MovieChat Forums > The Secret Lives of Dentists (2003) Discussion > So what's the solution all about? Unsati...

So what's the solution all about? Unsatisfactory ending.


The movie spent about 100 minutes dealing with the conflict/showing vomit and the remaining few minutes telling the solution. No joke.

The line went something like "I don't want to know who he is. I don't want to know what you did."

Big solution in 10 seconds right there. First of all, I don't see how anybody can live with their partner knowing (s)he was not faithful yet not knowing to what extent her/his unfaithfulness was. That's like torment. And secondly, is that the big solution? Can fans of this movie tell me what it's all about? Did he forgive her? I noticed every time throughout the movie when the guy says 'i love you' the girl says nothing back. So what's up with that, are they all make-up-make-up nice-nice and happy now?

The ending didn't really do much for me. I'm sure I missed a lot, but all I learned from this movie is that married couples shouldn't work in the same jobs.

-insert

reply

I was trying to make a list of movies that were worse than this one.

I can't come up with a list. Not even the dull Heaven's Gate is worse. At least it is not as annoying.

Here are some reasons why this movie is the worst one I've seen in a long time:

- Starts out with promise. Believable, intriguing premise, good use of fantasy scenes.
- We wait for the truth to be revealed, for a resolution: is she or is she not having an affair. Since he fantasizes about everything we figure he probably is wrong about her affair. Then the end implies he is right, but there is absolutely no believability. Somehow the script just peters out in the last half.
- The entire movie is about the family getting the stomach flu, one by one throwing up, interspersed with tedious family meals, or scenes of real or imagined gruesome dental procedures. Over, and over, and over again. Add to this some spoiled, screaming children, a depiction of marriage that makes one want to stay single forever, and there you have it.
- There is no reason for this movie, no satisfaction in watching it. There is boring and meaningless conflict but no resolution. The shared flu experience is supposed to bring the family together? Lovely reason to make a movie. Robin Tunney, the only reason I rented this movie, is wasted as a dental assistant and a brief fantasy role singing. She doesn't have a real character.
- The rough-hewn male patient who becomes the protagonist's alter ego adds the only humour to the entire movie. These scenes are actually delightful. Yet it's not enough to save it. Yes, he "internalizes" the rough guy's so called advice about how to behave (violently, throwing things and being macho). But there is still no reason for anything: it might make some sense if she dumped him and went on to a happy life with her music director. We never get to see her side of it.

The movie is a total and utter sham....which leads me to formulate a new rule:

If I see a dvd about 3 years old on the store shelves that I never heard of before, despite having interesting actors such as Robin Tunney or Campbell Scott, I will avoid it. There's a reason I haven't heard of it: it either bombed and rightfully so, or went direct to dvd because it was such a failure.

Was it watchable? Yes...though I almost fast forwarded numerous times in the last half hour, I stuck it out because of the good acting and the opening scenes of intrigue. We wait for a payoff that never happens.

reply

It's ok, you've just been conditioned by Hollywood to expect cliche plots with cliche endings. Don't go in watching an independent film expecting some Hollywood story that is likely to please everyone. This film did exactly what it set out to do, convey a realistic view of a man trying to raise a family while struggling to keep his marriage intact. And the ending did was what it needed to be. The point of the movie is not to figure out who she's been cheating with, it's to see Scott dealing with the situation, and overcoming it. Just because the ending is not spelled out for you doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Use some knowledge to assume what the ending is.

And you haven't heard of it because it's not a Hollywood film. This movie isn't supposed to appeal to the masses.

reply

Well said, Bjomesphat. This movie is not about the stomach flu or who she is cheating with or what extent she was cheating. It is essentially about a man who knows his wife is cheating and is determined to keep the marriage intact and hope she will get over it.

Otis: Huntin' humans ain't nothin' but nothin'. They all run like scared little rabbits.

reply

Odd, but Unfaithful came out that same year, made by a Hollywood director, but with an open ending and nothing resolved, and when I read its board, I find many of the same comments. In the case of these two, I think the Richard Gere - Diane Lane story much superior.

Second Oddity: Denis Leary played 'marriage counselor' in The Ref also.

reply

I could't stand "Unfaithful", but really loved this movie. "Unfaithful" to me followed a more typical Hollywood plot with subpar acting from Richard Gere, a seriously poor casting choice in the kid from "Malcolm in the Middle" as the son and personally, I couldn't get over the fact that Gere's character had to resort to killing the man his wife was having an affair with.

"The Secret Lives of Dentists" didn't follow a typical Hollywood plot, as a previous poster said, and left the viewer with a feeling is uneasiness from the opening scene until the credits. I never could figure out if Dennis Leary was supposed to be a I think that issue was left up to the viewer to decide. This wasn't a made-for-the-masses airbrushed, one-dimensional story of marriage. To me, it was dead on and I think many people who have been through a relationship that slowly fades away without anyone getting killed, beaten, kicked out, can appreciate the subtleties in this story.

reply

They lacked passion (or even love) in their marriage. Perhaps this is what caused her to go astray. Even his outburst when he was knocking things off the table seemed a little restrained. However, the primal scream he bellowed under the bridge was a wonderful release.

Kudos to Bjomesphat for that posting. I hate to have everything spelled out for me. I use my imagination or common sense to iron out elements that are not explained. The ending of the movie is up to the viewer. Do they live happily ever after? Will she cheat on him 6 months later? Will he have an affair with his assistant? It’s all up to the viewer and everything is open for discussion.

Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

reply

It seems like the older I get and the more movies I watch – which is a lot these days – the less I want the characters' issues "resolved" and the ending explained to me. Troubled relationships rarely resolve themselves easily, whether the couple stays together or breaks up. Why should movies be any different?

My take on this film was that it was a good – not great – look at a troubled marriage in which the children are a lot more open to dealing with the issues than the parents. I found the Denis Leary character unnecessary and annoying, but I respect the filmmaker for going that route because films do not have to sooth me. But I read the ending somewhat differently – that she walked out, and he was flashing back to an earlier time in their relationship, when dentistry was their major bond, and the rest of their life was up for grabs.

Regardless, I appreciate a film that leave it to the viewers to interpret (and discuss) the characters' fate. 7/10 stars.

reply