What I Did for Love (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

Nasty people - except the boyfriend

[MIamiReviewer · 6/10 · 24 November 2015]

I watch this one every year because there are enough charming moments to suffer through the nastiness of Sadie's family. I can't believe some of the other reviewers on here call this a "family friendly" movie, given that the family is nasty, antagonistic and entirely unfriendly to Sadie's boyfriend. A family friendly group would have, uh, i don't know, not judged a book by its cover? Do unto others as they do unto you? Treat your neighbor with kindness?

And despite what other reviewers say, I think the boyfriend acts about as reasonably pleasant as one could act in those horrible circumstances. If i was suffering for a week with that family, i'd probably find myself doing stupid things under pressure, too.

And Sadie was a nasty jerk, criticizing her boyfriend instead of backing him up against her family. Ugh, they stress me out so much. That said, i enjoy her boyfriend whipping up a frittata and calling out the family for their total ignorance of Shakespeare. Seriously. Jeremy London was pretty hilarious in this movie.

Watch It For The Scenery

[avakay-98287 · 5/10 · 7 April 2020]

Typical Hallmark movie fare...not very good...with canned, repetitive music. Only reason to have this movie on is the scenery in Lone Pine, California. This is the setting of so many great westerns. It is just beautiful.

dude in a big dud

[BigJohnPilgrim · 6/10 · 16 December 2014]

If you like sappy romantic movies with shallow plots and bad acting you will probably like this one. But I'm a country boy and I can tell you that nothing the rancher family did was realistic in the least little bit. Allowing a clearly antagonistic, hateful and spiteful ex-boyfriend to hang around after he deliberately let the cattle herd out to roam the desert with predators around all because he wanted to frame the current boyfriend? He should have been arrested. The father who treats his daughter's boyfriend like a criminal? It was beyond crude and rude, I would run away from that family as fast as my legs could carry me. The whole movie was filled with improbable sub-plots like this.

Every time a new scene appeared, I found myself shaking my head incredulously. That just isn't how real people act, especially not ranchers. Farmers and ranchers are real people with real values and don't engage in the kinds of petty big-city actions prevalent throughout this movie. Another Hallmark stinker clearly written by clueless Hollywood writers who don't know how the real world works.

At least the girl was very pretty.

Irritatingly unreal

[morlvera · 4/10 · 14 October 2010]

OK, it's just a Hallmark movie, I shouldn't take it too seriously and a lot of the production crew will be on autopilot, but I wanted more nuance than this. I'm a little surprised at some of the "pro family" reviews as well. The main theme seemed to be "be as obnoxious to your unfamiliar guests as possible and maybe your daughter will marry someone like you".

This hardly seems the stuff of Christmas sentiment (unless you count The Grinch). I just couldn't buy into the bigoted hick stereotype as being gruff but lovable, just unpleasant. The daughter's role seemed to consist of smiling weakly while her boyfriend was metaphorically spat on from all sides. If the roles were reversed and the boyfriend's parents made her take ice cold baths every morning and strip naked to serve drinks to their society friends, somehow the family friendly motif would be put into sharp relief. Everybody's family could be this loathsome to strangers if they really tried, but why would you celebrate it? Why would you reward their climb from boorish vindictiveness to grudging acceptance as attaining a state of grace and forgiveness?

I know that TV movies tend to have broad-brush plot lines with little room for subtlety, but the creative contempt and continuous humiliation that the daughter's family put him through just irritates after a while and is too obviously there simply to hang the sub-plots from. No one would keep putting up with this level of abuse with little or no help from their partner and the unreality reminds you that this is just a product. You can't lose yourself in something this caricatured.

Terrible movie

[TallPineTree · 25 December 2006]

This is the story of a big city doctor (Sadie) bringing her lawyer boyfriend (Travis) home to the ranch where she grew up to meet her family (widowed dad and brothers) for the first time.

The boyfriend wants to marry her. She wants to take it slower and for her father to meet him first, even though she is convinced her dad will love him. He is a city boy and wants to make a good impression, and the family is rural as they live on a ranch. Sadie has an ex-boyfriend back in the town she grew up in who really wants to reunite with her. Everything goes wrong for the boyfriend until everything goes right in time for a happy ending with life lessons learned.

A terrible movie, even for a TV movie. The actress playing Sadie is awful. At no time did I believe Sadie was a doctor, nor did I believe she grew up on a ranch. Sadie seemed to me to be a spoiled city girl with no clue. She was a totally unlikeable character. Now, I know the movie's plot called for the boyfriend to do some stupid things out of ignorance of ranching life, but I was thinking if she was my girlfriend, knowing I was ignorant and a fish-out-of-water, and didn't take a moment to explain some things, is she the right person for me?

The boyfriend, Travis, was hapless and pathetic. A lawyer, yes. A successful lawyer, no.

Sadie is an only daughter and supposedly the father is protective of his only daughter, but mainly he came across as crusty. At least the actor playing this character had a little charisma and tried to act in his limited role.

Sadie's brothers were throwaway characters.

Sally Struthers is an Aunt who wants Sadie to reunite with Sadie's ex-boyfriend. Why? Because the plot needs a reason for the obvious one-note loser of an ex-boyfriend to show up to be the story's bad guy. The Aunt also had a slight subplot which... who cares!

Throw in some mumbo-jumbo about environmentalists and grazing rights and wolves. The writer doesn't seem to understand the issues, and if she did, she didn't let that get in the way of the story. The writer seemed to not want to offend anyone and her solution of the environmentalists buying instead of taking the grazing rights, and then the ranchers buying grazing rights elsewhere had the problem that grazing rights are associated with land and they don't make new land or new leases. I shook my head in disbelief when the solution was to take the money and buy new grazing rights somewhere else. And where would that be?

So the grazing rights solution should tick off the ranchers watching the movie. The environmentalists should be ticked off as someone in the movie is threatened by a wolf and needs to be saved. I live in Montana where the government is re-establishing wolf packs in the area (Montana, Idaho, and Yellowstone Nat'l park). What wolf supporters are saying is that wolves don't attack people. Livestock, yes. People, no. This movie and its portrayal of wolves should upset the environmentalists.

I kept thinking the movie couldn't get any worse but then they wrapped it up with a 'can't we all just be friends' happy ending. The boyfriend at the last minute was able to save the day, win a fight, bake a fretata everyone adored, and win over everyone. Surprise.

Now, I can like a clichéd movie as much as the next guy, but to ignore the clichés one needs interesting actors. The dull actors in this movie couldn't overcome the heavy handed and terrible story. The only thing I liked about this movie was a couple scenes of a sunrise/sunset that was pretty.

Avoid this movie!

Car

[duku65 · 6/10 · 9 November 2020]

James is lost & they think he drove to LA..Wasn't his car outside?

one to skip

[jrw-project · 1/10 · 30 December 2012]

I love a cheesy Christmas movie. I collect them on DVD and watch all of them every year along with family and friends. I even enjoy many Hallmark movies. I bought this one last year and was looking forward to seeing it, but this was unwatchable. And let me just say that my standards for Christmas movies are very low.

The "Morlvera" review hit this on the head. The characters were so sad. Most of the people I know who live in the country, farm and hunt, would be offended by the way they are portrayed in this movie. The characters are charmless, rude and celebrate ignorance.

I wanted to enjoy this, but I found the stereotypes offensive. There was no character in this movie who was believable enough to care about. I'm glad to know there was a happy ending, but 10 minutes into the movie, I just didn't care. One reviewer complained that there was too much emphasis on the acting. I didn't even notice the acting for the very poor script.

Simple, old-fashioned and cliché are all fine with me, especially at Christmas. Even so, I don't think it's too much to ask for a screen play that is at least professional. I have seen original church Christmas plays with better character development and a more nuanced story line.

I think a Christmas movie should do one or more of three things:1)make me feel warm and fuzzy, 2)make me laugh,or 3)make me think. This movie did none of those things.

What I did was enjoy this romantic drama, you will, too, I believe

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 23 April 2012]

James (handsome Jeremy London) is a rising attorney in the Los Angeles area. Lucky for him, too, is that he has been dating the woman of his dreams, Sadie (beautiful Dorie Barton) and she is his professional equal, being a physician. As they are decorating a Christmas tree, James pulls out a little velvet box and gets down on his knee. Sadie is happy. However, since James has never met her family, she suggests they go to her home in the Rockies for the holidays. Fine, thinks James. But, trouble starts immediately after they arrive. To begin, the relatives all think James is a doofus and a city slicker, since he doesn't know how to ride, shoot or stay away from cooking. Most ornery of all is Sadie's dad, Karl (the wonderfully gravel-voiced James Gammon). He seems to merit a bit of slack, however, since he is a fairly recent widower. Then, James always seems to say the wrong thing, setting teeth to grinding. Most troubling of all, there is some dispute between the ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management and James, being a legal expert, wants to play go-between, which outrages Karl. Will they all be able to accept James as a permanent member of the family? This is a lovely film with glowing scenery from Wyoming or such. Makes one want to get the next ticket to the nearest ranch. Also, the cast is wonderful, with Sally Struthers making an appearance as an aunt and the rest of the supporting cast complimenting the two leads in fine fashion. If you are a romantic at heart and love a mix of comedy and drama, you will enjoy this little charmer.

Great pis of Sierra Nevada's.

[rtsigrist · 3/10 · 17 February 2007]

Weak and predictable. I love the Sierra Nevada's so I continued to watch so I could see the Mountains and Mt. Whitney in some background scenes. The movie was kinda bad though. "Dad's" acting was horrible and so was Sadies. It got old fast because it was not believable at all. The night in the cave was useless and added no benefit to the film at all. Come on - Ranchers come home and unsaddle their horses and they don't notice the only horse left behind is gone - with a house guest also missing but his car is still there..And she calls and leaves him a message at this apt...Just hooky and corny. A sequel - I sure hope not. Again, the mountains were the best part of the picture! Absolutely beautiful.

Good

[jewelch · 7/10 · 11 September 2021]

Although the acting was Subpar at times it was still very good. James Welch Henderson Arkansas 9/10/21.

Awful

[NuGram · 1/10 · 14 April 2011]

I adore romance but this one was so trite it's actually hokey. Also boring, predictable, and done-to-death. This piece offers nothing new to the genre. (Or the viewer). It is common and cliché. The only good thing about this waste of time and money was the scenery. The best advice is to turn it on, leave and go to the bookstore and buy a good romance novel, have dinner, and come home just in time to watch the predictable ending. You won't have missed anything worthwhile and you'll actually have something entertaining to read instead of wasting time on this lightweight drivel.

I always find it suspicious when a film gets "glowing" reviews but a mediocre viewer rating. Makes me question whether some of the "reviews" are actually being written by people involved with the production who are padding these glowing reviews...

Great Family Movie

[cgpedley · 8/10 · 25 October 2007]

Obviously some people care more about the acting than the whole point of the movie.

This is a VERY positive movie showing that one does NOT have to be set in their ways and can change. The father DID NOT like Sadie's boyfriend until he saved him from a wolf and survived outside overnight in the cold mountains.

The theme of people being able to change is a theme which is positive and is more important than how great the acting was. I didn't care to observe the acting critically because I was drawn into the movie.

After all I thought that's what good acting was .. being able to draw your audience into your story. At least that is what our director told us...a director who does this for a living.

I recommend this highly for those who are fed up with the normal Hollywood fare and want a movie that your whole family could watch and admire.

Gag me

[cudax · 3/10 · 1 March 2023]

OK, I realize that this steaming pile is a Hallmark (makes me nauseous) production, but it's even more lame then the usual Hallmark crap. I like James Gammon, but his character makes me want to kick him in the you know what. Going through the motions trying to deal with a really poorly written screenplay. I almost didn't recognize Sally Struthers as the aunt. I instantly recognized the scenery from personal experience doing a lot of hiking around the independence and Lone Pine area and Bishop California. In the background it shows Mount Whitney in a couple of scenes and the Alabama Hills are a reall fugged place with amazing rock formations, so the cinematography is outstanding and in my opinion the only redeeming quality at this movie can claim. If you like the sickly sweet thing like Hallmark cards usually are you might like this. Personally I was struggling to watch it all the way to the end, but at least the family comes around to the boyfriend's side.

Nice Hallmark movie with a family theme.

[TxMike · 29 November 2008]

One thing nice about watching a Hallmark movie on TV, you know there won't be any bad language and very little, if any, violence. This one holds true to that expectation.

Jeremy London is James, a Los Angeles attorney. Pretty, young Dorie Barton is his girlfriend, Sadie Ryder, who is a doctor in L.A. They go to her small town home, to meet the family. It doesn't say where they actually are, but it looks like the mountains and high plains of Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana. That probably means it was filmed in Canada!

Veteran actor James Gammon is Karl Ryder, Sadie's dad. He hasn't quite been the same since his wife of 30+ years died, and he doesn't take very kindly to the prospects of this city slicker wanting to take his little girl away. He is one of the local ranchers who don't like change. Sadie also has three brothers.

The movie is about James trying to fit in, and to win over the Ryder family so that he and Sadie can get married with their blessings. Things happen, James is challenged a number of times, but he always lands on his feet, eventually.

Good family movie.

SPOILERS: James finally wins Karl over when, some distance away from home, James shoots and kills a wolf that is threatening the injured Karl. Back home for Christmas time (no snow on the ground) James announces he and Sadie are getting married, have Karl's blessing, and they both will make that small community their home instead of going back to the big city.

"What I Did for Love" is a 2006 romantic comedy film directed by Mark Griffiths. Here's a review of the film:

[alexpeychev · 4/10 · 26 April 2024]

"What I Did for Love" is a 2006 romantic comedy film directed by Mark Griffiths. Here's a review of the film:

"What I Did for Love" follows the story of Claire (Katee Sackhoff), a struggling actress who takes a job as a waitress to make ends meet. Her life takes an unexpected turn when she meets Jason (Adam Kaufman), a charming and wealthy attorney who mistakes her for a high-priced call girl.

The film explores themes of love, identity, and the pursuit of happiness. Claire, despite her initial misgivings, decides to go along with the mistaken identity in order to pay off her debts and pursue her dream of becoming an actress. As she spends more time with Jason, she begins to question her choices and wonders if she can ever truly be herself around him.

Katee Sackhoff delivers a charismatic performance as Claire, capturing her determination and vulnerability with ease. Adam Kaufman brings charm and sincerity to the role of Jason, making him a likable and sympathetic character despite his initial misunderstanding.

The chemistry between Sackhoff and Kaufman is palpable, and their evolving relationship is the heart of the film. As they navigate misunderstandings and obstacles, they learn valuable lessons about honesty, trust, and the true meaning of love.

The supporting cast, including Brittany Ishibashi as Claire's best friend and James Callis as Jason's friend, adds depth and humor to the story. Their interactions provide comic relief and insight into the main characters' lives.

While "What I Did for Love" follows a somewhat predictable romantic comedy formula, it manages to inject freshness and charm into the genre. The film's witty dialogue, engaging performances, and picturesque settings make it an enjoyable and uplifting watch.

Overall, "What I Did for Love" is a sweet and entertaining romantic comedy that will appeal to fans of the genre. It offers a heartfelt message about being true to oneself and following one's dreams, all wrapped up in a delightful love story.

I loved this movie!!!

[tcleaver2005 · 10/10 · 7 April 2007]

I enjoyed this movie very much. I believe it to be very realistic. Many city people really do act like this guy when they go to the country. I found it to be a nice clean movie that the whole family can enjoy! There needs to be more movies like this one made. If you like a good clean romantic comedy, this is a must see. I would recommend it to anyone.

I think the actors and actresses do a great job of portraying their parts. You do not see to many movies that are based on reality. This one has hard times and good times. It also has some good morals brought out in it. For instance, the father didn't see the boyfriend's inner self--all he could see was a big city lawyer that he didn't like. He thought the guy was dumb and did all he could to make his life miserable. His daughter, however, remained very loyal to her father and waited for her father's blessing on her marriage. It also shows that crimes don't pay. The ex-boyfriend was out to get her current boyfriend and blamed him for things that he had not done. In the end, the truth came out.

The movie doesn't end there though. Everyone that was at odds with each other reconciled at the end. It has a very happy ending. I think that most people would enjoy this movie a lot. It is worth seeing at least once. I myself have watched it several times.

What I Did For Love was beautiful

[wildbillfisher · 10/10 · 10 December 2006]

What I Did For Love has everything. I laughed and cried. My favorite parts are: 1. When Karl Ryder (James Gammon) tries to cheer up Sadie (Dorrie Barton) by giving her her mother's wedding dress. 2. When Travis (Jonny Acker) shows James (Jeremy London) how to start a fire without matches. 3. The rabid wolf part was very well done. 4. All the strikingly beautiful outdoor scenes with the rock formations and the snow capped peaks. 5. The hunting trip was hilarious. I liked all the Ryder family it was well casted, acted, and directed. I sure would like to see a sequel. Even the little dog was cute. The ending is lovingly warm, full of holiday spirit and family values. I think it's another Hallmark classic.

A cut above the rest

[jamesg-14 · 9/10 · 6 January 2010]

Every Christmas my wife and I make a point to watch as many Hallmark, Lifetime and ABC Family holiday movies as possible. We have sat through a lot of dreck and truly painful, endless, tiresome TV movies. This came as a genuine surprise. As much as I've come to expect the hokey, predictable story lines and cliché characters, this movie doesn't exactly break from all that completely, but I was impressed by how entertained I was. Here are some of the reasons: (1) This takes place in real central California locations, not a Canadian city or town pretending to be "Christmastown, Anywhere." (It's usually part of the fun guessing if the locale is Ontario or BC, and here it's actually where it's pointed out to be, which is unique.) (2) There are three or four comic lines of dialogue that made me laugh, even howl, out loud (with the movie, not at it, which is also unique). (3) Gammon's performance as the dad; he has made a career out of this type of character and he is spot on. Actually, all the actors do a great job with their roles; even the contemptible ex-boyfriend is done so well he's actually enjoyable. Jason London is perfect. (4) I was able to sympathize with both the "city boy's" situations and "country folk's" reactions to him. (5) There are a couple of animals (vicious dog and wild horse) whose depictions are very well handled and convincing. (6) What starts out as a probable "Meet the Parents" rip-off goes instead in its own direction to tell a different story. (7) Though it is predictable, the reconciliation between father and daughter (in the shadow of her late mother's memory) is handled so well that it actually brought a tear to my eye (something NONE of these TV movies has EVER accomplished). Yes, there are a couple of lame elements: blatant product placement for Kay jewelers, a tree-lighting ceremony that takes place in daylight, three brother characters that aren't developed, and a career/life decision the protagonist makes at the end that isn't too believable. But the joys far outweigh the problems. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it nearly that much.

What I Did for Love-Wouldn't You ***

[edwagreen · 8/10 · 7 June 2009]

He is a high powered attorney being offered a 6 figure partnership in an esteemed firm. She is an M.D. They've got it all but does that all change when he goes to meet her family. The latter live in a small western town and are made up of a father, who acts like John Wayne, and his 3 adult non-attending college sons who are cowboys just like their widowed father. Obviously, the father takes an immediate dislike to our hero and a series of snafus by him certainly does not help the situation.

As a single aunt, Sally Struthers has certainly put on a ton of weight since her "All in the Family" days.

Naturally, there is the M.D.'s western beau who will resort to anything to discredit our attorney.

The ending is typical Hallmark where all come together to praise our hero, even his competition for his beloved.