Reviews

The reason I gave this 10 stars out of 10 is because of the sound. Accolades to the audio engineer that equalized all the music in this video.

If you try to find recordings of all these songs, there'd be huuuge variations in bass, trebles, and volume. But in this show, the audio quality doesn't vary at all from song to song. And any analog hiss or whatever noise must exist in some of the songs, but not after they were transferred into this video. I didn't notice any distortion, so I guess the audio engineer had a way of minimizing that, also. Just smooth as silk. I turned on the bass-boost on my hi-fi to hear bass like no one could in 1940, and there was plenty of treble available; thanks. This music never sounded better.

Regarding the image quality, the gray scale, for some songs, provides little more than "black and white," and I mean ONLY black and white -- lacking any grays in between, which is how it was recorded 85 years ago. It was the resolution of the technology back then. It was probably a visual spectacle back then to have any video at all. I'm sure some gray could have been synthesized for this video, but I'll bet the artistic decision was made to leave it alone, a decision respectful of antiques, no offense to seniors intended.

The image quality would certainly explain some of the low ratings. But I think it would be a little thoughtless to give a low rating for 85 year old image quality. I prefer appreciating that you can sit back and listen to all of the different songs without having to keep messing with your volume/treble/bass controls -- all the work was done for us.

One thing I don't understand. My local PBS station says this video fills a two hour time slot. I came to IMDb assuming to find the actual running time, but IMDb says the video is two hours old. That means there is no measure of the video's length without the fundraising interruptions. It could be just-a-dream to expect this video to exist as a DVD without the fundraising breaks. It's a shame it doesn't exist, because the music is provided so sweetly.

What I learned, so far:

For instance, the "BRCA" gene that doctors says cause cancer and provokes women to go out and get mastectomies. 90% of women with the gene don't get cancer, proving that it's not the gene that causes cancer. What feeds cancer cell growth is environmental conditions:

. Inflammation . Elevated blood glucose . Toxins . Stress / Beliefs . Diet and Lifestyle

There are also discussions from people that had cancer and cured it by changing their environmental conditions.

You may want to take notes.

And now, I will return to the video...

Ugh; it is sufficient to watch only one (1) half hour of this soupy, too-long movie. It doesn't matter which half hour, they're all tedious.

And then, the pretty lady appeared. She looked familiar. Betty Garrett. Checked her out on IMDb; she played Irene Lorenzo on All in the Family! I didn't know she was a movie star! So happy for her.

I was in love with Garrett back in 1973. But 25 years before her TV role, wow, what a luuuvely babe!! They didn't really let her character loose in this movie, but what's there is heart-melting.

Nice to also catch glimpses of Robert Preston and Danny Thomas who apparently were also pretty young in 1948. Edward Arnold, who was never young, as a compassionate judge is as good as this movie gets. Margaret O'Brian overdose, as the plot revolves around her, again.

Maybe the drama was designed to be suitable for 14 year olds.

Unless you need to keep a 14 year old occupied for a couple of hours, recommend watching this mushy movie with the sound turned down while browsing the internet and playing Beethoven on the stereo, so it's not a total waste of your half hour.

Audie's lines are tough and fearless. But I look into his eyes, and wonder where he left his teddy bear, just as I suppose we all do.

I have never seen an Audie movie with such a huge disconnect between how tough his lines are, and how sweet his face is. If everyone weren't so deadly serious, it would be satirical.

I sit there, and I just can't believe it. That's no way to watch a movie.

It's interesting to imagine the lines being delivered by a real tough, like Morgan Woodward or Clint Eastwood. Then the movie would start to make sense.

I understand Audie is a courageous war hero, and that Americans owe him as much as any veteran. Based on his baby-face, I have always found that paradoxical. My conclusion has always been that such a decent kid shouldn't have had to go into battle. Yes, it's a lesson.

Instead, my problem is with the casting director. Although Audie never lets any doubt leak through to his delivery, there is just no hiding how decent he is. It was a mistake to give him a role that's so darned tough. It just doesn't work.

Cards on the table: I'm an old white guy. I don't know Dre or Lover.

I like some slapstick, and some I don't. For your reference, I never much cared for Abbott & Costello or the 3 Stooges, but I love Laurel & Hardy and the Marx Brothers. Dre & Lover got lots of personality and good humor. Love watching their comedy routine -- the best part of the movie.

Ice-T has a small part, must be one of his first on the screen. Would like to see him in bigger parts; he's on TV a lot lately and he's an interesting actor.

The closing credits are playing to some hip-hop. The lyrics use the "N" word, but it occurs to me that I don't remember hearing it in the movie's dialog. It's the end of 2006 and it's finally going out of style, but avoiding it 13 years ago was a touch of class.

I've got Cinemax playing on the TV. The next movie is coming on, which they rate "MV" for Mild Violence. If I were to rate "Who's the Man," I wouldn't give it any violence rating. A gun was waived around menacingly, once. Otherwise, they're too busy having fun. Bring the kids. (Apparently, the professional movie-raters disagree. Maybe society has changed a lot in 13 years. Either that, or professional movie-raters are fuddy duddies.)