Unrealistic


Personally, I have a hard time engaging in a movie emotionally when the characters make ridiculous decisions. As such, I found myself not caring what happened to the characters. In particular, the woman's affinity for the kid is unexplainable. All she knew of him was that he had to be chased around by people only trying to help him and then he was willing to essentially assault her for his one benefit and with no regard for her wellbeing. Based on that, she decides to buy him his bike and then take custody of him??? The best I could come up with is that either she is a moron or her biological clock has gone berserk. When characters make cartoonish decisions my mind naturally views them as cartoons, and who cares what happens to cartoons?!

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

I felt it was left unexplained for a reason. However, that reason isn't really clear and it certainly makes her seem a rather undeveloped character. The film could really have benefited from a bit more on her.

reply

I agree that it would have helped if her character had been further developed. Maybe an argument with her boyfriend about how they were unable to adopt a kid after so many years because they were not married and this wasn't the way to solve that issue might have been a cheap way to do that. As it was, they left us with what (as far as we know) was a typical woman who takes in an exceedingly troubled boy who assaulted her and continues to help and have custody of him after he stabs her. Doesn't hold water.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

[deleted]

Why would we be seeing the film only through the child's eyes? Also, one can be good while still being sensible. This was a woman that was cartoonishly good. As if being good meant exponentially more than being reasonable. There is no mystery shrouding this woman. She, for whatever reason, is willing to do whatever this child wants at her own loss. Doesn't hold water logically.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

[deleted]

If you want to create a fairytale, you probably shouldn't set it in a real world setting. The setting that the filmmakers gave us precludes us from viewing the story as a fairytale unless you read supplemental material (like an interview for example) that explicitly told you that it is supposed to be a fairytale.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

[deleted]

It's one thing to not explicitly state something, it's another to have absolutely no indication that something is true. Making a woman a fairy god mother without communicating that to us in any way basically makes it look like she is a very stupid woman allowing herself to be guided by some illogical desire to protect a boy she doesn't even know.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

I love that it wasn't explained why she took him in. It made it more beautiful and moving.

reply

To each their own, I guess. For me, not explaining what appears to be inexplicable decisions does the opposite for me for the reasons I've already given.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Obviously this is not the sort of movie for you. Why did you bother to watch it?

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

What do you mean "not the sort of movie for you"? I obviously didn't realize I wouldn't like the movie before I watched it.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Many, if not most, watch a trailer or read a plot summary BEFORE watching the movie.
Also, your initial premise is so ridiculous I can only conclude that you are a troll.

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

I do my best to know as little about a movie as possible before watching it. What about my initial premise is ridiculous?

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

"I do my best to know as little about a movie as possible before watching it." I find it difficult to believe that you would spend $10+ to go see a movie and not know whether it's about war, vampires, foreign romance or is just a child's animated cartoon. Or any other genre. Or don't you care?
As far as your initial premise, you are either a troll or else you don't get out of the house much. Over 75% of children who are warehoused in foster homes have moderate to severe emotional issues. There are tens of thousands of people in the world like Samantha. Maybe they are simply "do-gooders" or have the hubris that allows them to believe that they have the skill to make a difference in someone else's life or maybe they are just kind-hearted. Those people DO exist, you know. Over 45,000 Russian orphans have been adopted by American parents. What do you think they thought that they would be signing up for? Beautiful, innocent, well-behaved little angels? I think not. I suggest that you go see the award-winning movie The Blind Side" and maybe you will get a clue.

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

Saw the movie for free on cable so I thankfully didn't waste any money on it. Believe what you want. I watch movies based on what the general critical assessment is. Sometimes I am disappointed, sometimes I am pleased. When I watch a movie knowing the plot beforehand, it's pretty much a "meh" experience regardless of the quality of the movie since I already know what is coming.

There is a HUGE difference between a beautiful innocent angel and someone who is willing to stab you to get what they want. I am well aware that there are many people who are extremely altruistic but I think they all would be unwilling to continue helping someone who repeatedly assaulted them ]. It just doesn't ring true to do otherwise. Do you personally know anyone (including yourself) who would continue helping that boy in that circumstance?

By the way, I've been thinking about it more and this doesn't really ring true at all as a real world fairy tale since the beneficiary in a fairy tale invariably is someone who is a good person in spite of bad circumstances as supposed to a bad person because of their circumstances. Look at any fairy tale and the protagonist invariably is deserving of their fairy godmother type figure. This boy is just a bad kid that does bad things that a woman continues to treat well for incomprehensible reasons.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Isn't the obvious explanation: this woman saw a child in need and decides to help him because it's the right thing to do enough?

reply

Even after the child stabbed her? Does that seem sensible? Would you continue to help a child after he stabbed you because you tried to stop him from doing something dumb?

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

A mother would.

reply

She wasn't his mother. She knew him for maybe a couple of weeks and he stabbed her. Seems unreasonable for her to not get as far away from him as possible.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Ever hear of "Turn the other cheek"?

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply


Turn the other cheek has nothing to do with fairy god mother.
BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Ever hear of "Turn the other cheek"?

WTF has that got to do with making decision about a relationship? Or WTF has that got to do with parenting?

reply

That's true too. But that's what's remarkable about her. She opened her heart to him and loved him like a mother would. And guess what? It paid off. In the end, it's revealed, he's really a good kid who just simply needs someone to love him.

BTW, I don't think it's two weeks. I think the stabbing incident happened a couple of months at least after they first meet.

reply

what did he do that shows that he is a good kid?

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Went home to the family barbeque with the charcoal. Why do you have to have everything explained to you? You're like a three year old who constantly asks "why?".

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

Taking charcoal to a BBQ doesn't make you Cinderella. Bottom line, he is a bad kid that did one or two good things and the lady is incomprehensibly still helping him. You were basically fooled into thinking this is a good movie by advertising (trailers). Pretty sure that gullibility is more a characteristic of 3 year old than asking questions. CHEERS!!!

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

He did not fight back with the kid who knocked him out the tree. All the bad things that this kid did he did because he stubbornly refuse to see that his dad is a deadbeat loser and was trying to get him to take him back. That's why he helped rob the newspaper vendor. Only after this incident did he realize that his father no longer wants him and that it wasn't a money issue at all.

When I was watching the film, I could tell that he's not an inherently bad kid because I understood where he was coming from. And I think the woman sensed that too.

reply

So you think it is reasonable for you to continue to try and help someone after they stab you because that person refused to see that his dad is a deadbeat loser?? I disagree with that. I believe that anyone who gets stabbed by someone they are just trying to help and doesn't stay away from said person is being unreasonable and illogical. I guess you and I should just agree to disagree.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

You must understand that it is not just someone she helped, it is an abandoned child who hasn't grown up under wonderful circumstances. Now I believe that makes a world of difference. Samantha is a woman who knows of his situation. The fact that she is capable of kindness and grace under pressure is demonstrated in the very first scene she is present in; a more impatient person would have shook the kid off immediately or perhaps reacted somewhat aggressively, even if only momentarily and as a natural impulse.
Even if I do see your point that Samantha's character may have used a bit more development, the way she was represented really did it for me. I personally needed no more explanations to understand the characters' motivations, desires and drives. I get the feeling from you that you over-seek clarifications and rationalisations where they aren't necessary. Something must have gone wrong if you weren't emotionally engaged with the film up to that moment which you believe 'unrealistic'... what it was, I don't know. Watch it again maybe?

reply

The part where she had never met the kid and he is physically hurting her and she does nothing to stop the kid from hurting her other than asking him to stop, which he doesn't, was unrealistic. That is not grace under pressure. That is illogically allowing yourself to be assaulted and putting yourself in a harmful situation when you're not aware how bad it might end up for you. Doesn't hold water.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

He didn't physically hurt her the day she took him in. It was after they'd lived together awhile and she'd formed a bond with him. I think it would be much more unrealistic for her to blow him off after he tried to return. She was all he had, and she knew it.

reply

It's been a while since I've seen this but if I remember correctly, the first time she met him was when he grabbed her and hurt her to the point where she said something along the lines of it's OK that he grabs me this way but do to do it somewhat differently because it is hurting me.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

It wasn't a "stab" as in a knife stab, it was a prick to the shoulder with a hairdresser's scissor that barely cut the skin and hardly even bled. All ou see is that there's a small wound on the woman's arm with a red spot, but no blood on the floor or flowing out. And he only did that because he couldn't get away from the foster mother to go rob the money to help his deadbeat dad who never wanted him, but who he thinks might still take him back IF his money problems were solved. You have to think the way a 13 year old kid would think in his position in order to understand the film better, not from the point of view of a grown adult.

This was an unbelievably great film. One of the all-time classics and so rare these days to have a film this good and this modern and non-cliche using as its point of departure the most hackneyed form of artistic expression of all, that of the dramatic form. This film is pure cinema though and not drama, which means the dramatic form is only an excuse and point of departure for happy and transcendent little accidents, the more of them created, the better the cinematic result in terms of poetics.

reply

Personally, I have a hard time engaging in a movie emotionally when the characters make ridiculous decisions. As such, I found myself not caring what happened to the characters. In particular, the woman's affinity for the kid is unexplainable. All she knew of him was that he had to be chased around by people only trying to help him and then he was willing to essentially assault her for his one benefit and with no regard for her wellbeing. Based on that, she decides to buy him his bike and then take custody of him??? The best I could come up with is that either she is a moron or her biological clock has gone berserk. When characters make cartoonish decisions my mind naturally views them as cartoons, and who cares what happens to cartoons?!

I must agree, the situation depicted in the movie is utterly unrealistic; indeed, it's a farce.

Seeing some of the replies grasping at straws to defend the movie makes for good, refined comedy.

reply

It takes you FIVE MONTHS to send a supporting comment to the OP? There is slow, and then there is really slow. Don't think too fast on your feet? Or did you go ask mommy for help?

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

Um, I think it's quite possible that the poster saw the movie very recently and then replied to a 5 month old post. Not sure why you wouldn't have considered that possibility being the genius that you clearly are. CHEERS!!!

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

The good thing about these threads is that they can sometimes go on for many years and even decades. You can respond to someone from many years ago as if they were speaking to you or writing today or only a few days before. It's a record of public discussions about the film. In the pre-internet days, these discussions went on in private with each person's immediate friends and family only most of the time, unless people joined fan-clubs or this or that artist or snail-mailed letters into magazine comment sections.

reply

Personally, I didn't find any of the decisions the characters made to be unrealistic. Some were disappointing to me (like Cyril's decision to rob the booksellers) but understandable from the perspective that the people faced.

Samantha recognized that she was basically the kid's only hope. He desperately wanted a parent figure. It's not that easy to just turn a desperate kid away.

reply

this creegah guy is a fkin moron. his posts give me cancer

reply

I feel sorry for you man

"Doublethink. To deliberately believe in lies, while knowing they're false." Henry Barthes

reply

Were you associated with the production of this movie in any way?

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Nope. However relevant that may be to you.

"Doublethink. To deliberately believe in lies, while knowing they're false." Henry Barthes

reply

Just because you wouldn't react to a situation a certain way, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. Anyone who works with foster children who has been abandoned would know what they are getting themselves into. It isn't too much different than the way the boy was acting. Sometimes you need to look past incidents like the one depicted, and show unconditional love to reach out to them. That's what she did. To her, it was worth a small sacrifice (a small wound) to have the opportunity to show her unconditional love towards him. The reward for this was letting the boy know that he is loved, and, she will see him through instead of being one more person who abandons him. Next time, and the next person, it would've been worse.

reply

Anyone who works with foster children who has been abandoned would know what they are getting themselves into.


Thing of it is is that I don't remember Samantha having any extensive experience with foster children so it wouldn't make sense for her to react to that situation like that. For her, it's just a random kid that is chased into a room and painfully grabs her. Can't see that any reasonable person would react the way she did.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Can it be assumed that they she was at least briefed on what to expect with him? Or can it be already ingrained into her nature? It doesn't really matter. The main point I was trying to make is, just because you wouldn't react to a certain situation the way she did, doesn't throw the possibility out the window that she would. In fact, there are plenty of people who would react the exact same way as she did.

reply

I never said that everyone reacts the same way I do to situations. What I'm saying is that I disagree with you that many people would react the way she did. There's always gonna be people making hinky decisions. Doesn't make the decisions reasonable.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

...And I'm saying, there's plenty of people that would react that way. Her reaction wasn't really all that unreasonable (or unexpected) to me. Research foster families, and you will see what I mean. Anyone who decides to foster an abandoned child has to expect ups and downs like their relationship went through.

What makes you think it was a "hinky" decision? Please, don't say "Because I wouldn't do that." We already established that there are people who would, right?

reply

would you have reacted the way she did? because i don't. do you know anyone who would have? because i don't.

You're thinking seems to be focused on the idea that I think what I think because I wouldn't do that which is dumb on your part if you look at what I've said to this point. My thinking is based on the idea that I know no one who would do that.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

would you have reacted the way she did? because i don't. do you know anyone who would have? because i don't.


Actually, yes and yes. To do so, you would need a certain level of understanding of the situation. Separate the what from the why. The "Why" is the larger issue that would need help.

You're thinking seems to be focused on the idea that I think what I think because I wouldn't do that which is dumb on your part if you look at what I've said to this point. My thinking is based on the idea that I know no one who would do that.


Not really. The main point I'm trying to make is, you are dismissing this film based on what you view as irrational decisions that NOBODY will make. You are wrong about that.

Now, I've reached the conclusion that at least one of the following pertains to you:

1.) You are close minded. You things the way you want to see them, asked questions about it, and when logically arguments are presented, you choose to ignore them.

2.) You just don't want to like this movie, and you want to make any excuse not to like it.

3.) You like to argue.


That being said, I've made the decision, I'm done here. There's no reaching you, no matter how I try to explain my interpretation.

reply

The one thing I agree with you on is that I am also done here. Saw this movie years ago. Didn't care for it then. It is absolutely ridiculous of me to spend this much time discussing it now. I blame myself.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Wow. I'm really lucky, because I agree with almost everybody who's posted in this thread. That doesn't happen often, especially when this much bad feeling has tainted the discussion.

(I have just now finished watching this movie, so anybody who wants to attack me for taking so long to join in can save his breath. Not everybody sees every movie during its opening weekend.)

I'm going to start by taking the OP KolaDude's side, because most of this thread has been hostile opposition to the point he's been making fairly consistently for almost two years now.

For a good part of the movie, I had exactly the same reaction he had, and I could very easily have dismissed it as unrealistic too. In fact, I did.

I stopped watching it for almost a month (I have it on DVD) because the kid in it was so obnoxious, and the woman's masochistic obsession with him was so unbelievable, that I just couldn't swallow any of it. It was so unbelievable that it made me angry, so I ejected the DVD and put it away.

This is a movie, not real life, and as a movie it did not convince me that this character would have done what she did. Her behavior was not believable within the universe of the movie itself, which is what bothered me; and I think it's what bothered KolaDude in the beginning, before this discussion got so mean-spirited and personal.

I don't care whether anybody in real life would do what she did, which has been the substance of every opposing comment since KolaDude's initial post. I care only about this character in this movie, and her behavior just wasn't believable.

KD's mistake, as I see it, was not that he stayed involved in this discussion way too long but that he allowed it to drag him away from the initial, clearly defined point he was making, about the movie's internal unbelievability, into the "real" world outside of the movie. It became an argument about what "real people" would do, not a discussion about the movie itself.

What he, or I, or anybody else who's posted here, or anybody we know or can imagine, would do in Samantha's position is COMPLETELY irrelevant. We are not characters in this movie; Samantha is. The problem is whether Samantha would do it, and my strong initial reaction was, "NO WAY!"

She's beautiful, she's physically and emotionally healthy, she owns a thriving and lucrative business, she has a great apartment in a great part of town. From everything we're shown by the movie, she seems to have no problems at all.

She is not lonely, her "biological clock" is not ticking, she has no neurotic (or healthy) need to mother someone else's child - in short, she has absolutely NO reason for doing what she did. That is ALL the movie shows us, and based on that information, which is all we really have, what she does is completely unbelievable.

Remember, she's a character in a movie, she's NOT like us, and movie characters who look and live and act like her DO NOT DO what she did. That's all that matters. It's irrelevant what we or anybody else might do in a similar situation.

So I agree 100% with everything KD said until he let the pitbulls attacking him drag him away from the movie into personal opinions about what real people would do in such a situation.

There is no way to win an argument like that, because everybody's opinion is different. But more importantly here, on this message board, those opinions have nothing to do with this movie.

Now I'm going to explain why I ended up loving this movie anyway, despite the fact that I agree completely with KolaDude's view that Samantha's behavior is totally unbelievable.

I came back to this movie a month later only because I didn't have another one to watch, and I'd mostly forgotten how frustrating it had been the first time. I came in when the kid is in the restaurant kitchen with his father, about a third of the way into the movie.

I think it helped a lot that I already knew who everybody was and how they were involved with each other, but I hadn't just been seriously offended by repeated examples of the kid's obnoxiousness and her unbelievable response to it. In a way I was watching with fresh eyes, with a clean emotional plate, and my experience this time was completely different.

Samantha was out of the picture, just a vague memory after my month away; I had only the boy and his father to watch, and they just blew me away - especially the boy. Suddenly, instead of a monster, I saw a sweet, lost child, trying really, really hard to be good, to be helpful even, trying to win back the only family he had ever had.

THAT's what pulled the whole movie together for me and completely undid all the damage the beginning's unbelievability had done before. Through some magic of writing or direction or acting (although it's hard to believe that kid was just reciting lines he'd memorized) I saw the inside of a character whose obnoxious outside was all I had seen before then.

From then on, I had that character in my heart, and no amount of obnoxious behavior from him could tear him back out. I didn't know him personally any better than Samantha did, but I loved him, so I understood perfectly now why she did what she did.

As long as I was watching those two characters from the outside - and that's the only view any of us ever has of any characters in any movie - I could not believe anything Samantha did. But once the Dardennes and Thomas Doret let me see inside Cyril, a view I now can believe Samantha saw as soon as he grabbed onto her in the doctor's office, I believed it all.

I don't need to know any more about Samantha now, because I know Cyril; and if I can respond that strongly to a character on a TV screen, I have no trouble believing she would respond the same way to him in person.

So, KolaDude, if you're still out there, do me a favor and give it another try. Do what I did and skip the first half hour or so, jump in at 29:15, when Cyril's father is locking the door right after Samantha walked away. Try to forget everything you remember, and for sure try to forget the hateful words posted here, and just watch the boy.

As soon as Samantha reappears, back up and watch the two guys alone again. If after that you still hate this movie, then fine. I understand completely, and I respect your position.

reply

She's beautiful, she's physically and emotionally healthy, she owns a thriving and lucrative business, she has a great apartment in a great part of town.


If you think she's beautiful, that's fine, but none of the other points you mention are proven anywhere in the movie.

reply

Bluesoldier said it best in all the retorts to this OP.
Koladude--if you thumb through this ridiculous thread--you'll see HAS to have the last word & be right, no matter what.

Well OP is wrong, you've all demonstrated why his/her argument here is flawed & yet OP keeps charging back like a closed-minded RIGHT-fighter always will. Can you only imagine what it must be like living with such combative person unwilling to listen to another? Can't be much fun, that's for cetain.

Doesn't much matter WHAT the motivation is for this character, the fact OP isn't ALL people & can't know what every single person can or might do is enough!
Suffice to say our world is complex as are the people living in it & what they MIGHT DO.
Furthermore, she/he apparently knows NOTHING about foster care or the (sometimes rare but DO exist!) persons involved that often do unimaginable good deeds.
I've volunteered in this area & I do.

While I've seen this movie LONG ago at the show, I do remember it resonating with me & I agreed with ALL the critics. Look at the overwhelming majority ---think it's like 98% or close on rottentomatoes. Sure the critics CAN be wrong but of course Kola thinks he/she is the final arbitrator of films.
GIVE me a BREAK.

Just from my reading here, it's rather clear that this one highly argumentative person & highly unlikely to consider someone elses opinion.
And I can ONLY pray this person--as they wrote--has thrown in the towel to having LAST word rather than continuing to simply write the SAME Thing over a dozen times. We're not stupid, we got it in the first post.

If you have something NEW To add --or can debate this issue-- fine, but that is NOT what you engaged in here.
You just had to have FINAL say. What are you, 5 yrs old?
CHEERS!

reply

I agree with you that people are capable of anything (even unreasonable decisions) but that doesn't make her decisions reasonable. If a real life person reacted to that situation the way she did, reasonable people would question her decision making.

That said, this is a conversation from a long time ago and so I don't recall insulting anyone implicitly or otherwise and if I did I apologize. That said, the fact that you saw fit to insult me for an opinion I had of a movie says a good deal about you that maybe you should evaluate before trying to tell people what they are doing wrong.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

This could be fun seeing if you can end without having the last word is all.

Honestly, I know it wasn't the most polite post, I digressed & sorry for that. Sincerely.
I just truly believe you listened to NOTHING anyone wrote above you, repeated your same thinking OVER many times, when at least the other post served up various thoughts to contemplate.
And most of all...you HAD to have the LAST post.

And think I was right, so as potentially unscrupulous a tactic, I can only apologize for being too blunt. I am very candid by nature.

I also thought some of your replies to others were kinda mean, abrupt &
narrow-minded so "taste of your own medicine" popped into my head. Wrong to act upon that, perhaps.....but, well, I did.

I DO assure you I wasn't "insulting you for position you had" --not at all, only the way in which it was expressed. Opinions are just that.

So don't think I need to evaluate myself but might anyhow.

I'll let you HAVE the last word (as I feel it's coming) because I fear it's a compulsion you might have to endure.
And I do NOT mean that cruelly, just factually. I believe it MUST be yours. If so, have AT IT!

reply

My compulsion is to reply when someone addresses me. I don't need to have the last post. I've never even understood why people would need to have the last word. What do you gain from being the last person to talk?? Again, when someone addresses something I've said, particularly when they disagree with my position, I feel the need to reply. I don't think that's unreasonable.

In the spirit of civil discourse, I (completely devoid of any attempt to be confrontational) suggest that you reply with some kind of stock reply (e.g. fair enough, all right then, cheers, etc.) that couldn't possibly warrant a reply from me and see if I still feel compelled to reply.

For the record, there have been many times where I haven't replied to posts because there was nothing to say. The same day as your first post on this thread to me someone posted a reply to me on a thread for the movie "The Kings of Summer" and I didn't reply because there was nothing to be said. Just saying.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

reply

Fair enough! Point taken.
Sorry & happy holidays!

reply

That's the most realistic part since so many women prefer abusers. Just imagine a cat playing the role of the boy and it should all make sense.

reply

Just watched this...And yes!

There was nothing unrealistic about this film. It was very clear that she's a lonely mother without a child. Her life was empty. She tracked down and bought back the bike of a child she didn't know. She chose him over her boyfriend and didn't even think twice about it. And when we add the fact that the kid has no mother and his father doesn't want to have anything to do with him, it all makes perfect sense ... to a person with a heart.

reply

[deleted]