Abducted In Plain Sight: A Documentary Review

Gravatis Venture film


In 1974 (age 12) and 1976 (age 14), Jan Broberg was abducted and molested by Robert ‘B’ Berchtold, and the worst part is, her parents let this happen.


Abducted In Plain Sight tell the story of Robert ‘B’ Berchtold, a neighbor of the Brobergs, who takes a special interest in the Broberg’s eldest daughter, Jan. Jan is approximately nine or ten years old at the time. Jan’s parents, Rob and Mary Ann noticed Robert, or B, as he was known, took an interest in Jan. An odd interest in Jan at that. On Thursday, 17 October 1974, B wants to take Jan horseback riding. Mary Ann says Jan has piano lessons and it’s a school night. B offers to pick Jan up after her piano lesson and take her horseback riding, in which Mary Ann agrees, after pleading from Jan. B agrees to have her back before her father comes home for dinner. But that doesn’t happen.


Upon entering B’s car, he gives Jan, what’s supposed to be her allergy pill. But it’s not. It’s not long after taking the pill that Jan passes out. Mind you, this is Thursday and Jan was supposed to be home by dinner time, and B agreed to this with Jan’s mother, Mary Ann. 9 pm rolls around and Jan nor B has shown up. Mary Ann begins to worry. At approximately 9 pm, B’s wife, Gayle, comes over to console Mary Ann and tells her there’s no need to call the authorities, so Mary Ann doesn’t. Saturday comes, two days later and still no Jan or B. Finally, Rob, Jan’s father, says they need to get the authorities involved. Really? After two days of not hearing anything from your daughter or B, now he wants to get the authorities involved?


After two days of not hearing from their daughter, now they want to call the cops? Mary Ann calls the FBI who states their office is closed and provides another number for Mary Ann to call, which she doesn’t. According to Mary Ann, she “didn’t want to get people worked up over nothing”. Her daughter has been missing for two days but she doesn’t want to get people in an “unnecessary” panic? The first person who should be panicking is Mary Ann and to hell with everyone else. And as a father, Rob should have been extra concern something might have happened to his daughter.

It’s almost five days later when the authorities are finally involved in the case. Mary Ann still believes that B wouldn’t kidnap her daughter. She believes he has taken her somewhere. Really, Mary Ann? How can she believe this when she had a strange feeling about the interest B took in Jan when Jan was nine or ten? I’m only on the first kidnapping and already I want to punch Mary Ann and Rob in their faces.


Robert Berchtold seduced Jan’s mother in 1972. Then he went to work on the father shortly thereafter.

Robert owned a business, and there were times he wasn’t able to leave for lunch. Instead of calling his wife to bring him lunch he called Jan’s mother Mary Ann. Soon she was bringing him sandwiches and it’s during these times he would pay her compliments how beautiful she was and how she looked good and so forth. During a church outing, Robert and Mary Ann snuck off and kissed and such, short of sex. Then Robert moves to the father, said he wanted to take a ride to talk.

During the car ride, Robert tells Rob (Jan’s father) that he can’t stand his wife and he needs to be relieved (B claims he and his wife don’t have sex) and wanted Rob to help relieve him. Rob wants to play it off like he’s not sure why he did it, but he reached over and — well you know the rest. I personally think Rob was attracted to Robert, but won’t admit it. Now Robert has something on both parents.


This whole story is just bizarre. The parents are idiots. Robert’s wife, Gayle, is either oblivious to things going on or just dumb. Or, she could be in an abusive relationship in which she’s too afraid to say anything. Robert’s brother was aware of his brother’s fascination with little girls and knew Rob, 12 at the time, was molesting their younger sister, who was six.

The FBI Agent assigned to the case, Pete Welsh, has never encountered a pedophile before in his six-year career, so he’s disturbed by all this.

And the story Robert told the Brobergs about how he was sexually abused by an aunt when he was four and that his psychologist told him he needs to lay down with Jan as part of his therapy. And the parents bought this! Come to find out the psychologist is not a licensed psychologist for his license was revoked.


I’m not sure what the point of the documentary was. If it’s intent was to show Jan as a victim, it definitely did that. If it was to show how easy B could manipulate the situation, it did that. But B wouldn’t be able to manipulate and abduct Jan TWICE without the help of the parent. The parents are just as culpable as B in the abduction of their daughter. If their instinct, especially the mother’s instinct that B’s interest in their daughter Jan is a bit off, why did they let him take her the first go-round? Let me backtrack a bit. I can see that perhaps they might have thought they were overreacting. There’s that possibility, but the second go round? Really?


The second kidnapping hasn’t even taken place yet and already I could write a book based on the first half of this documentary. As mentioned, I’m not sure what the point of the telling of this story is. It’s definitely not making the parents of Jan sympathetic to the viewers, but rather, making the viewers angry and calling for the arrest of the parents for playing a hand in what happened to Jan. Berchtold’s wife, Gayle, is dumb as a doornail. FBI Agent Welsh is baffled by the whole thing.


After Jan returned home the first go-round, B was working on abducting her again. The first step was having the Brobergs to not file charges against him, which he successfully did through his wife Gayle. However, the state still went through with their charges. Because of Jan being brainwashed into believing there were aliens and she was on a mission to save the earth while she was with B, it was easy to get to her again. The father was a different story, but the mother, Mary Ann fell into his trap again and had an affair with him.


The physical evidence of Jan being raped by B was not visible. B was clever enough to not leave marks in any way. He convinced her they were supposed to do the sexual acts, therefore, that made her a willing participant who would not put up a fight.

Shortly after Jan’s return home from the first abduction the contact the parents had with B resumed. The contact between Jan and B never stopped. It wasn’t until Jan became older did B start to back off from having any interest in her. The reason being is she wasn’t a little girl anymore. B’s pension for little girls was very disturbing and the fact his brother knew and did nothing, is even more disturbing.


The documentary told through those involved, Jan’s parents, her sisters, FBI Agent Welch, and B’s brother, and Jan.

I enjoy documentaries that tell the story from the viewpoints of those who were there, rather than a narrator telling the story, because the emotions and actual accounts of what took place can only come through from the actual people.


As disturbing this documentary was and how angry it will make you, mostly at Jan’s parents, I still find it worth watching, mostly because I’m a documentary buff. But also because it’s a story worth hearing about.

The blind eye the parents displayed really bothered me. Not once, but twice.

Abducted In Plain Sight, released in 2017, is currently streaming on Netflix.

The Boy (2016) Movie Review with Spoiler

Courtesy of IMDB

My vlog version of this post can be seen here The Boy- YouTube


A college student, Greta Evans, takes a nanny job in England to a six or seven-year-old boy named Brahams. When she arrives, she learns the boy is actually a life-size doll with a set of rules. His parents are going on a vacation and need someone to look after him while they are gone. When Greta arrives everything seems fine. Before the parents leave she is presented with the set of strict rules which include kissing Brahms good night, reading to him, and listening to classical music. When Greta begins to not follow the rules to a T, strange things start to happen.

Greta starts to hear noises and footsteps in the mansion. She notices Brahms is not where she left at certain times. She tells Malcolm, the grocery delivery person who delivers food to the countryside home, about the noises and how Brahms moves. Being skeptical of her, Greta provides proof by sitting Brahms on his bedroom floor, draws a chalk outline of him and leaves the room. A few minutes later she and Malcolm return to Brahm’s room to find him missing from his spot. They spot him sitting on a chair close to the door. There are other things that take place after that which will creep you out if the life-size doll doesn’t creep out you first.


I normally don’t provide spoilers in my review for my intentions are to encourage you, the reader, want to watch the movie or read the book I review. However, in this case, I feel I need to explain why I  disliked this movie and to do that, a spoiler is needed.


The story Greta was given about the boy by Malcolm is Brahms died in a house fire 20 years prior. What no one knew is The Boy was living in the house all along as an adult. He revealed himself in a scene where Greta and Malcolm were fighting with her abusive ex-boyfriend who showed up unannounced. The boyfriend took the roll and smashed its head on a table, thus revealing the real Boy from inside the walls. Brahms had set up house in a room that was on the other side of the living room where all activity would take place, such as reading to Brahms, listening to classical music, and serving snacks to Brahms. Adult Brahms was able to relive his childhood favorites on the other side of the wall, while they were after upon to the life-size doll of Brahms.


Here’s where I had the issue. The adult Brahms wore a mask of a child. He had a beard and a very hairy chest. This didn’t add up to the roll version of him. If the writers were looking to create an adult version of the child, they should have had an actor with no chest hairs, and a clean-shaven face. A good makeup artist could have made the adult Brahms look exactly like the child version, and that would have made the movie that much more disturbing.

You could tell this was a low budget film, and perhaps that’s the reason in the flaw of recreating the child boy into an adult version, the lack of money for a make-up artist who would be capable of the task. Thus, they choose the cheap route by placing a mask over his hairy face. But the chest hairs peeking from the white tank t-shirt is either laziness on the part of the writers or lack of creative between the child Brahms and the adult Brahms.


As mentioned, this movie had me at the start. When they showed that life-size doll, I thought I was in for a good psychological thriller. And I was until the adult Brahms revealed himself.

I hope someone remakes this movie.  They only need to correct the reveal of Brahms’s appearance, and perhaps the reveal of Brahms himself.

What I found interesting was the name of the boy, Brahms, as in Brahms Lullaby. The boy’s name itself is interesting. I feel it’s a symbolism of how the parents, especially the mother, were very doting parents to their son and would have been his entire life.

You can read the history of the Lullaby here, as well as listen to the piece in the video below,

Lauren Cohen as Greta (Maggie on The Walking Dead).
Rupert Evans as Malcolm (Frank in The Man in the High Castle currently on Amazon Prime)

Forum for The Boy can be found here

Dismissed (2017)


Lucas Ward, a transfer student from Fresno, California, excels at everything he does. His favorite subject in school is English and when he analyzes a story, he takes it to the extreme by writing a dissertation instead of a few page essay.

Mr. Butler is Lucas’s new English teacher and he shares the same love of literature as Lucas. Lucas’s first day in class provides Mr. Butler with the type of student he wants, someone who is engaging and understands the reading. They both feel they have found a kindred spirit in each other, more so Mr. Butler does in Lucas. But when Mr. Butler gives Lucas a B+ on an assignment and refuses to give him an A, as Lucas thinks he deserves, kindred spirits are broken and animosity takes its place.


Lucas begins causing havoc in Mr. Butler’s life starting with his application to be a professor at a college. Lucas is able to get a hold of the essay Mr. Butler wrote and replace it with one that makes Mr. Butler seem like he’s better than the students he will teach and better than anyone around him. However, Mr. Butler doesn’t know this until he meets with the head of the department who informs him of his essay and that he will no longer be considered for the role of professor.

At home, Mr. Butler reads over the essay and begins to notice familiar words that he wouldn’t use but Lucas would, one of which is opulent. He finds more unusual words and compares, not only the sentence structure but the words to one of Lucas essays and realizes Lucas is the one who rewrote Mr. Butler’s essay and submitted to the college.

Mr. Butler confronts Lucas who denies everything. This is just the beginning of Lucas’s revenge on Mr. Butler. Lucas’s act of revenge keeps escalating until tragedy strikes.

trailer courtesy of Movieclips Indie


The pace of the movie was perfect and you could definitely tell it is an independent film just based on the sound quality and lack of music throughout the film. This is what I love about indie films, the sound and lack of music, in addition to the low-quality film used to make the movie. Everything seems real and I find acting in indie films to be better than those of A-list actors.

Dylan Sprouse as Lucas Ward

Dylan Sprouse (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody) as Lucas Ward provided the right kind of calm demeanor to the character to freak you out a bit.

My only issue with the movie was the ending. I felt there could have been more and should have been more. Because I don’t want to give the ending away, I won’t say any more about it.

I give the movie 5 out of 5 stars and will definitely give it another go soon.


Dismissed is currently streaming on Netflix and stars Dylan Sprouse as Lucas Ward and Kent Osbourne as Mr. Butler.
Director: Benjamin Arfmann. Writer: Brian McAuley

You may also purchase the movie by clicking on the link Dismissed

Netflix’s The Confession Tapes [Documentary Review]


Netflix’s The Confession Tapes takes a look at seven cases in which suspects were interrogated until they confess to the crime. But the confessions do not come easy, nor are they valid.  Most of these suspect(s) have been in the interrogation room up to 10 hours, if not more.  And all of these interrogations are done without a lawyer present, or a parent if the suspect is a minor. This is how the police get you. But the one thing missing from this documentary is the Miranda Rights being read to the suspects. Especially the part about having a lawyer present.


Night time seems to be the time interrogations take place. At least on this show. They start at night and end in the early mornings. By the time they end, the suspect has confessed to a crime they didn’t commit. Why? Because they just want to get it over with. They are being led to believe if they tell what happened they will be able to leave or their sentence will be light. Depriving someone of sleep is a great tactic to get anyone to confess to anything. Slowly moving your chair to where you are now in someone face will produce the same thing.


Each episode focuses on a crime from beginning to end. From the victim to the arrest, the supposed confession, the trial and the eventual conviction of the suspect.

The first and second episode titled focuses on the murder of a family (mother, father, and sister) in which the son and his friend are suspected of committing the crime. The crime was committed in Canada in the mid-80’s. During that time to obtain a confession out of someone was done by any means necessary, even under false pretenses. Since then, Canada has made it illegal to get a confession under false pretenses.


One of the suspects in the killing named Glen Burns is approached by an undercover cop who presents himself as a mobster type person. This cop knows that Burns is a cocky person as well as being greedy, and he plays on this. The cop convinces Burns he’s a big-time gangster and asks if Burns wants in on a large take, to which Burns agrees. Fast-forward to a hotel room in which the undercover cop wants Burns to tell him something illegal he’s done. This is to make Burns seem trustworthy to the undercover cop.

After some time Burns starts talking about the murder of Rafays. Mind you, the undercover cop is trying to act like a tough guy by talking tough and using the F word every two seconds. He’s also trying to drag information out of Burns. After sometimes, he finally gets the full confession. But now he needs the song, Atif Rafay to confess to the crime as well. And he succeeds. All of this is caught on camera that is hidden in the hotel room. It’s been seven years since the murders and finally, Burns and Rafay have been caught.


Glen Burn and Atil Rafay

The confessions are played in court. Burns feels they have wrongly been accused of a crime and arrogantly states that in court. Rafay, on the other hand, is remorseful for his actions. Both get life in prison. But there’s a third party involved (not in the murders but having information about the murder due to Burns being narcissistic) that becomes the prosecutor’s star witness.  The witness had since moved to Japan to separate himself from the boys, but he’s coerced into returning to testify against Burns and Rafay.


Episodes 1 and 2 show one tactic the police use to get a confession out of someone. This time, the suspects were actually guilty. But what if the suspect is not guilty and they have told you over and over again they are innocent? What do you do to get a confession out of them? Well, you interrogate them for 10 or more hours. You plant seeds in their heads by putting them at the scene of the crime or giving them the motive to kill.

In each episode, we told how the victim died. Then we are introduced to the suspect or suspects in the crime. Afterwards, we are taken through the crime itself and how the suspect or suspects came to be. It’s after the reveal of the suspect or suspects the confession tape part of the show begins.

Some are held in interrogation rooms for up to 10 hours or more in which they are professing their innocence. One is a mother who is being accused of setting her 14-year-old daughter on fire. Another is a man accused of killing his girlfriend and the evidence the police have is a strand of his hair in her hand. And there are the seventeen young men accused of beating, and robbing, a 48-year-old woman, while one sodomised her with a foot long pole in the episode titled 8th and H. The episode reminded me of The Central Park Five.  The only difference is the arrests weren’t racially motivated, but everything else was similar.


I like The Confession Tapes. It reminds of Making A Murderer.  It explores the crimes and gives a good insight into the victim as well as the accused through family and friends. The show also explorers how innocent people or those presumed to be innocent are forced into confessions.  I hope this series wakes people up to the tactics used by law enforcement to have others confess to crimes they didn’t commit so the department can reach their quota or solve a crime quickly to make the townspeople happy. Or in the case of The West Memphis Three, how an upcoming election played a part in getting three boys convicted a crime they didn’t commit. However, some feel the boys, now men, are guilty of the crime. Read the full story here. 

I really enjoy the show and look forward to another season of The Confessions Tapes.

If you’ve seen the documentary share your thoughts in the comment section.

Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru

source: google images


As someone who thoroughly enjoys documentaries, I was glad to come across Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru for I have always, yet I’m not a follower. I’ve never bought any of his books or attended any of his overpriced seminars, especially the Day of Destiny six-day seminar that takes place in Boca Raton, FL every year, costing $4995 to attend (that’s 2014’s cost). If I spent $4995 on a seminar that lasts 6 days, 11-12 hours a day, I would need a shrink, and not a so-called self-help guru. So, being able to watch the process from the comfort of my home, without having the pay the hefty fee, allowed me to enjoy more. Sort of.


I would watch the documentary before going to sleep because during the day I was watching shows that would only produce a stressful sleep such as Marcella (Netflix original), The Man in the High Castle (Amazon original based on the book of the same name), along with binge-watching Mr. Robot and Queen of the South ( both currently in Season 1 – via USA Network, either on the computer or the app). I wanted to end my nights with something a bit more calming, and Tony’s documentary did the trick, to a point.


The documentary is the brainchild of Joe Berlinger, who, after attending one of Tony’s Date with Destiny seminars, wanted to document the whole thing, including Tony. After two years of asking, Tony finally agreed. Not sure if begging was included, but you would think that someone who believes in helping others, would have conceded sooner than two years. This was problem number one for me to this whole documentary.

Everything started out great for me, when learning of Tony’s goal for the attendees and what he offers people in the 12 hours a day, six-day seminar, until the fee was announced: $4995. In 2015, it was $6k for the seminar. For 2016, here are the prices for the seminar that took play in May of this year (2016):

date with destiny

They try to con you by stating you are saving $4k, but the prices are still ridiculous and seem to go up every year. As mentioned, the one in 2014 cost $4995 and I couldn’t get this out of my mind while watching the show. The people at the seminar were not broken people, they were idiots. If someone gave me $4995, I’ll fix them myself. Being a self-help guru doesn’t take skill, it takes compassion, and compassion can’t be taught. You either have it or you don’t.

I feel if you can fork over $4995 bucks, you are doing fine, financially that is. Save $4971 and go buy a $24.00 book by Tony that will do the same thing as the seminars will do. Or, how about someone just forks over $25.00 to me and we have a beer or two.


Picture it. Sicily, 1924…a little Golden Girls joke there. Seriously. Picture it. You’re in a room with 24,999 other people you don’t know (that’s if you came alone. If you came with someone, then there are 24,998 strangers in the room with you). Tony picks you out of the crowd (I’m not sure the process, but he does) and now you have to tell you bleeding heart story to a room full of strangers. Why? Because Tony makes you feel that comfortable. He makes you feel like it’s just you and him while reminding you there are thousands of strangers in the room rooting for you. The questions begin with what is your issue, and you tell him.

He asks you again, and again, you tell him, with more details added on. This process goes on until he has reached the real underlying issue you’ve been carrying around. He makes you think it’s OK to express yourself in front of total strangers, and perhaps it is, for some. But this is the beauty of this documentary’ we are only seeing those that were willing to share and had a “breakthrough.” We are not privy to those who refused to share, not to mention, just refused to stand. Not all are there to share but to listen.

I can barely express myself in a room full of people I’ve known for years, how can I express myself in a room full of total strangers?


Tony claims he goes by the energy in the room and can tell who he should pick. But he has another method. At the end of each day (or almost every day), Tony and his crew go through some flash cards that were filled out before the seminar began by those attending and emails sent to Tony’s office of those with issues. He and his crew go through the cards and emails and pick out “red flags”. Red Flags are people in real need of help, such as those contemplating suicide.

There was one person who attempted suicide two days prior to the seminar. I, personally, doubt this, and feel it was to get attention. And yes, there are those who do go there for the attention, the hope of being singled out by Tony. This is one thing I enjoyed, watching Tony determine who was there for attention and who isn’t. And when one of his team members read someone’s story to Tony, and he knew it was for attention, he would say, “she only wants attention” or “he only wants attention.”

Once he and his crew picked out the red flags the previous night, Tony single those people out in the seminar the next day.


As mentioned earlier, Tony singles out some people to tell their story or get to the root of the issue so he can “help” them. I use the word ‘help’ very loosely. My understanding is, he spends one to two hours with these people in the seminars, but the documentary only allows us 10 minutes of he is interacting with them.  One particular person, he singled out was a lady named Hali. Hali states her father always treated her like a princess. She also states she was in a bad relationship but is currently in another relationship.

Tony seemed to narrow it down to her being the issue and not the other person in the relationship. Why? Because she knows she will always get love from daddy so getting love from other men is not important to her. Or some BS like that. Knowing that we are not seeing the entire interaction with the person, I am going boldly says that Tony has CONVINCED her that she’s the problem in the relationships.


What we are able to witness is Tony telling Hali that she should break up with her current boyfriend because he does not deserve what she’s putting him through. He first asks Hali if “Joe” (I can’t remember the boyfriend’s real name) is the one, to which she really has to think about it. The next words out of Tony’s mouth is, “take out your phone”. With this comment from Tony, comes the gasp from the audience for they all know what Tony wants Hali to do. Tony wants Hali to break up with her boyfriend right there on the spot, yet he says to her and tried to convince everyone in the room, that the choice is hers to break up with him or not.

peer pressure


Hali is standing in a room full of her peers and being told by Tony that she needs to break up with her boyfriend. He convinces her, and the others in the room, that it’s of her free will to do this, while telling her she must do this. She is faced with two decisions: follow the silent crowd and break up with her boyfriend right then and there, or tell Tony that she wants to think about it. If she does the latter, Tony will make her look like a coward, like she’s not facing her fears and she’ll never grow. Hali caves in and calls her boyfriend (phone on speaker) and breaks up with him. During the call, he hangs up on her. Tony convinces her it’s OK and she did the right thing.

I have to admit I had to turn the show off before Hali’s phone call for I was feeling a great deal of embarrassment for her and a great deal of sadness for the soon-to-be-dumped boyfriend. I viewed Facebook, Twitter and played a round of Candy Crush Soda before making my way back to the disaster about to take place. When she dialed the phone, I cringed and cringed at each ring that took place. I was hoping it would go to voicemail and save her the embarrassment and him the heartache. But luck was not on my side, nor hers, for you could see on her face she was hoping it would go to voicemail as well.


The boyfriend answers and she give some lame story and break up with him. After he hangs up on her, she is still under the impression that what she’s done is OK and for her own good. We learn, at the end of the documentary, that Hali and her boyfriend got back together, which I was glad to hear. This speaks volumes about the interaction earlier, in that Hali felt what she did was not right. What Tony told her she did not believe, and that this person she’s with is the one and she’s willing to work on her own issues while keeping this special someone in her life.

you go girl


Another thing that bothered me about this whole process was Tony’s unwillingness to talk about his past completely. He does mention during the seminar that his mother used to beat him every day. He also mentioned that his mother was depended on drugs, prescription drugs, for he would have to go the pharmacy a lot to get Vicodin for her, telling the pharmacist his mother lost the bottle. I’m not sure how things were back when Tony was old enough to get Vicodine for his mother, but I don’t think it was that easy to get a prescription that often without a red flag being thrown up at the doctor’s office as well as the pharmacy. But this is the story he told.


Tony doesn’t reveal much of himself on stage nor on camera. There was a member who shared with the world that she grew up in a commune in Brazil (I hope I have that right) called Children of God and at the age of six on, was engaged in sex with different people (sex slave, basically) in the name of God. While telling the story, Tony begins shedding tears. Backstage the director asks Tony about the incident and tries to get him to talk about his past and what has happened to him. I understand not wanting to tell you a story to others.

We all have bad things that have happened to us, that we don’t want to share. And I also understand Tony’s stance that the bad he’s endured makes him the person he is today. Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stranger. I get that. However, how am I to trust you can help me if you won’t open yourself up to me, yet, you want me to open myself up to you?


I’m aware when you go see a counselor or shrink, they are there to listen to you and advise you. However, I, and I think the director too, was expecting Tony to open up more about himself. After all, this documentary was about him and his Date with Destiny seminar, but that was not to happen. Berlinger asked Tony multiple times, throughout the film, about his past and Tony just would not talk about it. This tells me that Tony has not fully healed from his past. As the saying goes, if you say it out loud it makes it real.

All I got from the film is Tony’s mother used to beat him a lot, he used to protect his brother and sister and he had to go to the pharmacy a lot to get Vicodin for his mother. We don’t need to know every single detail of his rough past at home, but I think he should show more of the human side of him instead of this “I can heal you of your issues”.


Here’s something else that got me throughout the film: Tony’s house in Florida

Robbins' home

A modest life he does not lead. Parts of the is house featured a few times throughout the documentary. This is another reason I find the fee for the seminars to be a bit much. I look at what is included in the prices (for there are two packages – refer to above for chart). I didn’t see anything about food and lodging is included in the prices. Not only that, the seminars each day, are 12 hours long: 11:30 am – 11:30 pm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jim Jones have 12 hour long services? I’m sure you are free to come and go during the seminars, but 12 hours is a bit much for six days. So now, I have the $4995 fee stuck in my head along with Tony’s fat house and the 12 hour days. The fee stuck in my head more than anything else.


I believe in the adage, do what you love for free and the money will come later. Did Tony do this for free at all or has he always charged for his “words of wisdom” that can be found anywhere if you look hard enough. And nowadays, you don’t have to look that hard. There’s YouTube, books, articles on the Internet. But more importantly, surround yourself with good people and you won’t need to pay $4995 for someone to tell you what you already know or can find out in a $24.00 book.


The whole 1:56 minutes wasn’t completely wasted. I did sleep a bit better at night until I finished the film and realized a lot of things that bring to mind a lot of questions.

  1. Why were we only shown people that Tony was able to reach? or did what Tony wanted them to do and not show those that would not stand up, or possibly disputed what Tony said?
  2. At the end of the documentary, why are we only privy to those that got something out of the seminar, and not those that may have found the whole thing a waste of money and time?
  3. Why was Tony so secretive about his past, but wanted others to express themselves completely and expose themselves to a room full of strangers?

I understand the purpose of the seminar is for others to find whatever it is they are seeking in FL with a fee $4995 (yeah, I’ll never get over that and the fact it increases each year), and that’s all well and good. But I feel like a documentary, Tony should have shared more of his past. Him not sharing his past was not a deal breaker for me with this film. Would I watch this film again? No. Would I recommend this film to anyone? Probably not. And if I did, I would give the three things mentioned to keep in mind when watching the documentary.


The lady that is part of the commune sold all her furniture to attend the seminar. Somehow, she ended leaving Boca Raton with $100,000 due to people giving her money. I guess she told anyone that would listen that she sold her furniture so she could attend the seminar and people fell for it and just handed money to her.


I feel Tony Robbins has a good heart and wants to help people. I also believe the same of Deepak Chopra, but I lean more towards Chopra than I do Robbins. It’s a preference thing, that’s all.

If anyone told me they were going to the Date with Destiny seminar I would quickly talk them out of it. This is where I would tell them to watch the documentary and save them $20 million dollars.  Explore Chopra or other ‘self-help’ wizards out there instead.

I don’t doubt there are people that have and will continue to benefit from Robbins, I’m just not one of them. I don’t need Robbins telling me I’m good enough and I shouldn’t be down on myself about anything. One, it’s not realistic, and two, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stranger. I prefer to continue being strange and getting stranger by the day.


Here is the trailer for Tony Robbins: I am Not Your Guru currently playing on Netflix.


If you haven’t seen Shallow Hal with Jack Black, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jason Alexander, you have to find this movie and watch it. It’s about a man, Jack Black, who only sees people from the outside. It’s not until he’s given a keyword (provided by Robbins) that he begins to see people’s inner beauty.

Here’s a scene with Jason Alexander asking Robbins to undo whatever he did to Hal:

Gerald’s Game [Movie Review]

If it wasn’t for the movies, I wouldn’t know who Stephen King is. I absolutely love the movies made from his books books from ChristineStand By Me, MiseryShawshank Redemption, and definitely Carrie. The only movie I didn’t care for is It. 

Now I can add another King novel turned into a movie to my list of likes and that’s Gerald’s Game.

source: Google Images


Gerald and Jessie head to a friend’s vacation house in the middle of nowhere to try to save their marriage by adding a little spice to their sex life. When Gerald dies and Jessie is left handcuffed to the bed, it’s Jesse who needs saving. Not just her life, but her mind and definitely her soul.



While Jessie is handcuffed to the bed, she begins having conversations with her dead husband as well as herself. There is also unwelcome guests that show up here and there and Jessie begins to wonder if these people are part of her delusion as well. We also have the dog that is there throughout the time of Jessie’s delusions or illusions. It depends on how you see it.

Through these incidents we learn a lot about Jessie. Through Jessie’s backstory we come to the conclusion the handcuffs are not only physical torments for her but also a symbols of her past, which she has carried her entire life. The handcuffs were not only a symbol, they were also another character in the movie as was the bed, and the slip she’s wearing. But the main symbol in the movie is her being stuck in a place in which she can call out for help all she wants, but no one will hear her.


It wouldn’t be a Stephen King movie it there wasn’t some disturbing gory scene within the movie. Although brief, it will have you squirming and groaning with pain as you’re watching. I personally found this to be a symbol as well. Not the squirming and groaning by the viewer, but what actions Jessie had to take. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.


I absolutely loved this movie. I will be watching it a few more times for I feel I will find something new each time I watch it.

Everyone on this planet should watch the movie. You don’t have to be a Stephen King fan to enjoy the movie. I’m not a fan of his writing but enjoy the movie adaptations of his books. And as mentioned, this has been added to my favorite King books made into a movie.


: Carla Gugino (The WatchmenSin City); Bruce Greenwood (Knots LandingI, RobotAmerican Dad)
Written By: Mike Flanagan and Jeff Howard (based on the Stephen King novel)
Directed By: Mike Flanagan
Release Date: 29 September 2017
United States
Location: Mobile, Alabama
IMDB Rating: 6.9/10
Rotten Tomatoe Rating: 91%

Current Streaming on Netflix


There are a number of references to previous King novels/movies within this movie:

  • Gerald refers to the stray dog as Cujo
  • Gerald says the line: “all things serve the beam” – Dark Towers reference
  • Jessie describes a woman looking over a well (a dream she had) – this is a reference to Delores Clairborn
  • Jessie describes a man with a bag of bones – Bag of Bones is another Stephen King novel