MovieChat Forums > Sweet Nothing in My Ear (2008) Discussion > WORST TV MOVIE EVER

WORST TV MOVIE EVER

posted 16 years ago by MSpeilberg
13 replies | jump to latest

Sorry, I never really post on these message boards, but I just HAD to.

Sweet nothing in my ear has to be by far the WORST TV movie I have ever been subjected to watching. The only reason why I put up with this garbage was because I am a fan of Jeff Daniels. I loved him in Dumb and Dumber and haven't seen him a lot of things lately so I figured I'd check it out.

This story, and the acting were TERRIBLE. How the deaf actors were signing, and what they were saying was dubbed over was just creepy. Was that supposed to be "Cutting edge" or something. And another thing...WHY ARE THEY ALL DEAF?

The grandparents are both deaf. The mom is deaf, and the little boy is deaf. Last time I checked, deafness wasn't *beep* passed down from generation.

UGH. Im really sorry for my attitude, but this movie was just god awful. The sad part is that the people involved, including Jeff Daniels, were all like "Oh man, this movie is gonna be great, and we are all going to win emmys!!" NO YOU ARE NOT! My independent film I made with a bunch of 13 year olds had more emotion and better acting then this crap.

Please? Does anyone agree with me? This movie was *beep* The directing was *beep* The teleplay was *beep* And WE DONT EVEN KNOW IF THE KID HEARS AGAIN! It just ends!!

I hope the director and writers are reading this. I don't know how you got the gig, but as a fellow filmmaker, who NEVER posts on these boards, you enticed me so much that I just had to say how much you SUCK and please refrain from making other movies.

No wonder why your stuck in the "made for tv movie" world. You just weren't good enough for features.

But your just flat out not good.

-MS

[–] Swept_in_arms 16 years ago

I think they wanted Deaf people in the movie so then they could relate with the issue. But you're right about it being odd, even in the movie it said that 90% of Deaf children are born to hearing parents, so it's not genetic. I liked it though because I love ASL I think it's one of the best languages I've ever learned, and gave insight to how people feel about cochlear implants. :)

~*Gum would be perfection*~

[–] osu_ftw 16 years ago

If there were no deaf actors in this movie, how in the world would they have been able to portray both sides of the "to CI or not to CI" debate? I think it was excellent. How was it creepy? Some people sign. Others speak. Some speak for those who sign. Not a big deal.

It is not uncommon for deafness to be passed down. Check your facts, please. Ever heard of Martha's Vineyard? Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha%27s_Vineyard#Hereditary_deafness_a nd_sign_language

How do you NOT see the emotion in their faces? Like when Laura found out she was born hearing? Or when she and her husband are in the car together? Or when Dan and Adam are playing the guitar together? Please.

But who am I to try and convince you...? Apparently you just won't ever get it.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who watched this because they liked Jeff D. in "Dumb and Dumber" would complain that there are a lot of deaf people in a movie about: an issue of great concern to the deaf community.
Or that they are ignorant that deafness CAN be passed in families.

And if you only watched it to find out what decision they made about the kid, you missed the whole point, which was to explore both sides of the issue without taking sides.

Somehow I doubt those involved with this production are going to lose sleep over your assessment. . .

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] filingprincess 16 years ago

Deafness can be genetic, some families pass on their connexin 26 deafness gene, and it is in this case of this movie. The little boy (Noah Valencia) His parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins and his little brother are all deaf.

[–] kleineboy51 16 years ago

i think it's amusing for someone to post something like this who knows NOTHING about the issue or community. the movie was VERY well done. i also think it's funny how a fellow 'filmmaker' (i use the term loosely with you) can miss the entire point of the movie.

please, for everyone, don't post anthing unless you know what you're talking about

[–] juliemango 16 years ago

I have not seen the movie yet, but I gotta say that when it comes to deafness, you are clueless.

[–] shosh04 16 years ago

We have genetic deafness in our family, and out of six kids, four girls and two boys, the girls are all hearing impaired, one completely deaf and two profound hearing loss, we all wear hearing aids. Two of my sisters have hearing impaired children, one has a girl and the other her son. Most people that I know of who have genetic hearing loss pass it on, it is genetic, you know.

Of course I just read the captioning, but my best friend found the voice overs creepy, as she knew they had to have them, but they were just incredibly odd.

[–] Themattman1 16 years ago

The voice acting wasn't particularly fitting for the emotions of the actors, I think. It was very monotone in areas. Still, it wasn't any more frustrating than watching an old dubbed foreign film.

The movie itself was decent enough all together. It sticks with you a little longer than the average hallmark movie. I think simply because it gives you something to think about, even if it doesn't really effect you at all (like my own case).

Personally, I was bothered by the fact that nobody - at any point of the film - asked the boy if he would like to hear again. He's the one that would have to live with/without it. It was almost as if the writer(s) simply excluded his opinion to allow the debate to continue.

Another thing. The movie seemed to end abruptly. We don't find out anything beyond that the parents are getting along again. The fate of the boy is left unclear even though the plot of the movie revolved around him.

Just my opinion. It's an interesting subject.

-Matt

[–] kleineboy51 16 years ago

matt -
the plot didnt revolve around him. it was around his parents. the debate wasnt the issue, the parents' separation was the issue. the fact that they didnt ask him is a great plot point. it showed the selfishness of both the parents. the fate of the boy WAS made clear. his fate is having parents that get along. the implant was a side issue.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

Just asking him, "do you want to hear again?" would be misleading, from the mother's point of view. A more accurate question is, "you do want to have holes drilled in your skull for a procedure that may or may not help you hear again? and if you do hear, it would take a lot of time and therapy and it might not be the way you remember hearing."

I think the idea was that in the future, IF both parents decide they would consider an implant, THEN they would ask the boy if he wanted it. It was not appropriate to ask him if he wanted it when it was still causing such conflict between them.

And while I too was initially bothered that we don't find out what decision they made about the boy's fate, that was the right way to end it. As said above, the movie didn't really revolve around him; it revolved around the debate, and the producers wanted to show both sides of the debate without taking sides.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] projectsethyr 15 years ago

The mother asked him when she was talking to the lady at the park and the boy ignored her.

[–] sandranorman86 16 years ago

ERES UNA IGNORANTE RESPETA A MARLEE MATLIN

[–] HOHNancy 13 years ago

You are so clueless about deafness, and I have a coworker who was born deaf, and her whole family is deaf, so yes, there are generations of deaf people.