I would like to know if someone can inform me where to find the movies based on the book of Lavyrle Spencer: Family Blessing, Home Song, Fulfilment and Morning Glory please write me to: jdumat@yahoo.com Lavyrle is one of my favorite writers. her books really tell about life and love. she create the characters with such a strong will. And she describe all the detail about things that will bring the reader to the places we've never been. she is such a wonderful writer I have ever known/ I was very happy to read her books but I really want to see the movies about the titles I have written above. I if there is someone know where to find this movies in VHS or DVD forms please do not hesitate to inform me. thanks you very much. salute. James
9 Reviews
Great TV movie to see it proves love is possible for everybody and many times it happens so unexpected and by circumstance.
Brian-27216 May 2001
Now this would be a dream come true for a young man to become romantically involved with Lynda Carter! That's just my wish I always adored Lynda she's a real beauty. This movie shows just how unexpected love can happen and that it can happen between just about any two people as despite the difference in their ages, (Lynda Carter) as a beautiful widow becomes romantically involved with of all people her late son's best friend (Steven Eckholdt) now what a fine blessing! Oh I must just mention that Lynda Carter is just as beautiful and sexy as ever she may be getting older but she's getting better looking with age! Catch this movie on the Lifetime networks you must watch this if your a Lynda Carter fan plus this movie has a good message to it.
Loved it! Why? Two words... Lynda and Carter!
Its_Bill_C30 June 2002
I've watched this movie everytime it has been on "Television for Women ®" (I still don't understand how they can call it this and show so many Lynda Carter movies), and enjoy it more each time. It is an interesting take on the old May-December relationship thing, although I'm always amazed that film makers try & portray Lynda Carter as just another suburban housewife (even if she is playing one in real life now). Seems kind of like saying, "I've got this supercharged ZR-1 Corvette, but I only use it to go to the store and bowling."
topsy-turvy melodrama
monolith9427 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I've been reading about gender in film, and having to deal with the fact that a great deal of what is talked about is the alienating effect of the male gaze. The objectification of women through the camera lens, and the resulting lack of supposed connection of the female to the narrative quality of the camera-eye (if you want to impress a cinéaste, say "kino-eye"). I hoped to find a film where we have the camera completely focusing on the female desire, and how would a male character look from such a narrative standpoint? Well, I found my movie. And that movie is "Family Blessings," a film where Lynda Carter plays a widow who ultimately finds love in her dead son's best-friend.
The moment that cinched the deal for me is during the lovemaking scene - the camera, lying underneath, tracks slightly to the right, and his face hangs over the camera, his eyes staring into the audience's. Here we have a camera-shot which is entirely centered on feminine desire, and completely unnerving to a heterosexual male viewer. Ah, I say! So that is what it's like to be confronted with a totally alienating camera presence! And in what setting does the lovemaking take place? In a bedroom with beautiful linens, and enough candles glowing to... well, make the place look really 'romantic' I guess. Sorry, no punchline there.
Now, why doesn't this film work? Well, part of it is that it's a WE-film. Meaning, it's a message movie, and any message movie automatically has strikes against it. Stuff like "you know, I really learned a lot this year, about the importance of family" and so on and so forth. But I think there's a deeper problem - I could've enjoyed the film simply based on the novelty value of having a young cop falling in love with Wonder Woman. To be honest, I liked the story, in a I-know-this-is-terrible but I like it anyway sort of fashion. I was interested to see how the filmmakers would conspire to put the two lovers together, so that they could love. How does that work, exactly? I think that the real, fundamental problem of this film is that it doesn't choose a central character around which it can revolve. Lee, the widow, is the avatar for the obvious demographic of the film, but so many scenes are all about Chris' life, and his angst. It's as though the film wants to tell Lee's story from Chris' point of view, and then switch over to Lee's point of view whenever necessary. It becomes awkward. The problem is, we can't have too much Lee because Lynda Carter is an absolutely terrible actress. This Steven Eckholdt guy isn't exactly hot stuff either, but at least he's trying, and his voice doesn't sound the same, line after line after line. Is anyone still reading this? I suppose through this film we can still see the dominance of the male-centric narrative. Even in a WE film, the influence is unavoidable.
But I'd like to talk a bit more about feminine desire. Let's look at the construction of Chris as a character. He's strong, but sensitive. When Lee tells him that she's scared of what the others would think, he tells her that he's scared too, but he's man enough to face up to that fear. From a broken home, he loves his parents like a sensitive man ought to but he's an independent man, who is constantly trying to help his mother break away from his borderline-abusive, alcoholic father. He's a cop, and we often see him looking very trim indeed in his uniform. But not just a cop, he's also in one of those big brother programs, helping a young black kid who just can't catch a break at home. He revels in the role of being a father, loves those kids, but at the same time is a young, impassioned and rebellious lover who'll be damned if he cares what society thinks! Nobody is reading this anymore, are they? It's too damned long for a plan entry. As a character he treads the fine line between too mature to land him permanently in "just friends" territory and too forward with sexuality to make Lee freak out. By the time Lee's family finds out about their relationship, when they suspect him of "taking her for a ride" financially (see: William Wyler's "The Heiress") we as an audience have been programmed to say "No! Not our Chris! He's that one guy who really does love her for who she is!" In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the lines is "I love you for who you are!" Or something like that.
This is not a good film. Not at all, really. But it IS interesting to look at if you're going to talk about gendered camera in film. There's only one really interesting shot - Lee takes her son to an art museum to give him a sex talk. They sit down opposite each other on a bench in the middle of a gallery, and the camera rotates around them as they talk. But Lynda Carter kind of messes it up with her monotone voice.
One interesting point: the character's birth-year is 1951, which is the same as Lynda Carter's, so there's at least absolutely no deceit as far as her age is concerned.
Oh, and one LAST interesting fact! This is the second film I've seen where we have a competition between mother and daughter over a male lover! And in both of these stories, we have the mother as successful in having the male's affection - in both the dichotomy is daughter irrational, mother rational. The other film I'm talking about is of course the 1917 Russian melodrama Za schastem (For Happiness). Why do I watch movies like this? INSANITY, that's why.
The moment that cinched the deal for me is during the lovemaking scene - the camera, lying underneath, tracks slightly to the right, and his face hangs over the camera, his eyes staring into the audience's. Here we have a camera-shot which is entirely centered on feminine desire, and completely unnerving to a heterosexual male viewer. Ah, I say! So that is what it's like to be confronted with a totally alienating camera presence! And in what setting does the lovemaking take place? In a bedroom with beautiful linens, and enough candles glowing to... well, make the place look really 'romantic' I guess. Sorry, no punchline there.
Now, why doesn't this film work? Well, part of it is that it's a WE-film. Meaning, it's a message movie, and any message movie automatically has strikes against it. Stuff like "you know, I really learned a lot this year, about the importance of family" and so on and so forth. But I think there's a deeper problem - I could've enjoyed the film simply based on the novelty value of having a young cop falling in love with Wonder Woman. To be honest, I liked the story, in a I-know-this-is-terrible but I like it anyway sort of fashion. I was interested to see how the filmmakers would conspire to put the two lovers together, so that they could love. How does that work, exactly? I think that the real, fundamental problem of this film is that it doesn't choose a central character around which it can revolve. Lee, the widow, is the avatar for the obvious demographic of the film, but so many scenes are all about Chris' life, and his angst. It's as though the film wants to tell Lee's story from Chris' point of view, and then switch over to Lee's point of view whenever necessary. It becomes awkward. The problem is, we can't have too much Lee because Lynda Carter is an absolutely terrible actress. This Steven Eckholdt guy isn't exactly hot stuff either, but at least he's trying, and his voice doesn't sound the same, line after line after line. Is anyone still reading this? I suppose through this film we can still see the dominance of the male-centric narrative. Even in a WE film, the influence is unavoidable.
But I'd like to talk a bit more about feminine desire. Let's look at the construction of Chris as a character. He's strong, but sensitive. When Lee tells him that she's scared of what the others would think, he tells her that he's scared too, but he's man enough to face up to that fear. From a broken home, he loves his parents like a sensitive man ought to but he's an independent man, who is constantly trying to help his mother break away from his borderline-abusive, alcoholic father. He's a cop, and we often see him looking very trim indeed in his uniform. But not just a cop, he's also in one of those big brother programs, helping a young black kid who just can't catch a break at home. He revels in the role of being a father, loves those kids, but at the same time is a young, impassioned and rebellious lover who'll be damned if he cares what society thinks! Nobody is reading this anymore, are they? It's too damned long for a plan entry. As a character he treads the fine line between too mature to land him permanently in "just friends" territory and too forward with sexuality to make Lee freak out. By the time Lee's family finds out about their relationship, when they suspect him of "taking her for a ride" financially (see: William Wyler's "The Heiress") we as an audience have been programmed to say "No! Not our Chris! He's that one guy who really does love her for who she is!" In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the lines is "I love you for who you are!" Or something like that.
This is not a good film. Not at all, really. But it IS interesting to look at if you're going to talk about gendered camera in film. There's only one really interesting shot - Lee takes her son to an art museum to give him a sex talk. They sit down opposite each other on a bench in the middle of a gallery, and the camera rotates around them as they talk. But Lynda Carter kind of messes it up with her monotone voice.
One interesting point: the character's birth-year is 1951, which is the same as Lynda Carter's, so there's at least absolutely no deceit as far as her age is concerned.
Oh, and one LAST interesting fact! This is the second film I've seen where we have a competition between mother and daughter over a male lover! And in both of these stories, we have the mother as successful in having the male's affection - in both the dichotomy is daughter irrational, mother rational. The other film I'm talking about is of course the 1917 Russian melodrama Za schastem (For Happiness). Why do I watch movies like this? INSANITY, that's why.
I Loved This Movie...But
muchmore2luv15 January 2006
I read the book also (am a big LaVryle Spenser fan) and I just recently watched the movie on the WE network. Just goes to show that love can happen at any age to anybody!
I found both Lynda and Steve(Lee & Christopher) both realistic as characters.
However, I wished that they hadn't begun the movie with the Quincy's family's loud party. It seems that part was inserted just to give Pam Grier a part.
Anyway, I have one small objection: when Joey was making his toast, he said that he wanted Judd to love Country Music INSTEAD of Rap.
My first thought was when I read that in the book and well as saw that in the movie:
Why couldn't Judd love BOTH types of music?
All Rap music isn't bad just like all Country Music isn't good.
I believe that he should have said that he wanted Judd to like and appreciate Country Music AS WELL AS Rap music. Otherwise, this movie was a loving, warm, romantic story.
I enjoyed it very much!
I found both Lynda and Steve(Lee & Christopher) both realistic as characters.
However, I wished that they hadn't begun the movie with the Quincy's family's loud party. It seems that part was inserted just to give Pam Grier a part.
Anyway, I have one small objection: when Joey was making his toast, he said that he wanted Judd to love Country Music INSTEAD of Rap.
My first thought was when I read that in the book and well as saw that in the movie:
Why couldn't Judd love BOTH types of music?
All Rap music isn't bad just like all Country Music isn't good.
I believe that he should have said that he wanted Judd to like and appreciate Country Music AS WELL AS Rap music. Otherwise, this movie was a loving, warm, romantic story.
I enjoyed it very much!
This was a terrific movie.
jcsollee9 March 2001
I thought the movie was very well made & acted by all. I am 68 years old & this movie brought tears to my eyes several times. It just seemed to hit a certain cord with me. I am lucky enough to be part of a close & wonderful family--so, this may have influenced my feelings. I know that a lot of people have similar objections in their lives as to how they should live them. I liked the way Lynda came around & decided to live her life for herself & the way the rest of the family finally saw the error in their ways & accepted the decision of the two to just go for it.
I loved it!
melissa-4525 August 1999
I loved this movie! I had already read the book by Lavyrle Spencer and when I heard the movie was going to be on, I watched it. There are some slight differences between the two, but I absolutely loved it! I can't wait until they make a movie based on The Hellion!
Worth the wait.
smj77522 January 2000
Family Blessings was the first Lavrle Spencer novel I read. And it's still one of my favorites. I waited a long time see the movie when my CBS affiliate finally decided to show it. At first I wasn't sure Lynda Carter was right for the female lead. But as I watched, I realized she did a great job. The story was a good one. Older woman/younger man love story. I found it funny that the woman's male family member's were more excepting of the relationship than the female members. I can understand the daughter's disdain, since she had a thing for the young man, herself. The woman's mother was just concerned for herself and how it would affect her status in the town. The movie showed that no matter what other people think, love conquers all.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
