I admit that when I caught it on TV I was switching around the channels bored, but for some reason it really affected me. I'll not state that it is the kind of film that deserves an award, but there is definitely something about it that pulls you in. At least it did me. Anyone else agree? I see a lot of posts from people who didn't like it...
shareI really, really liked this film. It's a refreshing change from some of the films they've bought out in recent years. It was very heart-warming. Obviously not enough blood, guts, gore and total confusion for some people - just a nice, simple film. The ending brought a tear or two (and still does whenever I watch it). Why people need to break down and analysis such films like this is beyond me, why can't they just see if for the beautiful piece of hopeful, heart-warming fiction it is.
share[deleted]
Nothing's more heartwarming then a fantasy about making an Autistic woman normal huh? Better then, I don't know, accepting her for who she is, instead of trying to make her "normal"? This disgusting curebie fantasy propaganda has to stop!
share[deleted]
Go ahead and state it--this film deserved an Oscar. But you know why it didn't get it? Because the lead character was mentally-challenged. I named my dog Molly after I saw this movie in honor of the character.
shareElizabeth Shue's performance was horrendous, in fact some of the worst acting I've ever seen. As the mother of an autistic 22 yr-old daughter, Elizabeth Shue's depiction of a woman with autism was totally unbelievable. If you want to see a much more realistic depiction, watch "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", and look for a young Leonardo Di Caprio... now THAT'S an amazing performance.
Laura
Thank you! My niece is autistic and she's nothing like shue in this movie, I was actually offended but what can you do, it's hollywood, everything to the extreme eh. Leonardo Dicaprio, there's an actor.
"I was so unpopular in high school, the crossing guard used to lure me into traffic!"
I don't have family with Austism but I worked in a private school with autistic kids and worked for the state with senior autistic. Elizabeth did a great job- no 2 people that suffer from Autism are the same just like there are not two people the same.
Yes- whats eating gilbert grape was a great movie and Leo did an amazing job. There were lots of things that Elizabeth did that reminded me of the people I have worked with and did a good job too! Not everyone is going to like a movie or how someone was portrayed doesn't mean they did a poor job
I can't help but like it too, despite the railings of it not being accurate. No, as "auntie" to an autistic child, it probably isn't. Still, it moved me tremendously.
Oh, but then our lives: believe me, they are indeed wretched.
I just saw this movie last night and I loved it. Great performances by all especially Elisabeth Shue.
LAURA821- With a daughter of autism you have crediability on the subject on how some with autisum acts. However, some one like a actor who NEVER in one day of there life had to see how the world is through someone with autism eyes it would be dificult to have to protray. Elisabeths character was genuine in the fact she had to go from point A to point B and back. Sorry but if she was going to play the character as she did with out any type of preinstalled personality the movie isnt made because no one would watch it. Take the movie for what it is worth. It brought me to reconize what autism is and how some people feel about it. It also make me wonder how they see the world and if they could be normal all of the sudden what kind of transformation would take place. Wonderful story and I do believe it needs more credit that it gets.
I will agree though Leo's role in Grape was OUTSTANDING and he like Shue (Leaving Las Vegas) were screwed out of there Oscars.
i no its been a while since this post came up and the movie but i loved the movie to.
There has been many people saying that they have a child or adult with autism and teathers and sutch well my coment comes from me and i am on the autism spectrum myself.
no teo people with autism are the same so no one can say the acting was good or bad i think she did a great job and i loved hte movie i dont think the story was about making Molly "Normail" the movie had a more important story than that, and that is it wanted to make the veiws and Buck her brother think and understand that even though molly could not cominicate well she still new exactly what was going on in the world and it took a miricle operation for people to see this i was sad to see molly regress again at the end of the movie but her brother now understand that molly is still molly and any autistic person can still understand .
was a great movie loved it
Weebo
It's too bad, but some people cannot give a compliment. When I'm at work, and a coworker does everything exactly as they're supposed to, does the supervisor give them a compliment and a word of encouragement? No. But if they make a mistake on an insignificant part of their job, with no lasting consequences, they're harshly reprimanded, and word spreads throughout the office like wildfire.
People who criticize and scrutinize films like "Molly" aren't watching a movie to enjoy the film, but are wannabe Gene Shalits and view the movie like they're comparing the movie with the script and are doing a critique on their findings.
My supervisor's son has autism, and I can only imagine what it's like to have to cope with his son's needs, but to criticize an actor's portrayal of a personality they'll never be able to really understand is incredibly subjective and really misses the point of the film. It's important to raise the awareness of autism and other mental disabilities, but whenever a movie gets made, it's criticized for being either too shallow or inaccurate.
It's no surprise that movies like "Molly" aren't made more often, particularly in today's age, where more and more children are being diagnosed with autism. Maybe that's why Hollywood is spending so much time (and money) making ridiculous fantasy themes like "Harry Potter" and comic books like "Spider-Man" and "Ironman," where these films are relatively safe from critics, except for jabs about inconsistencies from comic book fans, where the trend starts all over again.
For the record, I was absolutely impressed with most of the aspects of "Molly." Plot development was a little sketchy, particularly the evolution of Molly's experimental brain surgery, and her mental recession as her brain began fighting the recovery. From a technical aspect, I especially enjoyed the cinematographic element: lighting, camera positions and dolly movement. A movie such as this doesn't warrant the shaking of steadicam, which fortunately doesn't happen. Set designs range from rustic to industrial to lavish, and the colors in each scene complement the sets perfectly. Acting, from a relatively novice moviegoer's point of view, is convincing and believable, particularly from the leads: Elisabeth Shue, Aaron Eckhart and Thomas Jane. My favorite scene, personally and emotionally, is when Buck awakens from his nap and his shoelaces are tied and Molly recites her name and address after cooking toast.
Now that the technical element has been covered, let me say that movies are supposed to be about a sense of release - escape from reality for a couple hours. Maybe learn a thing or two we didn't know before. But movies aren't necessarily supposed to substitute a science or history class, which makes me miss the great noir movies from the 1940s.
>> People who criticize and scrutinize films like "Molly" aren't watching a movie to enjoy the film, but are wannabe Gene Shalits >>
So this means no one can ever have an opinion on any film that differs from yours?
People who don't like when others criticize movies they enjoy always say stuff like this. These boards are here for a reason. So that I can come here and say that this movie stinks. Look at her, she's so charming! Riding a bike! Dressing up for a date! Everything she does is adorable!
Horrid.
------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes
It is a lot easier to take shots at someone than it is to put together a thoughtful critique like Invincible Irvine's. Not intended as individual criticism, but a general comment.
It is really sad to me how many trolls frequent this site these days. It seems like more and more people use it to "vent". I guess it is a reflection of the difficult times the world is in.
I myself found this to be a well-acted, well-crafted movie and enjoyed it; however, I can see how the controversial nature of the subject, along with using a beautiful lead actress for such a role, etc., would leave people split on this.
I find it interesting that in all the comments about how bad this film is supposed to be and how some feel Shue should have done more homework (as if they'd make this film without consultants) not a single distracter did little more than whine and moan. Not one person actually even so much attempted to educate.
Still, this movie never says it is about typical autism. It is, if you think about it, just yet another 'what if' movie. What if some treatment might develop at some point? The movie is, if you really think about it, simply a SciFi movie.
I admit that when I caught it on TV I was switching around the channels bored, but for some reason it really affected me. I'll not state that it is the kind of film that deserves an award, but there is definitely something about it that pulls you in. At least it did me. Anyone else agree?
Back to the OP's post, I loved this movie. I have the DVD and pop it in about once a month.
As for ES's portrayal of an autistic, I think we're forgetting that in the beginning of the movie, it's very clearly stated that she has autistic attributes and signs of another disorder; they're not entirely sure exactly what the problem is with Molly. The mind is a complicated thing; just because one autistic person acts one way doesn't mean they all have to.
My favorite scene was when Molly was playing in the fountain. Shue did a fantastic job of capturing the perfect joy that Molly would have experienced in that situation. Her peals of laughter and complete happiness never fail to bring a smile to my face.
BIH Michael Jackson. The world is a little safer for kids now.
Although Molly's character reverted to autistic at the end of the movie, Buck's character showed growth and evolution... which IMO is what the movie is all about... Buck becoming a better person.
Dwacon
http://blog.dwacon.com/
http://www.twitter.com/dwacon
John Duigan has directed some of the most intelligent, caring, and humane movies which I've seen in the past 20 years (including THE YEAR MY VOICE BROKE, FLIRTING, SIRENS, and THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING). The best of these he also has written.
Even while I don't believe MOLLY is among Duigan's best films (nor did he write it), it is still quite affecting; and it's a DVD which I bought after finally getting to see the picture. I have read a few of the viciously critical threads about it here -- in which no one seems aware that MOLLY was severely re-edited into its current form by its studio. But even though it has been changed from what its director intended, this movie is definitely more than just a rehash of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON.
I haven't been diagnosed but am suspected of having Asperger's Syndrome. Some dismissive posters here have attacked this movie for a depiction of mental disorders inconsistent with their own experience or observation. Unlike them, I see MOLLY as a warm character study. And gratefully in keeping with the preceding poster, the most valuable and beautiful aspect of the film is the bond which develops belatedly between Molly and Buck.
Compared to the thousands (perhaps HUNDREDS of thousands) of romance movies out there, how many films have you ever seen about affecting, healthy, restorative love between a sister and brother?