MovieChat Forums > First Born (2007) Discussion > No Redeemable Value Whatsoever

No Redeemable Value Whatsoever

posted 17 years ago by jamescheatham
7 replies | jump to latest

I would say that this is the latest example of the ineptitude of writers and directors in Hollywood who just -- for lack of a readily available metaphor -- just do not know how to structure a film. But, the first word that comes to mind after viewing this film is irresponsible.

FIRST BORN is either a failed attempt at a modern-day ROSEMARY'S BABY or the ANDREA YATES STORY. Since the writer of this dreck is a male, I would say that it was the former. Regardless, the writer has no idea how to structure a story. We don't get to know the protagonist as a person pre-pregnancy (and who bought stocky Shue as a ballet dancer?). Once she's knocked up, she's completely self-centered at best, at worst, grossly immature, unlikable and irresponsible. The husband is a convenient cliche', etc, etc. What is there to latch onto in this film? Who are we to champion in this tale except the poor baby?

What bothered me the most as a father is what jackass parent(s) allowed their newborn baby to appear in this movie? What mother just delivered a baby and figured it was time for he or she to get into pictures during the first few months of its life?

I could not concentrate on the film itself because of how the infant actor was handled. I don't know about anyone else, but my suspension of disbelief is instantly shattered when a large butcher knife and a four month-old infant share a scene together not once, but several times in a film.

The risks would have been worth it if the film hadn't been so inept. And it is. Inept. Embarrassing. Immature. Just crap. Crap. I guess Elisabeth needed to pay the rent.

And those who defend the ending of this film, how can you defend an ending that was given away and alluded to within the first ten minutes of the film? Who didn't know that the real infant would pay the consequences for a rag doll that shouldn't have been brought home in the first place? The pool scene? Come on. This movie was so straight-ahead stupid that ---- aww, forget it.

Just avoid watching this film.

[–] Extinctive 17 years ago

I'm sorry, have I seen a different movie? There's no way in hell I can relate to what you're writing. You probably thought Lost In Translation was 'inept' as well?

Honestly, either you're just VERY stupid (too much drugs, alcohol, smoke will do that to a human brain) or lack imagination, because if anything was good about this movie it was the writing! Brilliant, absolutely perfect.

[–] jonpaw-2 17 years ago

I liked it. It was subtle and creepy, not all flash and phony. I like moody movies that just kinda lull you in like this one. I had the air conditioning going too cool when i was watching this so it literally gave me shivers. lol. I usually find that my imagination can be far "scarier" than just seeing stuff happen and this movie seems to work on that open ended concept.

[–] Extinctive 17 years ago

Exactly, I liked the subtle hints and mood.
But as for the writing, there was not one scene where I felt it could have been written any better (or different, even). The dialogues were perfect, the lengths and scenarios were just right.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phila-3 16 years ago

(Minor spoilers)

>> Who didn't know that the real infant would pay the consequences for a rag doll that shouldn't have been brought home in the first place? <<

Unless I am totally mistake, or momentarily dozed off... she never picked up the rag doll, let alone took it home from the subway. She walked up and looked at it, thinking it was a live baby left behind. She then gave a funny look and turned back towards her seat. The rag doll kept appearing - to give the impression of potential witchcraft. Either way, you can only assume that the mom brought the rag doll home, but you never see it happen.

[–] Dantès 16 years ago

What does it mean that this movie has no redeemable value? Did you try to exchange it for food or drugs? If so, that's probably true. This DVD has very little barter value.

On the plus side, Elizabeth Shue ran a lot, so you got to see lots of happy, bouncing cleavage, although I think her boobs have gotten pretty droopy. And her underwear during the break-in scene was ENORMOUS. Not very appealing. For shame, Shue!

[–] jukaswo 16 years ago

"FIRST BORN is either a failed attempt at a modern-day ROSEMARY'S BABY or the ANDREA YATES STORY."

...with a little "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" thrown in.