Quote #2 - All quotes
"I didn't like John Howard. I don't trust bald people." - Randy
"I didn't like John Howard. I don't trust bald people." - Randy
My Sister's Keeper (2009) review
This marks both my first movie review ever (well, second technically), and my first written review on this website! What a milestone, amirite?
With that out of the way, we can now start the review.
The first time I heard about this movie was on Facebook when someone posted as their status, "My Sister's Keeper is the saddest movie ever"�. If you know me, then you'd know I'm a big fan of good drama films, so my first reaction was "That sounds like a movie for me!"� Well, not exactly like that, but you get the point.
As with hearing about every movie, my first inclination was to visit its IMDb page. After discovering it had garnered an average 7.4 out of 10 rating, I was a little disappointed (seeing as I usually like to stick to watching movies in the 8.x range). However, after learning it starred Abigail Breslin (who, after seeing Nim's Island back in 2008 and Little Miss Sunshine earlier this year, somehow became my favourite actress), I decided, fuck it, and watched it anyway.
My first reaction was a little mixed. I thought the acting was very solid (probably its strongest point), although I did have problems with its writing and some of its direction. Plus, I didn't really have the emotional response that I had hoped for while watching it. I spent a few days pondering exactly what I felt about it. After a while, I decided to watch it again, seeing as, I'll admit, I was a little tired the first time watching it, and might not have been able to absorb the entire story properly.
I enjoyed it a lot more the second time. The emotion in the story, I thought, was much more... emotional (couldn't think of a better word), and, probably because I was more prepared for it, the story was a little easier to understand, for the most part. There were still issues I had with the writing and directing (which I will explain later), but they weren't as glaring as they were the first time.
My first issue was the constant switching back and forth between flashbacks and present time in the first act. I know I sound very dumb when I say this, but both times watching, I had difficulty understanding what was a flashback and what wasn't (obviously less so the second time). Scenes involving the kids were okay, as they were always small children (as opposed to teenagers in the present). But flashbacks involving only the adults (who didn't have much age distinction) were difficult for me to differentiate.
I liked American History X's method of making the flashbacks black and white, so that they were easily distinguishable, although I also understand that that technique isn't suitable for all films. I still, however, think that they should have had some sort of visual indication for the flashbacks. There was indication in the form of voice-overs, although they were never very clear. I believe if they'd, for example, cross-faded into each flashback, or alternatively, applied some sort of color tint or desaturation to the flashbacks, it would have helped immensely.
Most of the constant present-time and flashback switching happens in the first act, and after that, it becomes much more linear and easy to comprehend. Sure there are still flashbacks later on, but it doesn't constantly switch back and forth every few minutes.
After the first act, the main plotline starts, in which Anna Fitzgerald (played by Abigail Breslin) sues her parents (played by Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric) for the rights to her body, which previously they've frequently used to prolong the life of their oldest daughter, Kate (played by Sofia Vassilieva) who is suffering from cancer. They, and Anna's lawyer, Campbell Alexander (played by Alec Baldwin), and the courtroom judge, Judge De Salvo (played by Joan Cusack), are pretty much all the major characters of this story (the judge is kinda pushing it though, and is more towards a supporting character in the long run). The rest of the cast, are mainly supporting characters, including Anna's brother, Jesse. And that's the main problem I have with the writing.
Many characters like Jesse, who do have relatively important roles in the film's events, aren't developed as well as I think they should have been. It is somewhat forgivable, seeing as most of the remaining characters aren't really crucial to the story. However certain characters, Jesse especially, seem to be neglected by the plot. I know this might be intentional (seeing as Jesse's neglect from his parents is a minor element of the story), but I don't think it really works, in a sense that we never get to fully understand certain things like the motivations of his "revelation"� towards the end of the film
A reason for his revelation is given afterwards (simply that "he couldn't think of any other way"�), but I think that the film should have shown events leading up to it. For me, parts like this were more like someone telling me a story in an abridged told-from-memory form, instead of being shown in detail the incentive and emotion behind the characters' actions, which is, to me, part of the art of film-making, and story-telling in general. However, these flaws actually weren't very noticeable for me during the film. It was only afterwards while thinking about it that they became apparent to me.
As stated earlier, probably the film's strongest point is its acting, with all major characters delivering believable and convincing performances, especially Abigail Breslin, Cameron Diaz and definitely Sofia Vassilieva, who, in my opinion, has the hardest role out of all of them. The performances probably provide the emotion in the film more than the actual story, as they all appear so natural and realistic, that, for me, it was like watching real people dealing with these tragic situations. If the film's acting wasn't as strong as it is, it probably wouldn't be nearly as good.
One last thing I should mention is the film's ending. I've noticed a lot of negative attention towards the film concerning how its ending was changed from the book. No, I have not read the book. If I did, I might have been pissed off about the change, seeing as people often cite the ending as one of the best parts of the book. From reading a summary of the book's ending, it appears to be an "ironic twist ending"�. As it happens, I am one of those weird people that generally aren't big fans of those kinds of endings, preferring more emotional endings (American Beauty is an exception in which I liked the ending, because it was also emotional), and therefore, in this case I actually prefer the film's ending to the book's.
In conclusion, if you're one of those people that demand a lot of comedy and/or action in your films, you WILL NOT enjoy this, as while it does have a few light-hearted moments, the bulk is very serious. If you're like me and enjoy very serious films, but think you'll be unable to ignore the aforementioned flaws, you might not enjoy it, but I'd still recommend trying it out just in case. If you're like me and can overlook the film's flaws and enjoy the film for what it is; you'll have a relatively well-made, very well-acted, emotional film.
Final score: 7.9/10
Posted by slimac55 on February 25th 2011 | 0 comments | Tweet
This marks both my first movie review ever (well, second technically), and my first written review on this website! What a milestone, amirite?
With that out of the way, we can now start the review.
The first time I heard about this movie was on Facebook when someone posted as their status, "My Sister's Keeper is the saddest movie ever"�. If you know me, then you'd know I'm a big fan of good drama films, so my first reaction was "That sounds like a movie for me!"� Well, not exactly like that, but you get the point.
As with hearing about every movie, my first inclination was to visit its IMDb page. After discovering it had garnered an average 7.4 out of 10 rating, I was a little disappointed (seeing as I usually like to stick to watching movies in the 8.x range). However, after learning it starred Abigail Breslin (who, after seeing Nim's Island back in 2008 and Little Miss Sunshine earlier this year, somehow became my favourite actress), I decided, fuck it, and watched it anyway.
My first reaction was a little mixed. I thought the acting was very solid (probably its strongest point), although I did have problems with its writing and some of its direction. Plus, I didn't really have the emotional response that I had hoped for while watching it. I spent a few days pondering exactly what I felt about it. After a while, I decided to watch it again, seeing as, I'll admit, I was a little tired the first time watching it, and might not have been able to absorb the entire story properly.
I enjoyed it a lot more the second time. The emotion in the story, I thought, was much more... emotional (couldn't think of a better word), and, probably because I was more prepared for it, the story was a little easier to understand, for the most part. There were still issues I had with the writing and directing (which I will explain later), but they weren't as glaring as they were the first time.
My first issue was the constant switching back and forth between flashbacks and present time in the first act. I know I sound very dumb when I say this, but both times watching, I had difficulty understanding what was a flashback and what wasn't (obviously less so the second time). Scenes involving the kids were okay, as they were always small children (as opposed to teenagers in the present). But flashbacks involving only the adults (who didn't have much age distinction) were difficult for me to differentiate.
I liked American History X's method of making the flashbacks black and white, so that they were easily distinguishable, although I also understand that that technique isn't suitable for all films. I still, however, think that they should have had some sort of visual indication for the flashbacks. There was indication in the form of voice-overs, although they were never very clear. I believe if they'd, for example, cross-faded into each flashback, or alternatively, applied some sort of color tint or desaturation to the flashbacks, it would have helped immensely.
Most of the constant present-time and flashback switching happens in the first act, and after that, it becomes much more linear and easy to comprehend. Sure there are still flashbacks later on, but it doesn't constantly switch back and forth every few minutes.
After the first act, the main plotline starts, in which Anna Fitzgerald (played by Abigail Breslin) sues her parents (played by Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric) for the rights to her body, which previously they've frequently used to prolong the life of their oldest daughter, Kate (played by Sofia Vassilieva) who is suffering from cancer. They, and Anna's lawyer, Campbell Alexander (played by Alec Baldwin), and the courtroom judge, Judge De Salvo (played by Joan Cusack), are pretty much all the major characters of this story (the judge is kinda pushing it though, and is more towards a supporting character in the long run). The rest of the cast, are mainly supporting characters, including Anna's brother, Jesse. And that's the main problem I have with the writing.
Many characters like Jesse, who do have relatively important roles in the film's events, aren't developed as well as I think they should have been. It is somewhat forgivable, seeing as most of the remaining characters aren't really crucial to the story. However certain characters, Jesse especially, seem to be neglected by the plot. I know this might be intentional (seeing as Jesse's neglect from his parents is a minor element of the story), but I don't think it really works, in a sense that we never get to fully understand certain things like the motivations of his "revelation"� towards the end of the film
A reason for his revelation is given afterwards (simply that "he couldn't think of any other way"�), but I think that the film should have shown events leading up to it. For me, parts like this were more like someone telling me a story in an abridged told-from-memory form, instead of being shown in detail the incentive and emotion behind the characters' actions, which is, to me, part of the art of film-making, and story-telling in general. However, these flaws actually weren't very noticeable for me during the film. It was only afterwards while thinking about it that they became apparent to me.
As stated earlier, probably the film's strongest point is its acting, with all major characters delivering believable and convincing performances, especially Abigail Breslin, Cameron Diaz and definitely Sofia Vassilieva, who, in my opinion, has the hardest role out of all of them. The performances probably provide the emotion in the film more than the actual story, as they all appear so natural and realistic, that, for me, it was like watching real people dealing with these tragic situations. If the film's acting wasn't as strong as it is, it probably wouldn't be nearly as good.
One last thing I should mention is the film's ending. I've noticed a lot of negative attention towards the film concerning how its ending was changed from the book. No, I have not read the book. If I did, I might have been pissed off about the change, seeing as people often cite the ending as one of the best parts of the book. From reading a summary of the book's ending, it appears to be an "ironic twist ending"�. As it happens, I am one of those weird people that generally aren't big fans of those kinds of endings, preferring more emotional endings (American Beauty is an exception in which I liked the ending, because it was also emotional), and therefore, in this case I actually prefer the film's ending to the book's.
In conclusion, if you're one of those people that demand a lot of comedy and/or action in your films, you WILL NOT enjoy this, as while it does have a few light-hearted moments, the bulk is very serious. If you're like me and enjoy very serious films, but think you'll be unable to ignore the aforementioned flaws, you might not enjoy it, but I'd still recommend trying it out just in case. If you're like me and can overlook the film's flaws and enjoy the film for what it is; you'll have a relatively well-made, very well-acted, emotional film.
Final score: 7.9/10
Posted by slimac55 on February 25th 2011 | 0 comments | Tweet