I mean, it's not perfect by any means, but I think that overall this is a pretty compelling film and there are some respectable performances here. I just find it hard to believe that 90% of the critics tore this film to pieces like they did. Makes absolutely no sense to me. The subject matter is rough but handled well and the dynamic of the deaf girl and the things going on in the household was great.
shareI honestly can't recall the consensus reaction to this film when it originally came out. But in hindsight it's hard to reconcile that more of the "experts" couldn't get behind the quality of the performances and the production. Shame, really.
Love this movie...
"What's wrong with a little good, clean violence?"
Yeah, I agree. It's not the best movie but it was very compelling. I couldn't take my eyes off of it.
shareIt definitely held my full undivided attention from start to end. Love finding these non-major hollywood star, over hyped, non - multi million dollar promotion, pleasantly surprising gems. So rare these days...
shareThe premise of the film was good and there are a few scenes of acting that are okay, but the film was poorly written and poorly directed. Overall it was a pretty bad film and most of the critics got it right, in my opinion. It could have been so much more, but it fell far short of even being a "good" film.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
I enjoyed it, and thought the acting & direction was fine. My only problem was the widely varying sound levels -- I had to keep diddling with the volume control to either hear the dialogue, or keep from damaging my ear drums. All too common in modern films.
Apparently I didn't attend enough faggy classes in Film & Theater to pick this one apart.
I know that you probably already know this and it most likely wasn't the cause, but some HD TVs have a setting in their sound section that actually allows the TV to self adjust certain parts of the volume of the film. So while some scenes may seem to be perfect, some may be too loud or too quiet (no pun intended), and some individual sounds, like voices, may be louder than the rest of the scene. I turned this feature off on my TV as it was driving me nuts.
I do know what you are talking about with this film, though, as some scenes seemed to be awfully loud. It's almost like the "loudness wars" with music CDs.
I just figured I'd mention the setting on the TV. Not all of them have it.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
by E_Mulwray » Thu Jul 5 2012 23:38:13
IMDb member since June 2004
I mean, it's not perfect by any means, but I think that overall this is a pretty compelling film and there are some respectable performances here. I just find it hard to believe that 90% of the critics tore this film to pieces like they did. Makes absolutely no sense to me. The subject matter is rough but handled well and the dynamic of the deaf girl and the things going on in the household was great.
I'm confused by what you mean that the premise wasn't "true"? Do you mean fathers don't rape their daughters in the 21st century? Because that's simply, indisputably false—parents sexually abuse their children across the world. It's an unfortunate truth, but a truth nonetheless.
As far as Dot being mute/deaf it made perfect sense within the context of the plot—she was a therapy soundboard for everyone where they could unleash their darkest secrets because they didn't know she could actually hear them. That was more or less the center of the movie's plot.
Listen jerk, viewing porn doesn't turn a normal daddy into a incestuous rapist.
If it were true then the porn industry wouldn't be as massive as it is today, and sexual abuse incidents would skyrocketing through the roof.
What I really want to say to you would get me kicked off the site.
It's also strangely comical, such as the big mouth friend and when Dot's boyfriend tells her off.
share