MovieChat Forums > While the Children Sleep (2007) Discussion > I want the sitter to kill them all (Spoi...

I want the sitter to kill them all (Spoilers)


Most of the people in the film were so stupid that the quality of the human race would undoubtedly be better had the sitter killed them all. The behaviors of the parents, in particular, were so idiotic that I couldn’t help rooting for the sitter. Unfortunately, the people who were smarter (e.g., the mother of that horny teenager and the wife’s best friend) got killed while the most stupid among them survived.

First of all, neither the husband nor the wife questioned the wisdom of choosing an 18 year-old hottie as live-in babysitter, when she liked to walk around in the house scantily dressed and remove her undies near the window when the boy next door was looking. Unfortunately, for a TV movie you can’t expect any American Beauty scene, and judging from her looks she wouldn’t have much to reveal anyway. The husband’s business partner immediately suggested to him the possible implications of having this hottie in the house. However, he remained totally unsuspecting even after the sitter “accidentally” walked out of the bathroom half-naked, and gave him a “free massage” when his wife was not at home! Was he really so stupid, or did he just want some “free lunch”?

The husband’s stupidity was surpassed only by that of his wife. Was she so naive that she didn’t suspect something between her husband and the sitter? Her best friend and the woman next door were all suspicious of the girl. Her friend even took the trouble to check the girl’s history. Shouldn’t that be the first thing the couple should have done themselves before hiring her? The wife, however, continued to dismiss the others’ suspicions and defend the sitter even after she fell down the stairs. Didn’t she (or her husband) notice that three people had died under strange circumstances within weeks after the sitter moved in? It was largely due to the wife’s stupidity and refusal to listen to good advice that the other two women died. I couldn’t wait for the sitter to finish her off, and needless to say I expected to be (and was) disappointed. The film was clichéd from beginning to end. Since in this type of movie the whole family had to survive to get a “happy” ending, their friends and the sitter obviously had to die. The sitter was one of those “talking killers” that Roger Ebert had identified as one of most common movie clichés. After killing the wife’s best friend by breaking her neck, the sitter obviously should have known that she had to kill the wife and probably the children too. But instead of doing that immediately, she told a long story to the husband and gave the wife the opportunity to stab her.

Most of the other people in the film were stupid too. The police did not suspect foul play for any of the three deaths. The coroner was unable to distinguish between a wound caused by a spade from one caused by a broken windshield in a car accident. Apparently, the scriptwriter had not watched any episode of CSI.

reply

The ending was ridiculous. It was all like, they're going to be a happy family again, even though friends of theirs got murdered, the wife is going to be in traction for years, and the kids would most likely be traumatized by being held captive by the babysitter.

reply

Well...the people were stupid, but they were doing what the screenplay writer
was having them do..so wouldn't it be the writers that were truly stupid?

As a mom, every time a show like this comes along, with parents hiring a nanny or babysitter without checking references, background etc. annoys the heck out of me.
And, the nanny who moves in on the husband or whoever THAT FAST? Come on.

And that one dad with the bully son, that the nanny threatened...unless he hated the kid his child bullied or didn't give a dang, he would have contacted the parents who hired the nanny and told them about her creepy, dark threat.
But, the way the writers wrote this, they would just have asked her and believed whatever smiling bull she dished. And, told her how they had found out, so she could go kill the guy or his kid. Another typical response I'm sure.

There are oblivious, self absorbed parents/neighbors in the world. Just watch
reality tv to see proof of that....but there are also a gob of parents who care
who takes care of their children, love their spouses and try to be a part of
each other's lives. Okay, maybe not a gob, but more than two. hahah

I agree...the nanny character was pretty, wholesome looking, but not the kind of
drop dead sexy gal that the dad's would be flipping over. No tramp stamp, glossy lips etc. She looked so young and fresh, the dad's would feel awkward about
being attracted to her...unless they are pedophiles. She just didn't give off
that vibe.

Oh well. That is all from this mom.

Happy Mom's day folks.

reply

How u been the past 7 years?

reply

1: she wasn't 18. she was found and put into foster care 18 years before the movie really begins. when she was found she looked about 4 years old.





Reading the paper can really be depressing. Mr. Dithers fired Dagwood again.

reply

[deleted]

LOL! Yes everything you said not to mention her threat to that kid/kids dad that just went nowhere. Yeah freaking right. And the fact that her DNA was on EVERYTHING. She didn't wear gloves in any of her murders. She would have been a suspect after her first kill.

But before that murder, she would have been fired because the dad from the school would have told the parents and the principle what she said.

It was ridiculous the dad just allowed her to give him a massage and be so flirty, and not think much of it. It was ridiculous how from the beginning of the film almost EVERY character except the kids made a comment about how "hot" or "cute" she was. Even the wife and her best friend??? Like.....who does that? It's so inappropriate. That shouldn't be something that everyone in the neighborhood just says non-nonchalantly to one another when she's about to move in with them. It was ridiculous that when the mom was in the hospital after spending the day with Abbey and she said in her wounded drugged up state "Thank god she was there, huh" that he wasnt immediately thinking "Yeah shes responsible for all the crazy shi* going down and for my wife being in the hospital. Time to call the cops." He even made a weird suspicious look when she said that as if he was going to be somewhat intelligent for the first time in the film, but then at home he said thanks for being here! LOL. Odd choice of direction/acting in that regard. If he still trusted her, why look unsure the scene before.

The whole friend visiting psycho sitter's mom scene was extremely pointless. Like her crazy mom who has been locked up for years would know ANYTHING about her daughter and what she would be like now??? They cut the scene after she says "Do you remember your daughter?" LOL they cut it because wtf was she gonna say? "Yeah...I locked her up in her room and was sent here...." The end. Good thing she drove all the way out to the mental hospital for that. And all in record time no less.

And yeah *happy family in the end they all win* --- Not really. If I were the wife I would be pissed on so many levels, and the dad should feel guilty and stupid as **** on so any levels, and the kids would be completely traumatized lol.

Oh and really......at the end her line had to be "But I had to fire the sitter..." The movie could have just been a crappy tv movie but they had to make it even worse than that with some super corny lines and awful music and all things unrealistic. Lazy writers for sure.

reply

She wasn't eighteen, she was twenty-five. She looked too old to be simply eighteen and what the hell is wrong with hiring a hottie for the job? You have issues. And it not like the parents knew she was scampering around trying to sexually appeal a 15 year old boy anyway so why bring that up like they knew and just didn't care? Seems like the sitter needs to kill you instead.

reply