do not want to give it away but for those who saw it that is just as messed up as the movie is
shareWhy was it terrible? Because his Dad was in denial and completely misinterpreted what the doctors said? Heck, he even talked about the court decision even though there was no court. So, obviously, everything he said was because he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
For that matter, he even convinced Jimmy that his mother was pregnant. So soon after the birth of the baby and without us ever noticing? It was all in his (Dad's) head.
Besides, he was in denial right from the beginning. When Jimmy told him there was something wrong with Mom, he simply did not want to hear it.
The ending was great and completely in line with the rest of the movie.
Brad Renfro 1982 - 2008
I dunno...I took the movie at face value.
Spoilers (do NOT look if you haven't seen the entire movie)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I remember the doctor saying that mom was "removed" from her “meds” due to "physical condition". A little while later it shows that she is pregnant. What other physical condition WOULD it be for them to take off her meds? The doctor also said she was in a "battery of testing"--testing, in my mind, meaning they are seeing if she is "fit" to go out in the real world.
I do not believe it’s all in the dad's "head". Denial? No doubt.
Remember, the boy was in complete shock when they found him, babbling words repeatedly. He was probably in the hospital/counseling for weeks, maybe months. In his next scene he appeared “normal” when he saw his father. I personally don’t think that happened days later. By the way, a lot of psych meds take a while to effectively control the symptoms being treated. Thorazine (which was mentioned by the MD) may take weeks, months to get to a therapeutic level. In her condition, they probably experimented/adjusted a lot of her meds. Since she was calmly standing by the window in the last scene, I believe some time has past. Initially, the hospital would have physically and/or chemically restrained her safety reasons.
Also, women CAN pregnant quickly after a birth of a child. My mom got pregnant around 2 months after my older brother was born. My co-worker got pregnant again probably 3-4 months after her 2nd child was born. The baby in the movie was no newborn.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
(Spoilers ends)
Whew! That was long. Sorry. But I just want to add that I agree with the original poster about the last act being ridiculous. It just sort of killed the movie for me when that had a co-op ending like that.
Horrible end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The director wanted to give us another shock, it was to stupid for words.
shareIn denial? Give me a break. Not even the dumbest person on earth who isn't atleast mentally unstable would say the things the dad did in the end. Totally ruined the movie for me.
It was plausible for him to be denial in the beginning when she was just being sad and moody all the time. May be its because she has always been like that, that he didn't think it was a big deal. But its a different story altogether to be denial after what transpired.
She killed three of her own children, the old man living in the trailer and the dog and after all that carnage, I don't think any sane man can justify it by saying "she was sick". He acted as if nothing had happened. Its like...yeah ok she killed three kids but so what? We can always make more babies & get back to a normal life. Wow just wow is all I have to say to that.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Actually, as unbelievable as it sounds, it can happen. Andrea Yates' husband Rusty was in complete denial even after she drowned the kids. He claims that he didn't know that she was psychotic. She was sent to a psychiatrist because she attempted suicide and kept saying that her children were evil. The doctor told them both that that they needed to stop having children. Rusty was also told that Andrea should not be left alone with the children and she frequently was. She was told to get back on the Halidol after she gave birth to her fifth child, but she wouldn't 'cause Rusty wanted another baby. He's still wanting for the day that he can take her home and start another family. Yeesh!
"You know me. I'd kill anybody. But, I'll only sleep with someone I love."
Bride Of Chucky.
Yes, all of what has been said....any dad in his right mind would never even let the women see her children anymore. What that women did....it was too gruesome for words.
Also.....something very weird and not very believeable...how she survived that fire...come on now. She was in the middle of the fire when Jimmy threw that match....yet we see her without any burn wounds...yeah ..her hands...but that's it.
[deleted]
I agree that the point is that the father was not "in his right mind". The son and mother had obviously been in the hospital for many months. They received intensive physical and psychological care. The father, on the other hand, probably only received limited family counseling that he may have participated in with his son and or wife. He had to deal with the loss of three children and the knowledge that the horror occurred because he was not there for his family. He may have convinced himself that he could make things right this time around. After all, he only saw the aftereffects of the murders. He never saw his wife first-hand performing a murderous rampage. Because of that, he might be better able to justify in his mind that he can make sure it never happens again.
There's really no going back after what she did. I don't know how in the world that man could even harbor the idea of continuing life with that women after she killed her three children. Honestly, you don't need to see your wife performing those horrible acts with your own eyes to have an effect. The knowledge alone is enough to make your head spin in disgust.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
i couldnt believe the ending lol
shareAlthough I didn't think the movie was amazing, I did enjoy it and can't help but feel it is being criticised for the wrong reasons. This film was loosely based on the life of Andrea Yates, a Texan woman who drowned her children. After being hospitalised, her husband expressed a desire to have more children (much like in the movie).
The excerpt below was taken from Wikipedia:
On August 16, 1999, during an office visit with the Yateses, Andrea's first psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, says she was shocked to disbelief when the Yates expressed a desire to discontinue Andrea's medications so that she could become pregnant again. She warned and counseled the couple against having more children, and noted in the medical record two days later, '"Apparently patient and husband plan to have as many babies as nature will allow! This will surely guarantee future psychotic depression."'[23] Nevertheless, Andrea Yates became pregnant with her fifth child, Mary, only 7 weeks after being discharged from Dr. Starbranch's care on January 12, 2000.[24] Despite Russell Yates' statements to the media that he was never told by psychiatrists that Andrea was psychotic nor that she could harm her children, and that he would have never had more children had he known otherwise,[25][26][27] Andrea revealed to her jail psychiatrist, Dr. Melissa Ferguson, that prior to their last child, "she had told Rusty that she did not want to have sex because Dr. Starbranch had said she might hurt her children." Russell, she said, simply asserted his procreative religious beliefs, complimented her as a good mother, and persuaded her that she could handle more children
I thought the ending was quite chilling and effective.
"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"
well, the ending was not very believable, I would say.
not the part of her being pregnant. since we dont know details of time lapses, it is possible.
but the part of her being let out of mental hospital anywhen soon... well, simply impossible in my book! she had just stabbed to death three people, including two of her children... she would NEVER be relesaed from professional care for the rest of her life...
unnecessary shock ending, but it doenst take away the "good surprise" title from this film!
"No... no... notorious" (Duran Duran)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=558536338&ref=name
Thank you, I was hoping someone had pointed out that unrealisticness of her being let out of the asylum, like, ever. Especially if she was about to give birth to yet another baby. I mean, come on, the reason for her going insane in the first place! Plus, even if she did snap out of that insanity - she could never become a considerable able mother again. She ought to become horribly depressed or snap into an unhealthy denial of what she'd done. It was obvious she loved her babies. No mother can survive the knowledge of having brutally murdered them. I mean, God knows what the depression/denial could lead her into doing. I really think something like that is the ultimate life destroyer, not only to the victims but to the criminal. There's no going back or starting over in family matters.
THE LION KING FAN VIDEOS FROM ME:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperBabySimba
Spoilers!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Did it not bother anybody that her son blew her up in a gas explosion and she didn't seem to have any burns on her? I figured she'd be dead. It didn't hit me at first, but later I was like, hey, why wasn't she...
Am I mistaken? Did she have scars?
@blacksunarmy very good point, I didn't even think about that part. I was just focused on even if she is able to get out of the asylum someday, that kid will probably be old enough that he could live on his own. I don't think its just acouple months of time in the hospital she would receive after killing 4.
shareIts all a bunch of bull shown in this film.
First, the dad wants to continue life with her and make more babies after she killed three of her children and an old man.
Second, she comes out alive after the room she was in room exploded with fire and it was quite a while before the firemen came and doused the fire. Unbelievably she survived all that came out without any burns.
Third, she should be rotting in jail for mass murder or atleast be in an asylum for life but they take her off the meds and let her go? That's ridiculous.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Totally agreed. There's just no way I can accept any father would want to let that woman anywhere near his son after she killed their other 3 children, one of them a baby. It was so obviously put in there because they wanted that cliche Hollywood "Ooh, you think it's a happy ending, but surprise! It's not!" ending that every horror/thriller goes for these days.
Not to mention, I have a hard time believing that, pregnant or not, any doctor would allow a woman who had brutally murdered 3 of her children and an innocent man to be reintroduced to society so soon. I would imagine it would be years before her release could even be considered.
Steph
Maybe he was dreaming? If he wasn't it's unrealistic that she would be released. Her face and most her body should have been burnt. She should've been dead. Maybe he was having a nightmare.
Clark's destiny = Superman, Lex Luthor & Lois Lane.