Watch Dolores


Dolores is a movie starring Dolores Huerta, Martin Luther King, and Luis Valdez. In the 1950's, a working-class wife and mother of eleven children helps to establish a farmer's union, which later develops into a platform for...

Other Titles
Woman in Motion
Running Time
1 hours 35 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
History, Biography, Documentary
Peter Bratt
Peter Bratt, Jessica Congdon
Luis Valdez, Dolores Huerta, Martin Luther King, Ricardo S. Chavez
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

In the 1950's, a working-class wife and mother of eleven children helps to establish a farmer's union, which later develops into a platform for feminism and gender equality.

Comments about history «Dolores» (22)

Margaret Boyd photo
Margaret Boyd

I found the doc to be very interesting. While not a documentary, it is well-crafted, although not too much of it was followed through. I thought the arguments about whether the "stand-down" order was legal or not were weak, but still have some merit. Many were not satisfied with this (or many others). Others made this more about religion than it was. I enjoyed it and recommend it for a documentary, but have not decided whether to see the film in a classroom or at a movie theater. I don't think it will be as well received as it was by some.

Lawrence S. photo
Lawrence S.

I've never watched an interview with a Nobel Laureate, and I've never seen a documentary made for a public television network. However, it was more than acceptable for the HBO documentary I just watched to fall into that category. Director/screenwriter Maria Semple, director of documentary After Selma, is a superstar. But, it was not until I was interested in her more deeply that I learned that she was a controversial poet, who also wrote poetry. Her memoir was told by the biographer Richard Wright, who is the son of American Poet Laureate Robert Wright, and he was at the time editor of the New Yorker, and the director of "Eloise and Julia" in which Julia Child reflected upon her life and family's life. I hope we will see more of her, as well as her family. She was, to say the least, a controversial figure. She was the inspiration for countless poems, and her experiences were highly influential on millions of people. It was perhaps a curse to write her work, but perhaps an advantage in this sense, because her work was, at times, controversial. I found her to be very inspiring and her memoir to be, at times, intense. In addition, a good friend of mine, Paul Tremblay, wrote a lot about Dolores O'Rourke. In the course of researching my book on the subject, I found Paul's autobiographical essay "The Girl Who Lived" to be very insightful. In fact, I believe it is one of the best essays I have ever read on the subject. I can't recommend this documentary highly enough. The director/screenwriter does an outstanding job. Although she is not famous, she has a unique voice that, if it is received well, will add great credibility to this documentary. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. I will be checking in on her memoir more often, and I will continue to discover more about the poet. Thank you, Maria Semple.

Melissa W. photo
Melissa W.

I just saw this film at a preview screening in Seattle, and I have to say it was very educational for me. The events and voices of some of the main characters are very interesting and exciting. I loved the soundtrack, which reminded me a lot of The Sound of Music. I also liked how the film painted a very optimistic view of the future of our planet. The film also showed the true vision of our world coming true, with people coming together to save this planet. It is an incredible film that will appeal to both children and adults. I highly recommend this film.

Charles W. photo
Charles W.

I first came across "Dolores" by chance in a reading in the library a few years ago. I was in a mood to relax and not think too much about the reality of my life. I wanted to laugh and cry and get scared. Instead, I became depressed and just wanted to go home. I was about to go to sleep again. When I saw the film, I felt like I had lived through those events. So, after seeing it, I decided to write about it. I couldn't get the ideas out of my mind. The story of Dolores Huerta, a maid who survived a mass murder in the 1930's, has become a historical footnote in Mexican history. One of the most important episodes in Mexican history that could not be denied was the massacre of Huerta and her sister in the town of Huerta, Tampico, by soldiers led by General Miguel Angel Toros. That massacre was part of a campaign by the Mexican army to destroy the Huerta's cultural and political life. General Toros was blamed for the death of tens of thousands of civilians in his army. The story of Dolores Huerta is told by actors and historians in a compelling way, but I couldn't get my mind to focus on the facts. Dolores was one of those events that had a tragic and tragic ending. It made me realize that those who feel safe from the changes in our world may have to be a little more cautious. I am still a little nervous about what will happen to me next. I wish people would watch this documentary and understand what happened. The film should be widely known in Mexico and other countries. I hope this film will become a classic and a reference in Spanish language newspapers.

Walter Kim photo
Walter Kim

After some decades of waiting, I finally got to see "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" on the big screen. The biggest shocker in this film is the surprising quality of the "slave" portions. This is one of those films that gets better with time. The historical accuracy is perfect; but this is not a documentary, it's a thriller. And that's exactly the point. Unlike most horror films, this one is not for children or faint-hearted. And that's a good thing. To use "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" as an example of a horror movie: You're not supposed to enjoy the movie until about the end. So much of the movie is based on the premise that the real story is "a whole different story" from what's going on in the movie. You're also not supposed to feel bad for the characters, but that is, of course, what you are supposed to do anyway. By the end, the film has an amazingly impressive finish. If you have seen the movie and have not done it yet, you have the time of your life.

Bruce Ross photo
Bruce Ross

This documentary about the life and times of Dolores Huerta, who was an undocumented woman living in the United States, is a really interesting look at the controversial issue of immigration. At the time of her release, she was actually about to be deported and refused to move to a detention center for fear of being arrested and sent to Mexico. She lived at a hotel for two years before she finally got to move to a shelter in the United States. But she had a profound impact on the Latino community in Chicago and her fight to defend her community as well as herself was really important. She was also able to highlight the fact that immigrants who end up in a prison like Huerta ended up being deported just because they are undocumented. All of this was captured in a really interesting and passionate way. The documentary is very emotional and powerful, and her interview with several journalists, politicians, and activists is very interesting as well. The documentary also shows that undocumented people have a lot of power in the community, which is really sad because most of the community aren't undocumented, but they do give them the power to fight for their rights. I really enjoyed this documentary, and it really shows that immigrant groups have a lot of power, and it really makes you think about how important it is to fight for your rights. I really recommend this documentary because I really think it's important and it really helps to understand the context of how Huerta was a really powerful figure in the Latino community, and her fight against the deportation was really important. 8/10

Sarah photo

This documentary is about the 20th century showgirl Dolores Huerta and her life in a household in the 1930s that was very interesting to follow. This is an exceptional film about a celebrity, from a family's point of view, and the history of the beauty, and the film maker was obviously very interested in the topic. The documentary starts with the story about how Dolores started out, was around 13 years old, and was in a short stint of fame from 1935 to 1938. Dolores turned into a major beauty, and was not afraid to do publicity stunts to advertise her beauty, even though it was against the law. The documentary follows Dolores throughout her life and the introduction of her husband to the world. He is played by James Caan, a real-life beauty, and so this is a good story about the world of beauty. The documentary isn't so much about Dolores and her story, it is more about her husband. After the end of World War II, her husband, like so many celebrities, left the glamorous lifestyle for a better one. He worked as a dog groomer, and brought Dolores to a better life, despite being separated from her mother. Dolores was never one for topless pictures, and while she wasn't a fashion designer, she did have an amazing eye for beauty. The documentary does show that she was an honest and very talented lady. Even as a young woman, she had some work to do, and did it well, and always wanted to do better, even as a woman who was unmarried. Overall, I'd say this is a great film about a woman who fought for social justice. She was an incredible lady, and her fight was amazing, even as she fought against all odds, and through a lot of obstacles.

Angela D. photo
Angela D.

Aided by Joan Rivers' voluminous and moving memoir, This Is How You Die (1962), this documentary of the FBI's Della Reese (2012) incisor, or white-collar, industrial espionage, never ceases to engage the viewer. From a surprisingly candid start, the film's narrative flips through a succession of scenarios, including the FBI's (now defunct) handling of the release of President John F. Kennedy's speech after the tragic shooting in Dallas, as well as JFK's murder, as it emerged that the CIA was up to something in Mexico City. At the FBI, Agent Levey (Luis Guzman), has the necessary tools to probe any investigation, and everyone knows he's one of the best, as one could surmise from his early exploits in Cuba, which he displays with intelligence, sophistication, and aplomb. When he tracks down Oliver Stone, he's able to get his hands on copies of the FBI files on Oswald and Oliver's book. The resulting interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald is the one to watch, with the man revealing not only the existence of the Oswald hoax, but the FBI's files and correspondence relating to it. Ultimately, it's a film that will hopefully lead to reform in the CIA's handling of the Cold War, as well as lead to a more thorough examination of the origins of the Cuban Missile Crisis. 8/10

Jacqueline S. photo
Jacqueline S.

I saw this documentary in San Francisco and really enjoyed it. I agree with one of the reviewers, who states that "the first 40 minutes or so is a bit slow, but once the documentary does get moving, the film is captivating." I've heard this before, but it's true. There are some big names in the documentary, and the film's editors and narrative director did a great job bringing them to life. I also liked the focus on the two women who led the sit-ins, as well as the reaction of the police in San Francisco to these arrests. It was hard to see some of the less-well-known facts and figures in the documentary. For example, the fact that hundreds of people came to their demonstrations. That, I thought, was amazing. When people came out of the theater with their friends and family, they all looked like they were from the 1960s. I thought it was interesting how people were like that, but it wasn't like that in the 1960s, just like today. The reason for this was simple, when the film was done, they looked at the police reports of what happened. Most of the people in the documentary, like those arrested, had never heard of the sit-ins. The documentary ends with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., and it's pretty accurate. In closing, I would recommend this documentary to anyone who likes documentaries, and especially to anyone who likes to see the people who made history.

Rachel photo

As someone who personally knew many people of Puerto Rican descent, I think one can certainly question the sincerity of the film in presenting the wide spectrum of opinions and conflicts that exist on this island. It seems that many people, in this country and internationally, have had trouble swallowing this island being a part of the United States. In fact, the island being a U.S. territory has come to be seen as a strategic piece of territory, and the larger US population, the more the island has to offer to the larger US population. For these reasons, Puerto Ricans may be divided on the issue of independence. In this film, Professor Diana L. Morgan makes a good case that is rather compelling, and points to the fact that many people on the island have clearly not come to the country on their own volition. It seems that the efforts of the current Puerto Rican President and some "liberators" have failed to bring them to the realization that Puerto Rico has many things to offer the larger US population, and that it is actually a better place in which to live than most US states. As a result, there is a tension and/or conflict between those that want to live the U.S. lifestyle, and those that want to live in the Puerto Rican way. Not all the movie focuses on the issue of Puerto Rican independence, but one can certainly understand the contrast that exists on this island and what it would mean for the rest of the country. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that Puerto Ricans today are living better than they did in the 80's, and that this lack of "great wealth" has certainly affected the attitude and culture of the younger generation. Overall, a very important film to show and share the attitudes of many Puerto Ricans towards the issue of independence. However, it should be remembered that Puerto Ricans have many different reasons for their pride, and not all of them are the same.

Kenneth C. photo
Kenneth C.

The movie starts off with a quote from both Joan Plowright and Zora Neale Hurston, and ends with a quote from the movie American Beauty. It also includes some new interviews from everyone and some of the contributors from the book, but the movie is really more about the book itself, which in my opinion was much better. This movie is an interesting look at some of the writers, like H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, and so on. I would have liked to hear more from James Joyce, but then again, the book was a little more literary than his. The movie shows the book, but also some of the comments and quotes from the book. The movie also includes a lot of interviews with the people that contributed to the book. I would have liked to have heard some from Patricia Highsmith, because I know that this is not true to the book, but some of the book's comments were used to give context to the movie, and I really don't think that is fair. Anyway, for people that haven't read the book, I think that it's pretty interesting to see a different kind of the story and read some of the comments that were made from the book. And also for people that have read the book, the movie does give some of the background for those that are going to see it, but there is still a lot that is left out that is not included. The movie also makes a few little additions to the book, such as when Zora Neale Hurston talked about the treatment of women. The movie also discusses the question of the meaning of life. It was an interesting movie and interesting for me to see, but I feel like it didn't quite come together as well as I hoped it would.

Jacob G. photo
Jacob G.

In a world of television documentaries, this documentary is an excellent example of the technical innovations of the first TV generation. From the quality of the color of the film to the framing and the composition of the images, the value of the film is indescribable. It doesn't just look good, but it is extremely well crafted. It is not an academic exercise like the work of Steve McCurry, who obviously has a Ph.D. and an obsession with images. It is more of a masterclass, though it is slightly dated, the genre of documentary being dead. The work of photographer Richard Prince is second to none. As a person, however, I'm not going to be able to connect to the film more than I would any other documentary. It is a completely personal film, and that is where the strengths of the film lie.

Joshua photo

I'm a big fan of Katherine Parsons, and in her memoir, "Into the Wind," I learned of her illness from her doctor and the phone number that she had been given. But that's it. She didn't give up on her career. "Into the Wind" was directed by Morton Hellman and co-produced by Julia Roberts and Samuel L. Jackson. In addition to showing her struggle with diabetes, the film also looked at the controversy and troubles that followed her marriage to Robert Redford, who was also involved in the documentary. It was very difficult for the family, as she was suddenly cast out of her health home and unable to find work. It was also difficult for the public. Her time in the spotlight was over, and people were going to the news media and the local papers to find out the truth. The emotional climax came when she decided to run for governor of Arkansas. In that run, she was able to win the state's highest office. The documentary was divided into three chapters, the first focusing on her career, her illness, and her struggle to find a full-time job. There was also a significant amount of information regarding her run for the U.S. Senate, in which she finished fourth in a landslide. I would recommend the documentary to anyone, as it shows the human side of Katherine Parsons, and it's a wonderful piece of work.

Stephen photo

With an incredibly powerful and clearly understood visual depiction of how "White America" was made, and how the "White Christian Majority" has had a hand in it, I recommend this film. I was pleasantly surprised by the way the film felt completely impartial, there were no clips of White people being kind to Black people or vice versa. This film wanted to be what "Black Men on the Ropes" or "Rolling Stone" was. It was honest, funny, and a bit sad. The "White Christian Majority" do deserve a lot of credit, but I think a better way to deal with this issue would be to work with the White Christian majority. These things are too intertwined to simply be dealt with with just white people. For example, for example, I agree with people who think that religion is ridiculous and that there is no God, but that doesn't mean that we should all feel that way. There is nothing wrong with atheists or agnostics. However, religion shouldn't be the sole reason people act the way they do. It can be one or the other. The biggest problem I have with this film is that it was almost "anti-White." This is because it only goes through the White Christian minority's point of view. It does not, for example, talk about how Blacks are treated or abused at all. It doesn't talk about the Hispanic Community in America and what the differences are in their treatment. It doesn't talk about the Black Cultural heritage in America. The only person who was not being "White" was an Asian woman who doesn't fit into any of these categories. This is because she didn't fit into any category at all, she was Black. She was the only one who didn't fit in to any of these categories. The White Christian minority simply represents the White Christian majority. I think a better way to approach the issue would be to do something completely different and not to simply blame the White Christian minority. That's what this film is doing. It blames the White Christian minority. However, it's important that people don't put White people into the White Christian minority. The only people who fit in that category are the white people themselves. Even the Black culture is different, but they don't get attacked by Black people. The only people who fit in to the category of White Christian minority is the White Christian minority themselves. People who hate Whites are usually also the ones who hate Black people. There are a lot of other problems with this film, but I won't go into that. This film didn't get my full approval at the Academy Awards, but I thought it was great and I can't wait to see it again on DVD. It deserves a lot of praise, and I highly recommend it. 8/10

Ralph photo

If you have been an avid listener of Good Morning America (and I'm sure you have) you have seen the video of this very well done film. I've seen the video dozens of times and it still has the impact on me. This is the most shocking thing about the "world's biggest sin." It's just a little TV station putting on a story. If you don't believe me just watch the video. Think about it. It is all about TV. One question comes to mind: Does anybody watch this program and do they say, "Yes, I think that's what they are doing." And how many of the programs they get are they getting real news? How many of them are they seeing stories that are bigger than themselves? Well, they are. They are getting stories that are bigger than their own "world." You can see it in their faces. And so many, many of them seem to be shocked. It's so interesting to see how they respond to the things they see on their screens. And I believe that these are the people who are more than "busted" when it comes to their personal lives. I think that's what we need to think about. Just because you are not a fanatic who is following all the Christian dogma that you know, it doesn't mean you aren't a "fanatic." There are a lot of folks who have devoted their lives to going to church, and that's great. That's great, but they don't realize that every moment of that life is precious. They spend a lot of time praying, and they will pray the entire night, and that's great, but they don't realize that there is that precious second of the night when their bodies are resting in a kind of "slow-burning sleep." You can't put your whole life on a CD and be a member of a church. You have to go out into the world and do something, and that's where the people in the documentary are. The real treasure is the collection of stories that are collected and analyzed. How many of you have gotten involved in collecting stuff? There are thousands of thousands of people who collect stuff. You know what? Every person in the world who has anything to do with collecting stuff has a story, and it's just the same with those who aren't into collecting stuff. They have a story. They are the ones who get the big headlines. That's why we love these TV stations. And they are putting out this movie. They don't get enough credit. The New York Times and the Washington Post put out articles in The New York Times saying that the book was 100,000 words long and that it was nearly impossible to transcribe. If you are a person who has to make a decision, just read the book. You will enjoy it more than if you had the book and you don't know what it's about. The stuff in the documentary is in a very small number of stories. It's not a very good selection, but what is? You'll find it at a library, or at a video store. I'm sure that if you look around you will see the collection of stories that are collected. The collection of stories

Denise Henderson photo
Denise Henderson

This documentary focuses on the biography of a woman who was framed and sent to a concentration camp during the Nazi regime. Jennifer D'Antonio was a woman who saw her family disappear during the war. Her husband was killed and her son was taken away from her. Now, she can't even bear the thought of going to the grave of her husband. D'Antonio's story is compelling and riveting, as well as the writing and direction of the film. I could go on and on about the things that I liked about the film, but you can't really take a step further than that without spoiling the movie. I do, however, recommend seeing this film if you are a history buff. It is certainly a worthwhile documentary. It is also interesting to see how war affects a human life and how we might attempt to excuse our behavior by claiming we were victims of this or that. I did see a lot of myself in D'Antonio in this film, and it was very moving.

Harry photo

One of the best documentaries I have ever seen. A must watch for anyone who was or is a mom or a parent. We see the family during a time of crisis when a family was torn apart due to the murder of their son by police officer. The director, Laura Smith, and her family have built a beautiful and inspiring documentary, it is so well done. She paints a beautiful picture of the family as they struggle with the trauma. The father, Gary Perry, was able to find peace and still go to his work. This is a great documentary.

Keith W. photo
Keith W.

The funniest scene in this documentary is one of the jurors in the Steubenville High School rape case. After reading a great newspaper article about the rapists, this jury member says, "That's not how it really happened. That's what happens in real life." If you've never seen a documentary, don't let it sit on a shelf because you don't know what you're missing. This is one of the best I've ever seen about the Steubenville High School rape case. The evidence presented in the documentary is the strongest I've ever seen in a documentary, and I've seen the evidence used in court cases all over the country. If you have seen this documentary, I highly recommend you see the documentary instead of going to a trial and the trial you don't know anything about. You will be missing a lot of information.

Janet Franklin photo
Janet Franklin

In this film, Paul Mooney, a film critic and contributor to "Time Out New York," tries to tell us the truth about the tragic woman who knew too much. His insight is entertaining and filled with good information, but there is a darker edge to this film. Mooney tells the story of Dolores Huerta, a mother who would never have been able to care for her young children and herself without the influence of her boss. She could have used a lot more, the evidence is in the media at the time of the death of her husband in a botched shootout. In the aftermath of this, Dolores, having been the lowest-paid person in her company, lost the support of her children and herself. She lost everything and went into a spiral of self-destruction, working in the meat packing plant. Dolores was never able to get her life together, and was frequently drinking and sleeping in the dead of night. She was depressed and suicidal and had to rely on herself for money to eat and keep warm. She did not care about her mother's well-being. The filmmakers use the interviews with her children, and her own words, as proof of her mental illness. The children did not know her, and even when she was talking about her mother, they seemed to not understand her. She said she wanted to help the other women, but not to be an advocate. Her voice was cracking and she could not recall her mother. In a way, she was just not the right person to care for these kids. She needed to take care of herself. She needed to stop drinking. She needed to start caring for herself. These are the feelings that many women must go through and are going through right now. What makes this film so compelling is the way it depicts the emotional and psychological pain of Dolores and the destruction that she caused in her family and her fellow workers. She was selfish and took care of herself, but that is why she ended up in a hellhole of despair. The filmmakers bring in Dr. Robin B. Erie to talk to the audience about what it is like to deal with such a woman in her life. Her words are sad and brutal and the film ends with a message. Dolores would not be alive if she had not made a choice. She was not a good mother, but she was a decent person. She should not be taken lightly. Her talent as a filmmaker was in perception. She was a consummate perfectionist and loved her craft. But her brilliance as a woman and a mother is in the ability to have a child that was not in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was there for her son when he needed her and he loved her unconditionally. These are the gifts of motherhood and Dolores was an example of the positive aspects that motherhood can bring. Dolores could not have done what she did without the support of her husband and her son. Her children suffered because of this. Dolores and her son were an example of the selfless, loving love that human beings can have. Her son took care of her and gave his life for her. Dolores knew that he would be safe with her and her family

Nancy Martin photo
Nancy Martin

The documentary "Dolores" is a study of Dolores Huerta, a Chicano leader and civil rights activist. The documentary begins with her political campaigning against the drug war and she moves into activism by leading a march on Washington. The film then transitions to her march that sparked a national movement against the war in Colombia. Dolores' personal journey is a fascinating one and its heartwarming to see how she has matured as an activist. The documentary delves into the history of Dolores Huerta's life from childhood and through her political activism. As Dolores goes from activism to activism and then political activism, the documentary takes the viewer into her personal life and the differences of her upbringing and the conservative Mexican parents that raised her. The documentary also takes a look into the poverty and racism that made Dolores the leader she is. There are also personal anecdotes from Dolores' children and family members. This documentary is a good portrayal of Dolores Huerta and is a good addition to her work as an activist. The documentary does not provide an explanation of the reasons behind Dolores' political activism and most viewers will find it hard to understand her motivations. However, it is a good, unbiased documentary about Dolores Huerta.

Elizabeth R. photo
Elizabeth R.

This was the first documentary I had seen about the assassination of JFK, and it was shocking. The documentary is split in two. The first hour of the film consists of interviews with families of the victims, all of whom strongly disagree with the conclusions of the documentary. The interviews are fairly entertaining and always worth watching. The second hour is divided into two sections. In the first, several of the surviving victims talk about what their feelings were upon hearing that their father was the victim of a conspiracy. The film spends a great deal of time delving into the theories put forward by the families and it's conclusion that "conspiracy" is not a "word" anymore. Another strong point of the film is the development of the documentary, which takes a variety of strange and often chilling turns. For example, after hearing that the government has tried to discredit their son's work, the family of the man who shot the president is all shocked and outraged. He even explains that he believes that the government has tried to take the spotlight away from their son's work. The film also spends a great deal of time in explaining the ways in which JFK was killed. It shows the assassination through the analysis of photographs, videos, etc. It also does an excellent job at explaining how conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination have been pushed on the public since the assassination. A great piece of documentary-making, this documentary is definitely worth seeing.

Teresa McDonald photo
Teresa McDonald

There's a saying, "Never judge a book by its cover." In the case of the documentary Dolores, the cover of the movie doesn't make the movie. The movie is the cover. People won't be forgiving of Quentin Tarantino for making "Kill Bill," because, in that movie, the film is complete nonsense. But, this film is the real deal. Tarantino films are his worst movies, but there's a whole lot of so-so quality in the film. "Dolores" is his best film. To be clear, I haven't seen the original silent version. I have seen the uncut version, which is a fine movie in its own right, but I have not seen the deleted scenes. I would never be able to understand how Tarantino, in the director's chair, could have put the time and effort into cutting scenes from the uncut version into the finished version. If he were editing the scenes himself, it would be one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in my life. There are many scenes in "Dolores" that should have never been edited. It would be better if he simply did his own version, which he did. The film is basically a one-man show, and I think that it's interesting that Tarantino was willing to give us the information that he had and then give us a film we could all agree on. In a sense, we all know the plot, so what we need is to be able to analyze and choose the parts we like and the parts we don't. If Tarantino had made the original version, the film would have been a letdown. "Dolores" is a very strong film. If you go in expecting that you will be very disappointed, then you are in for a disappointment.