are only two reviews at this point, I thought I would
throw in a little balance. It is nowhere near a 10 and, "best modern
action movie since the classic 'Dirty Harry'," makes me wonder if the
director didn't review his own movie. The other reviewer was right,
too, as this is really low budget. However, I watched this with some
friends and we laughed constantly throughout the movie. A lot of
action, some T&A, and some laughs brought on by string of really bad
one liners...must make it worth a little.
Also funny is how dated the movie is, as a CD-ROM was cutting-edge, high tech at the time. It was really funny to see someone go on about an optical disk that could hold 750 MB.
Bottom line, don't expect much from this and you won't be disappointed. However, watch it with a group of people who like to cut up a little, and it is possible to get some enjoyment out of this film. Honestly, I have seen much worse (Little Man, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, In & Out, Anything after the original Howling, etc., etc.).
I give this movie a 3/10 and that only out of respect for the cast, which
was interesting to see all of these people in the same
This movie is 100% chick flick, which isn't the end of the world but unfortunately, this movie is bad...really bad.
With the total lack of plot and any real direction, the only thing that could have saved this movie would have been some explosions, a colt .45, and some roundhouse kicks to Kirsten Dunst's chest. Seriously, I at least thought the pressure was brewing for a good cat fight, but NOOOOooooooo.
If by being "liberal" they mean smoking and sleeping around, this is women "advancing?"
If anyone cares to see a woman really advance things for women, without smoking or getting involved in immorality, rent Whale Rider. Yes it drags at points too, but does have real redeeming social value.
A somewhat watchable movie if you have a very good ability to suspend
disbelief. As someone else pointed out in a review, the inbreds are so
hideous that they are barely human, yet their house is visible from the
road, has stolen cars from their victims parked all over the *front
and I'm guessing never have to venture into a populated area for
(wouldn't they need, at some point, gas, clothes, or even some salt to
flavor the people they are eating?). And again, as someone else pointed
they have gone all these years and nobody ever caught on? Come on.
you know, I really hope that this was just a movie, but I have to wonder
people in Hollywood actually think there are inbred people like that
around somewhere? If some other stereotype was exploited like that,
would be up in arms. But I guess it is okay to poke fun at white inbreds
look a little funny???).
Another thing that really bugged me is that they somehow have the ability to walk 100 yards through the woods in the tops of trees. I can tell you, if you are lucky you might be able to get from one tree to another tree, but the odds are against you even on that. To be able to walk across ten tree tops like that would be next to impossible.
All in all, like I said, a 3/10 but Eliza Dushku's presence bumps it up at least three points to a 6/10.
Like many people, I was not expecting much from The Faculty. In fact, I didn't see it until it came on the Sci-Fi channel a couple of weekends ago. What a surprise. While it certainly wasn't the world's most original plot, what the actors did with it made it one of the best horror-type films put out in quite some time, I think. And even though the movie had good special effects, it still relied more on the actors to deliver a good solid movie than it did the special effects. Even things I thought were holes in the plot line -- and I remember thinking at times, "oh that could never happen like that because..." -- were quickly forgotten, and this is coming from someone who really has to work to get that "suspension of disbelief" going where I can just overlook obvious holes.