MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) Discussion > The only thing realistic about this movi...

The only thing realistic about this movie was the judge at the end


Not really the judge, but morsoe his condemnation of Daniel and his dressing up like a woman to infiltrate his wife's home in order to interact with his children.

Of course this is just a movie and it's supposed to be funny and emotional, but in real life this would be a very disturbing tale if it actually happened. There'd be nothing funny about it, it'd just be plain creepy. It wouldn't be this funny, wacky story full of shenanigans of a man finding himself in several sticky situations in which he has to cover up the fact he's a not really a woman all the while spending time with his children who had no idea (at first) that he's really their father.

So the judge condemning him at the end and calling his behavior disturbing and taking his children away and calling for supervised visits is the most realistic thing about this movie, as that is exactly what a court of law and a judge would think.

I saw this movie in 2008 and I vowed never to see it again.

On another note, Miranda was an awful mother to just keep her children away from their Dad for really no good reason, and having to "think about it" when he wanted to take his kids to and from school. She had no reason to keep them away from her.

In real life though, if a seemingly good dad was willing to dress up as a woman to infiltrate his family's' home that's another story, then she has every right to keep her kids away from him but let's keep with in the context of the film. But if this was a true life story it'd be very disturbing.

Only people with money say that money doesn't matter.

reply

I agree with everything you said except what you said about Miranda,she had the perfect right to keep the kids away from Daniel since she had sole custody of them and he was only allowed to see them once a week until he grew up and matured into an adult but I know people like you are too dumb to understand that.

reply

I agree with the OP on Miranda.

She was a total s*bag for separating Daniel from the children. Despite his flaws and problems, there was a very deep love between Daniel and the children, and Miranda should not have been so spiteful and vindictive so as to drive a stake between them. This really hurt the kids very much also.

You could see in Miranda's face that even she knew this was wrong and self-righteous, but she cavalierly proceeded ahead anyway.

reply

Your a *beep* idiot for saying that *beep* about the character!0

reply

I agree with everything you said except what you said about Miranda,she had the perfect right to keep the kids away from Daniel since she had sole custody of them and he was only allowed to see them once a week until he grew up and matured into an adult but I know people like you are too dumb to understand that.


Wow, nice. Was it...really necessary to just go into a personal attack?

And what does "People like me" supposed to mean? You don't have the slightest clue as to who I am, Chris. But yeah back to the other thing, Wouldn't a simple proclamation consisting of "I disagree with what you said on Miranda, here's why" instead of what you went with?

Sheesh.

Anywho, I do understand your opinion on his behavior, his immaturity. He definitely was immature and I get that she has sole custody, but beyond his childish antics he did absolutely nothing. She won't even let him take them to school? She has to "think about it." Him being immature and her not being able to stand him personally doesn't give her ANY right to keep him away from his children at any given time. So he can't even take his son to soccer practice either?

Come on. Stop that.



Only people with money say that money doesn't matter.

reply

What made you vow to never watch this movie again

reply

Are you talking to me?

reply

What made you vow to never watch this movie again


Because I just can't stand it.


Only people with money say that money doesn't matter.

reply

The movie portrays Daniel as a very loving hands on father. She had no moral reason to keep him from seeing the kids. She did it out of spite.

reply

Which is technically a form a child abuse. You NEVER keep a child from a parent unless there is a concern for the child's safety. A mother who tries to keep the child or limit time between a child and a father out of spite is a dead beat parent.

reply

Yes, Daniel was a very loving father but not exactly "hands on" when it comes to parenting. That's actually one of the major developments of his character - he starts out being a tad too loose and fun-loving (in other words, "hands off") but learnt to be hands on where necessary while impersonating 'Mrs Doubtfire.'

reply

Not really though. Daniel did need to be punished for breaking the law and disobeying court orders. He's actually lucky his punishment at the end wasn't more harsh.

reply