MovieChat Forums > Stolen Lives (2009) Discussion > I wanted so much to love this movie, but...

I wanted so much to love this movie, but....

posted 14 years ago by bahamadya
24 replies | jump to latest

I am saddened that the ending did not send chills through me because the story did. I found myself more and more looking forward to the flash backs because 1958 was the primary meat of the movie. Does anyone else feel a little jilted by the end? I was happy that they were able to move on but I feel there was a large void in me, the viewer. I don't know exactly what could have been done differently but do know that I enjoyed the mystery and then poof....the movie is over. Well done and a good build up to the killer himself but for some reason I want to know more about Mr. Diploma. It seems a rip off to say his first was to rid the world of the mentally challenged boy due to the fact that he felt he was holding his father back but to leave it at him enjoying the rest from there on out....well something is just missing. Anyone else feel this way about the end??

[–] olivaresfelipe 14 years ago

Ditto here; I mean... where to start?... the acting...jeez... what a disappointment.

[–] ObstinateAnnette 14 years ago

Yes, I agree that the 1958 story was the best part of the movie.

As far as Roggiani, his motives did seem ambiguous. I'd assume he was a sexual predator, but they didn't include that in the story. To think that he would just abduct Tom Jr. and immediately snap his neck seems quite strange to me. And his motive for killing John didn't sound right either.

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

[–] bds527 14 years ago

I don't think he was a sexual predator at all. If I remember correctly his motive for killing John was to save Matthew Wakefield because Roggiani felt as if John was keeping Matthew back in life.

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

What about the rest though?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xXAssassinXx 14 years ago

I agree. This movie left a lot to be desired. What turned out to be the climax (Tom finding out who Diploma was and confronting him) felt more like mid-level buildup. I also found some of the characters unnecessary (Tom's mom, the other deputy, "Rose", etc). It just seems like there wasn't quite enough here to make a film

Nothing you have to say is anywhere near as useful or important as you think it is.

[–] theglasscharacter 14 years ago

What the BLEEEEEP was Jon Hamm doing in this? Jon Hamm is so hot now, you'd think he could have his pick of projects. I watched the trailer for this on YouTube and thought it was a parody, maybe one of his less-funny SNL skits. Jeez.

[–] viciouslove 12 years ago

Seriously? He's not that BIG of an actor but many actors do independent movies and there is nothing wrong with that. You watched the trailer and thought it was parody? That's kind of sad, it's obviously not supposed to be funny...

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

Rose was my favorite part of the film! :^)

[–] CherrySnow 13 years ago

I liked the movie a lot, but the ending seemed rushed.

The thing I can't seem to get is why Diploma gave John the toy before he even met him. Like he said he killed the kid to give Matt a better life, but like, what reason did he have for approaching a strange boy and giving him a toy? Wasn't he creepy to the kid in the beginning too, saying something about getting him the air plane if he's good?

[–] bronzescag 13 years ago

I absolutely agree with this last point; it made no sense. Diploma's thing about Christian being his friend was B.S. because he was already stalking his son. Very confusing. They should have cut that beat out; didn't need it.

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

Diploma was just trying to justify himself, he clearly had creepy child-theft tendencies before then.

And the beating was sorely needed in the film.

[–] dolly_the_ye-ye_bird 12 years ago

"The thing I can't seem to get is why Diploma gave John the toy before he even met him. Like he said he killed the kid to give Matt a better life, but like, what reason did he have for approaching a strange boy and giving him a toy? Wasn't he creepy to the kid in the beginning too, saying something about getting him the air plane if he's good?"

I think that's supposed to make us wonder about Diploma and who he really is. In other words, how did his killing spree begin? Was John his first murder and afterward he found that he liked killing and just continued to do it? Or was he always a predator and this one time saw a justification for his 'work' because the little boy was a burden to his father who was a friend? Because of his creepiness at the beginning and the giving of the toy, I'd suspect it's the latter, but there isn't really any definitive evidence either way...which is how many real missing children cases are...there aren't always clear answers, only speculation. In this way, I think the film is quite successful in conveying the frustration that parents and law enforcement must feel in these cases. That's how I see it anyway.

The bee hunts in pairs....and other fruits...

[–] fiatlux-1 10 years ago

I agree, the end was terribly rushed. They dragged out the story, then seemed in a hurry to end the movie.

I wondered about the toy-giving thing too at first. I strongly suspect that his motives for what he did were less 'helpful' than they were that Diploma just LIKED killing kids.
He basically admits this after he kills John, that he 'got to like it'.

I honestly think he always liked it, he just used John being retarded as an *excuse* of sorts to justify it.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

[–] TrentinaNE 13 years ago

Agree, except that I didn't find the "mystery" all that compelling either. As others have pointed out in this thread, there were a lot of inconsistencies, and the way the two stories intersected made very little sense. I rented this movie to see Jon Hamm in a "meaty" non-Mad Men dramatic role, and was sorely disappointed. I hope he has some better options in the near future.

[–] z_amy 13 years ago

I agree about the inconsistencies.

**SPOILERS**

It was hard to imagine that the father wouldn't make a connection instantly between the toy on the balloon from his son's murder and the toy given him from the boy in the box.

[–] nikkiten1979 13 years ago

Anyone else feel this way about the end??

The ending was definitely a let down, so mild and without any effect. The movie simply lacked a lot of emotion and some parts didn't make any sense. they should have delved a little deeper into the character of Roggiani (Van Der Beek) who he was, where he came from, what his motivation behind killing were? that could have been shown to us as we were discovering it was he that had killed the boy, shown us how the boy was killed, the last moments, his fear, etc - make us feel 100% connected to the child, feel angry, and as helpless as he was. show the father and his other two children, their struggles, how he told them what happened, what the other two boys thought had happened or whether they knew what happened. How was the killer caught and why? The killer says that he killed the "retard" boy because he was a burden to the father, but he had been stalking him before he had met John Hamm's character.

this movie had so much potential, but instead it became a bad lifetime movie...

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

[–] Steve_and_Lyn 13 years ago

I don't think Diploma was written to be a sexual predator whatsoever. That's the point...not everything needs to be edgy or graphic to be "good" for the viewer. I agree with your feeling about the end and the post about it being "rushed". It definitely was. I think Diploma was just a killer. He wanted to know what killing was like. He found a weak target in the father. Remember? He knew the father was desparate for work. He practically begged him to leave his son alone for a span of time when the father was with Rose at the bar. That was his first chance to give killing a try. Diploma was a coward...he wasn't going to put himself in danger in taking on his victims and that's why he chose children. And why he chose a disabled child first. I would've liked more background on Diploma too. AND the '50s flashbacks were the most interesting because they go back to the "whys" of Diploma. Nonetheless, it was nice to see a movie that didn't base itself on the shock value of some over-the-top graphic nature of the crimes involved. Killing kids is bad enough. I think his excuse of "doing the father a favor" or whatever was total BS...that's how he rationalized the killing in his own mind. Bottom line? Ol' Diploma was going to find someone, sometime. The father just happened to be the first, best chance.

[–] bds527 13 years ago

I agree about your point on Diploma not being written to be a sexual predator. Although I do think he is a predator, I don't think its about sex for him. To me, Diploma feeds on opportunity. When he killed both boys they were both in a vulnerable state and knowing that, he took advantage of it.

[–] hizherz 13 years ago

One of the best movies I've seen in a long white.

[–] killdawabbittn 13 years ago

I liked it but agree with everyone else. Some people complain about a movie being too long. It's just the opposite in this case.

------------------------------------
It's a hormone war zone - boys are out for a fight