MovieChat Forums > Lullaby (2014) Discussion > TOUCHING, with a giant script error + Am...

TOUCHING, with a giant script error + Amy Adams is just a cameo

posted 10 years ago by spasticfreakshow
7 replies | jump to latest

the glaring flaw in the script (there is NO WAY that trust fund kids would just move on like nothing happened after being disinherited in this situation - this would be a HUGE DEAL and even in the face of death would remain a strong presence in the room) is the elephant in the room of this film.

other than that ABSURDITY which stretches disbelief into the realm of the supernatural, the film is very touching. it's weird that they got this part SO WRONG because other than this, it could be any family. maybe some overzealous idiotic studio exec made them change this part to make them look less mercenary or some such. other than this, you'd imagine the writers actually had been through this themselves. most people DO go through this. and for anyone who's spent years in a hospital, we know it's very similar for every family. and even though they did get it wrong...the film made me cry again and again. if they wouldn't have sugar-coated the reality, it would have been a GREAT film.

ALSO, amy adams is a cameo character - she is not even a supporting actress. she's just a NAME prop - she doesn't EVEN suit the role she's been given. RIDICULOUS. i don't even care, i could live without her - it just feels like false advertising to draw in her fans and for what.

[–] annlevtex 10 years ago

I agree that the trust fund part was ridiculous and frankly, I thought the father was in the wrong.

He could easily have given a large chunk of his fortune to charity without completely cutting off his kids. I understand that he wanted them to be self-sufficient, but he still should have left them something. Even if both work hard and become successful, there are so many things that could go wrong.

What if one gets cancer and is sick for years, like him? Cancer care costs a fortune and could bankrupt even the most hard-working and thrifty person. What about the education of his grandchildren? Yale is insanely expensive.

I really disapproved of that. Especially when he said both of his kids were "spoiled brats." Frankly, Karen didn't deserve to be lumped in with her brother in that category. She stuck by her father, returned his love, worked hard to make him proud. She might have been a bit of an uptight princess, but she was a very good and devoted daughter.

Also ITA about Amy Adams. Totally unnecessary. But the acting was very good and I cried a lot!

[–] spasticfreakshow 10 years ago

you're absolutely right - he was in the wrong. i work in fund raising and my own father gave away a significant percentage of his wealth to 'charity', but most people don't bankrupt their immediate family completely. not only because it's not very loving to totally cut his kids off AFTER supporting them all these years and giving them the false expectation that would continue (of course i do feel that people are overly entitled these days and it is his money) but because the WIFE was right too. it should have been their decision as a couple. imagine your spouse gave away almost all of the money earned during your very long marriage, after you'd stuck by him/her for 12 years of grueling cancer treatment...without even consulting you? what a betrayal and smack in the face - YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DECISION is how she felt when she said they were supposed to be equals - what an awful way to repay a loyal spouse. i doubt she'd have agreed to it. now if both spouses felt that way, most likely the kids deserve it, not that they'd take it lying down. guaranteed the lawyer daughter would be suing because he's not of sound mind to make such decisions...and be right about that - and win.

garrett hedlund was so convincing, though, as he came around and finally expressed his feelings. so often on film the male character doesn't actually SAY 'I LOVE YOU' as though the writers fear it's not manly enough. it's not only plenty manly, it's realistic. in real life, men say I LOVE YOU. especially in some situation like this, when his father is on his death bed. and then he even comforted his father. beautiful, poignant and real.

[–] olliemankz 10 years ago

Well, you're probably right ... maybe that was put in there to give the resentful among the 99 percent a little jab at, as you say, entitlement. I think it could be true but if there were any resentment, 24 hours or so might not have been enough time for the kids to get over it and spend their, as people here indicate, poignant last moments with their father. Nor do I think a man in his position would necessarily dream of doing such a thing ... it is so extreme. On the other hand, there is nothing like standing on your own two feet, so, in a way, it could be a very loving bequest. And there does almost always seem to be a way to treat cancer no matter how poor you are.

[–] spasticfreakshow 10 years ago

there ARE indeed wealthy people who leave it all to charity. but it almost does NOT happen that they do this AFTER promising it all to their kids and then leaving them penniless.

i agree that entitlement is a serious problem in the world today. and YET, if you promise someone something, stand by your word if you can. don't be lucy, pulling the football out from under charlie brown. THAT is bad karma, even IF the football goes to charity.

[–] olliemankz 10 years ago

Ha, ha ... funny analogy.

[–] mjd_subs2 9 years ago

I understand your point but disagree. I was a "trust fund" kid and attended private schools and had the "finer things" in life to the point that all my cousins resented my siblings and me for all we had. I was disinherited right after high school and it didn't bother me. I'm not saying it didn't hurt, but it certainly didn't frame my existence and life. I had no control over the incidents that led to that decision and I don't dwell on it. I'm sure there may be SOME trust fund kids that would raise a stink because of their sense of entitlement (I know several, personally) but not all of us have done so.

I've had many opportunities since that time (the Rock Ages, according to my children) and I have never wavered into being bullied into doing what was asked of me to get back in their "good graces." Here I am some umpteen years later and I've survived just fine. Despite what people think, our parents are not REQUIRED to anything but provide food, shelter and clothing. Anything else is "extra" including love, support and financial backing for our adulthood.

- Get busy living, or get busy dying. Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)

[–] shoutingagain 9 years ago

last post is the ONLY one who seems to get it.

While not ever close to being a "trust fund baby" I'm appalled at how many posters feel he was WRONG to do what he WANTED with money HE earned.
Totally appalled.

Here's the facts people!!!
Your parents OWE you NOTHING beyond what is stated above.

I am entirely perplexed WHY someone feels otherwise.

Shows the problem with (I suppose some) baby boomers as well as their kids, to be honest.
I know for a fact WWII (the greatest generation)....MOST had virtually NO expectations but even took care of their own parents.

Not the climate today of narcissitic entitlement.

For Godsakes, think of what we DO know....he afforded them the BEST education money can buy (she attended Yale! According to her accounting of it, the brother when offered the same, said "f off". Which he must've, he laughed, not denying it.
You kidding me???
I'd be, disappointingly, handing my kid his hat..."here's you hat, what's the hurry??" if I was their parents.

Yes, you were TOTALLY right on the wife part...that did make NO sense.
Of course he should leave ALL his money to his wife & I have NO idea how he gifted it all without her tacit approval. That was far-fetched, I didn't buy for one second but believe it was to show he was cutting off his kids.

Oh and you all wrote "after he promised" them he'd leave it to them but I saw no mention that he assured him his money after they died. In fact, I believe you are mistaken, it wasn't in there. Consider the boy just took off...so WHEN would that conversation even had taken place?
And really WHO talks about such matters when alive, it's not that common.

Most just plain EXPECT it.
Wrongly!
That's what I believe took place here.

I am with Bill Gates & others who fiercely believe it often creates a largely unmotivated & purposeless life so they do MUCH better (and actually HELP their kids) to leave to those MOST in need. Boy I applaud this unequivocally.
Even better if they do WHATEVER the hell they want with it, they earned it.
Just such utter nonsense about wills & money (which the LOVE of does seem to be root of MUCH evil)

And let's be honest, we will need to hold NO tag day for rich kids, they will land on top as they have advantages, connections & such all their lives as is.