Although not as powerful as the (actually unrelated) short stories in the book, Rose Troche has adapted A.M Homes admirably to the big screen... which I was positive couldn't be done. The excellent performances of the entire cast are what hold some of the more thin connections together and although I was personally disappointed by some of the changes Troche made, I understand the necessity to a cohesive narrative. Had I not read the book, I think I would have enjoyed the movie more so I highly recommend viewers and readers who crave great stories about dysfunctional suburbia to check out any and all of my favorite female authors work... beginning with The Safety Of Objects and The End Of Alice.
Add a Review
-
maxmooney7 March 2003
-
swillsqueal20 March 2006Rose Troche wrote the screenplay and directed "The Safety of Objects (2001)". I've got to hand it to her. She certainly did a fine job of linking social alienation and the commodification of human relations.
Rose poses these questions : Can one feel emotionally alone amongst people living in the heart of "upper middle class" suburbia? With real, sensuous subjects largely gone missing (i.e. human beings with genuine feelings of solidarity and love for each other) does one seek solace in the company of objects? The answer I give is, "Yes". My impression is that Ms. Troche thinks so too, but she has another take on the possibility of transcending this misery.
Granted, some of the objects, which/who are NOT subjects (well, only in our 'Barbie-est' of imaginations) are purchased. And some, (in a brief flash of subjectivity) have sold themselves into particularly alienating forms of wage-slavery. I say "particularly alienating" because these forms of wage-slavery appear to leave the human being in a state of having parts of their humanity hacked off. Granted, wage-slavery is a numbing experience for all of us. Such a cost we pay for selling ourselves in to it.
What's the choice though? Nothing or organizing to rid ourselves of the wages system. 99% of us choose the former and thereby suffer and continue to chafe under this system. But! What a playground it makes for artists like Troche. She romps around our collective misery and tell us what phonies we are and still, she gets paid for it! Wow! You go, Rose!
Enough with the hyperbole. The film is well acted, though the acting isn't perfect. So much the better in some ways. At least, one doesn't recognize say a, Bruce Willis or a Nicole Kidman AGAIN! More power to Bruce and Nicole, but for my money, I prefer an unknown who can do the part. And why not? There is good to fine acting in this film.
Do we ALL have to grovel and to worship the STARS? Hell no.
"The Safety of Objects" is NOT about how everyone discovers that they should have paid more attention to things which matter. No. What you've got here is a depiction of situations in our everyday lives which actually MIGHT occur. Okay, so you haven't heard of EXACTLY these situations developing. Hah! Dig this: the son of Gold goes from being a subject to an object. Talk about symbolism! Remember that. It'll be essential for understanding the story weave. Another thing to remember is Naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophical drive behind explaining how God is (I can't resist) essentially capricious with HIS power.
See this movie. Beware, there are pieces which you will see earlier on, which will only become apparent to you later, as the film rolls or digitizes through your viewing mechanism. No worries. With "Safety of Objects" you'll see something about your post-modern, industrialized, computer age selves. In other words, the film conveys a bit of, "the condition, your own condition is in."
Plastic people? Well, maybe so. If the shoe fits... -
callanvass6 January 2010The Safety Of Objects tries so hard to get it's point across,it started to become annoying after a bit. Half of the characters in this film,are so selfish,I couldn't relate to any of them,in fact the only one,was Glenn Close's,and even she was somewhat selfish. All of the characters in this movie,either have something tragic happened to them,or they are having,relationship problems,and they all connect to each other at one point,or another. I'll go over the stories.
Glenn Close-Esther. Loses her son to a coma,in a ghastly accident. Grief stricken over the loss, she's not herself,and tries to please her daughter as much as possible. At times I felt for her,she was a good mom,and god knows,plenty of mothers would act that way,and rightfully so. It's just,she came across,as a bit cold,during her conversations with her son in the coma. She gives the best performance in the film,by far though,she is often a revelation.
Dermot Mulroney-Jim. Thinks his wife may be cheating on him,while stressing out,over not getting the promotion,he had yearned for. Dermot is not a favorite of mine, i'll get that out in the open, right now. Dermot though, gives a solid show here. We feel for him,as the family man.
Patricia Clarkson-Annette. Has a pair of troubled daughters. One is mentally troubled,while the other,is a 12 year old smoker,who looks very much like a young boy,while having an ex husband,who is rarely around. It's also revealed,she's had a romance with Paul, the coma victim. Patricia is an excellent actress,and here is no different. I would rank her 3rd,as the most sympathetic. She tried hard as the mother,and I often felt for her,but the film didn't give me much reason, to care for her.
Joshua Jackson-Paul is the victim of an unfortunate car accident,who ends up in a bad coma. His performance is nothing to brag about, to be honest. He spends a good portion of the film,in a coma,he's only shown,in flashback scenes.
Timothy Olyphant-Randy. Is the friend of Paul,who lost somebody,in the tragic accident,who can't seem to get over it. Timothy is a very underrated actor, at times. Here he puts on a very good show. His scenes with Kristen ,are very well done.
Jessica Campbell-Julie. Is the sexually frustrated daughter,who has relationship troubles, with her mom. She gave a pretty good performance,but I found her character to be very unsympathetic,until the end.
Mary Kay Place-Helen. Is a health obsessed woman,with deep problems. Her performance,could've been over the top, thankfully she did pretty well, for the most part.
Kristen Stewart-Sam. Is 12 year old smoker,who looks like a boy. At 12 years old, Kristen shows a remarkable amount of poise, and talent. We feel for her in the situation.
Alex House-Jake. Is obsessed with a doll. He managed to do quite well for his age, I was pleasantly surprised.
Bottom Line. Safety Of Objects, is a curious misfire. It's certainly interesting at points, but it's much too depressing, and soap Operaish too work fully. It has too many unsympathetic characters,to be fully effective. Worth a look, but don't get yourself hyped up over it.
6/10 -
Rose Troche certainly can't be accused to sticking to the same sort of film. This one is a complete contrast to `Bedrooms and Hallways', which was a pleasant gay romantic comedy and `Go Fish', which had a gay theme but was truly weird. The multiple storylines and cross-cutting are rather Altman-esq but the stories are tied together as in `What's Cooking'. In fact, it's a drama on the same template. We have four households (and one other guy) all tied together by the hands of fate.
Although there are some good lines, it's rather a dour film with a jaundiced view of American suburban society (though filmed mostly in Toronto). People are obsessed with their work or their children and seem to receive little happiness from either. In the case of Glenn Close's character Esther Gold she has an uphill battle since her once lively teenage musician son is now in a coma. She cares for him meticulously, constantly talking to him, convinced he will return to consciousness. The children are also dissatisfied with life, or have escaped into their own fantasies (one pre-pubescent lad is conducting an affair with a barbie doll), despite the affluence and parental attention. There is a resonance here with `American Beauty', but not the same lyrical camerawork.
Glenn Close, as the coma boy's mother who enters an endurance contest to appease her aggrieved daughter, is as good as she has ever been, with a kind of understated desperation that expresses perfectly her character's feelings. Patricia Clarkson is also a stand-out as Annette, a recently divorced woman, traded in by her air-head husband for a newer model, who battles on to look after her children, while trying to find some comfort for herself in the bar scene. Jessica Campbell as the daughter gives us a good picture of an angry teenage brat. The men, on the other hand, don't stand out, except perhaps Randy the pool guy (Timothy Olyphant), whose good looks take on a sinister aspect when he becomes involved with Sam, Annette's tomboyish daughter. Dermot Mulroney as Jim Train, a workobsessed lawyer is curiously flat, though Moira Kelly curls her lips nicely as his aggrieved wife.
This could have been a gothic tale, but Troche keeps the story to a fairly mundane level, as befits the suburban landscape. I think American suburbia will hate it far too drab, commonplace and close to the bone. `American Beauty' got away with it because it was so pretty, and Lester and his family really were a bit odd. There's nothing odd about these people they are just as colourless and inadequate as the rest of us. I notice Roger Ebert thought them unlikeable. No, they're just ordinary. -
coritoj29 September 2003I think the movie as a whole is pretty much a feminine point of view of what family life can be. The movie shows us the lives of average people who get involved in hard situations at an specific moment of their lives. I suppose if the same movie had been made by a man it would be absolutely different.
PS: It was quite interesting the idea of the kids living in their own world and also involved in the whole argument, it really loose me at times. -
Attracted by the strange title I decided to watch the movie for an explanation. Having watched the film I was none the wiser and somewhat confused with the interweaving of four short stories There were lots of characters in these four families (too many for me) and what might have been an interesting expose of their lives turned out to be very ordinary.
I have to say the actors did well in their individual roles but as characters they failed to get me involved in their every day lives. I thought Glenn Close did quite a remarkable interpretation of a mother grieving over her first born son. The plastic bag scene was the high light of the film. It was done with such emotional intensity. Very little of the remainder of the film reached this high standard.
It is not a cheerful film. Very few of the characters seemed to be really happy. All had their problems. Perhaps it was all too much like real life. And if you cannot find solace in other human beings you must look beyond for other objects.
Isn't it true that during our lives we surround ourselves with familiar objects that give us a sense of security? You know the feeling that one gets after arriving home after a very long journey. A certain warm glow pervades your being because this is home, this is security, so much is familiar and you find at last the desired safety of objects. -
Worth being seen. Well paced. A soap opera style mingling of plots. Reassuring - if you live with children - to see that it's not just yours that would drive a normal person nuts. You come away with the impression that even the unemployed are rich in America. Nobody seems to have a job in suburbia! The only job seen is awful. You get the feeling that this is a movie made by women: women don't work, jobs leave you no free time, husbands don't have sex and ignore their children. Then there is the soap opera plot format - which however is much faster paced, at times swirling through the stories one shot each, faster and faster. I don't think there is much of a conclusion to the movie. Nothing goes too wrong. Life looks great in American suburbia.
-
taniav6 November 2004The first time I saw this movie, I didn't like it. I decided to give it a second watch because it was such a good cast, and it left a creepy, haunting feeling with me, I thought: what was that? The movie is difficult to watch, its not entertaining and I can't say that it's very good. The philosophical underpinning is revealed titularly, and there is nothing very interesting about it, its like, yeah we know... I gave the movie 7 out of 10 only because Glenn Close is ridiculously good. Its really one of the most interesting female performances of late. The barbie doll thing was a bit disturbing, but the director deserves a break for taking chances that are not commercial. Worth looking at. Good Cast. Is the movie supposed to be weird, or did someone make a mistake? Glenn's great.
-
jotix10018 March 2003This film directed by Rose Troche must have been forgotten by the studio who decided to bring it to the screen and suddenly released it without much fanfare. Granted, it is a small film. It is the kind of movie we don't get to see much because with a lot of independent films, if there are no big names, they don't get a chance to find an audience.
Glen Close, as Esther Gold, the suffering mother of a bed ridden young man in a coma gives an honest performance. She is one actress that is always interesting to watch. She makes us believe she is this woman living a nightmare because of the son's accident. Esther's marriage seems to be a loveless one. Her husband is in a different wave length. At the same time, her relationship with her daughter is strained because of the guilt of the young woman carries inside her and doesn't come out until the end.
Patricia Clarkson keeps getting better all the time. She is the town's joke because she is the victim of a husband that has fled the home because he has found a younger, more attractive woman . Ms Clarkson is another natural actress no matter where and what vehicle she appears in. I'll just mention two other roles besides this just to show her versatility: True Art and Far from Heaven. Her range is enormous. What a talented lady!
Dermot Mulroney is excellent as the young neighbor married to Moira Kelly. Mr. Mulroney is also very effective in the film. Mary Kay Place's Helen is on target. We don't get to see her a lot and she deserves to be seen. The younger actors playing the various children are very good. Praise should be given to Kristen Stewart, who is incredible as the young Sam. She is a true winner.
Director Troche has achieved something unique in bringing all this talent together. She has given us a slice of life with a detailed account on the lives of these characters that seem as though we have known them for many years. -
aatx115430 September 2005This 2001 indie film starts with the premise of characters and stories that are supposed to intertwine with each other. This is something similar to Magnolia and more recently Crash. However this does not play out quite as well. The acting is first and foremost the best thing about this film. Three excellent actresses in Mary Kay Place, Glenn Close,and especially Patricia Clarkson make the film better than it ought to be. Dermont Mulroney also does a good job.If only the writing and pace of the film was better. This film meanders and uses flashbacks throughout without finding its footing. It never quite captures the audience or even gives a firm resolution the questions the film raises. Its somewhat interesting and therefore I would recommend it to rent simply for the acting turned in by the cast.
Grade:C+ -
acearms-127 May 2006I'm some what disappointed considering the actors involved with this one. There was no real plot and the connections left one to wonder if there were any connections. So we see a murderer go unpunished, a disappointed employee who can't handle disappointment and a bunch of over indulgent kids who would be better off if they had to work for what they got. The movie was a disappointment and not that easy to follow. Where does the title "Safety of Objects" come into play? Never was there any allusion to objects as being a safety net. Adolescent sex inquisitiveness is a normal human trait. Why make a big deal of it? All in all, a poor excuse for a form of internment and a waste of film and my time.
-
The Safety of Objects was Altman-like in its intertwining of stories but without the messy overlay of voices and sound. The connections among the families in a suburban neighborhood created an interesting tension, as crucial information and backstory emerged. Watch how short stories from a collection are woven to make a quilt about life in the burbs (and the secret life of kids, as well as couples)
What I especially found provocative in this film was how some dangerous situations turned out as one would expect, but others teetered on the edge of 'Oh, no,' yet were resolved without harm. -
pioneerkaren-677-93175630 July 2013I really enjoyed this film. Some may not like the fact that there is very little "action" in the storyline, but the depth of most of the characters, as well as the way in which they interact, creates something beautiful. At the film's core is how each of the main characters deal with a self-defining "object" (or the loss of that "object").
Esther Gold (Glenn Close) has a life defined by her son Paul (Joshua Jackson) who was in a terrible wreck leaving him in a coma needing around the clock care. She feels safe in the role of martyr in which she has insulated herself to keep from dealing with the tragedy. Her daughter (Jessica Campbell) is dealing with the tragedy (and her secret about it) with her own object safety, starting with her role as the neglected one. Her other attachment, to brother's guitar, is driven both by her need to connect and her need to hide from guilt.
Annette Jennings (Patricia Clarkson) has a life defined by her children, neither of whom she can really control. One is a special needs child and the other, Samantha (Kristen Stewart) finds safety in rebellion, placing blame and being shocking and a smartass. Jennings is also dealing with the loss of her marriage and her relationship with Paul Gold (Esther's comatose son). She won't let herself be happy because she would have to lose the misery in which she has come to feel safe. In the end, she is forced to realize that she must let go of the misery to save herself and her children.
Jim Train (Dermot Mulroney) is defined by the success he has at work, and indeed the job itself. He has safety in his position as a successful breadwinner with the "perfect" family. When the loss of a promotion at work sends him reeling, it drives him to walk away from his job and his family's only income. He is the first to give up the safety of object, but it slowly drives him over the edge. Meanwhile, each of his family members are going through their own version of the safety of an object (s). Jim has to have a complete meltdown before seeing that being truly present for his family is his true safety.
Helen Christianson (Mary Kay Place) is defined by the loss of passion (excitement) in her life yet in some ways clings to the safety of the boring life that feels safe. She tries to bridge the gap by reaching out to her husband in any way she can, but he seems disinterested at best. When she finally makes the move to step from behind the safety of her circumstance, her husband suddenly becomes the man she desires and she realizes that her marriage is where she truly wants to be... not just the role that feels safe.
Finally, Randy (Timothy Olyphant) longs to again feel the safety of his role as big brother... the thing he lost when his brother died in the crash that disabled Paul Gold. During the film, he begins to see Samantha (called Sam) as the substitute he needs because she reminds him of his brother. Acting on this compulsion to regain his safety object, he kidnaps Sam. The lines of reality and desired reality blur sometimes as he strives to recreate his lost life. In the end though, he finally sees that the past cannot be recaptured, and he returns Sam home.
The Safety of Objects looks at a slice of life, as many of the characters are relatable. It reminds us all that there are things, people and/or circumstances where we find our safety... our coping mechanism... our comfort. Again, this is not a movie for those who require a plot-driven film. It is for those of us who find fascinating the look inside the people and lives that are so familiar. -
villianlasegunda17 July 2006This film, which is supposed to be adapted from a collection of short stories written by A. M. Homes, is extremely painful to watch. The film follows four different neighborhood families with intertwining lives, while the book is simply stories about unrelated individuals and is, in fact, much more powerful. In the film each individual from the short stories becomes a member of a troubled family, making it so that the some of stories are barely touched on, while others are elaborated. Though the elaborate ones may be fairly easy to understand, the tales that are brushed over seem to have little relevance to the film and make the viewer feel confused and empty. The book may stand alone, but if you have not read it, you will not understand the film which is so muddled and filled with material that at two hours long is easily two hours too much. I continued watching until the end, hoping that there would some conclusion to make the intertwining families' lives have a significant meaning, and felt so exasperated that I finally stopped the film with five minutes left, feeling unable to watch a second longer.
-
Dolly7612 January 2005There has been much talk of how the film represents (or apparently misrepresents) the American psyche but you don't have to be an American to empathise, or indeed sympathise, with these characters. Like it or not, all families are dysfunctional; we are all damaged in some way and that is the beauty of this film. I may not be a manic depressive, masturbate comatosed boys or have had a questionable relationship with my Barbies but life can be 'distasteful', 'brooding', 'pervy', 'joyless' and 'selfish' just as much as it can be wonderful, uplifting and compassionate. No, not every American suburban family are as impaired as these, nor as a Brit do I see a mirror of myself watching Eastenders or Coronation Street. It's just one point of view and I think Rose Troche has handled such social nuances sensitively and with care. I'm not saying the film is perfect. However, complaining because it makes disturbing or uncomfortable viewing smacks of it hitting a nerve.... If you're seeking a no-brainer, go and see the latest Seann William Scott flick. But if you want an alternative slice of American pie - and a more realistic and universal one at that - feast on this.
-
ctrock19 April 2008I just watched this film for the first time today, and i can't believe, that I missed this the first time around. It was truly a well acted, and controversial motion picture, much in the tradition of CRASH. The four families whose lives are impacted by a series of events, tell the story. Glenn Close, and Dermott Mulrooney are basically the top names in this movie, but the rest of the cast carries it superbly. How this film did not receive rave notices for both it's direction and screenplay is something that i can not explain. This is a motion picture that will draw you in from the first scene. It is certainly one worth watching over and over again, and I will be looking to purchase my own copy.
-
This movie contained some excellent characterizations, esp. by Glenn Close, Dermot Mulroney, Patricia Clarkson, Mary Kay Place and others. But with those actors, and all of their "children" in the story, it made my brain hurt to try and keep track of everybody and what connection one person had to the other. I had really wished that the movie had fewer characters, thus allowing the best stories to be expanded upon rather than trying to do it all. I prefer movies that truly absorb me, where I root for a character or at very least, want to see what happens to them. There was just so much going on here that I cared for a second here and a second there. The appreciation of films is very subjective. I have really liked many films that have had many characters because they were so well done that everything came together. When this film ended, I still wasn't clear on much. Maybe that's just my tired brain. The film had some thought-provoking stories and wasn't close to what I'd classify as a bad film. It just wasn't something I could appreciate as much as I'm sure others have.
-
purpleaddict30 September 2003I saw The Safety Of Objects at a cinema club in San Francisco in 2002. It was then released for one week at theaters, but I was not able to see it again. I am anxiously awaiting its DVD release in October.
I absolutely loved this film. I liked the tone, the pacing, and of course, the actors. The film had just the right mix of comedy and drama, and I enjoyed every minute of it. -
rainblue30 August 2004Minimally savvy students of film know to not be dogmatic about the rules with which you evaluate a new film, since a new film may break the old rules and break them well, causing you to expand your notion of what's possible in a good film. To say that I tried to stretch my appreciation for what's possible when evaluating The Safety of Objects is to entirely miss the point. In other words, this movie was not attempting to break new ground. No re-thinking of ones aesthetic assumptions is necessary. In fact, they're reaffirmed--great films inspire a sense of the possible; bad films inspire the sense of what should not be possible.
It's a movie of cloying Hallmark Card life lessons, built upon a script so weak I'm honestly astonished it got within a studio light beam's distance of production. Loose story ends abound. The film is desperately cluttered with too many characters and mini-plots in a failed attempt to remain true to the book. The characters' stories fail to elicit either viewer sympathy or comprehension, and shortly into it I found my patience severely tried. Some strong acting performances are not able to salvage this embarrassing work.
The writer/director did a likable job with "Go Fish." Let's hope this is a bump in the road. -
rlis270612 March 2003The Safety of Objects tells the story of four suburban families of neighbors and how they are impacted by a tragic car accident. Glenn Close is perfectly cast as a grieving mother. The cast of this film is so wonderful that The Safety of Objects has a type of Robert Altman feel to it. If you get the chance to see it I would very much recommend overlooking the silly title and watching this engaging film.
-
Jexxon6 August 2004The film feels like a mix of Happiness, American Beauty, The Ice Storm, and Short Cuts, but it isn't as good as any of them. There is of course a sense of black comedy (at least in the first half) which works quite nicely, but the drama bits never pay off. There is at least one family too many to spend time with (the Christiansons don't really have anything to do with the other stories), and the script is at times too vague for its own good. Moreover, the ending doesn't really ties things together as it should.
Of the actors, I liked Mulroney's inept family man the best, but Glenn Close, and Patricia Clarkson were also good. All in all, the film spread itself too thin and there was a sense of aloofness, and lack of focus that dragged it down. I think it would have worked better if they had emphazised the comedy bits more and trimmed it down a bit as well. -
dave_maxey29 April 2005I watched this movie in pain. I kept waiting for something good to come out of it. When things wouldn't normally fit together, the writers arranged whatever was necessary to make it "work", anyway. That takes me out of the usual mode of getting into a story (suspension of disbelief), and makes me say, "Oh, I'm just watching a story. This isn't real." That kind of writing ruins a movie for me. If it wasn't for the acting, this wouldn't be worth filming. Glenn Close gets the best line. Even though I don't agree with the point she makes, she delivers the line with her usual excellence.
I like seeing movies that have a good solid story line. This movie doesn't have one. The stories are disjointed, set-up and pretentious. The acting is excellent. It's just too bad that such great performances were wasted on a movie like this. If you have a choice, pick something else to watch. You'll feel better for it. -
It's just what material objects do. They give us the security and tranquility to go on in life, when all other things appear to be crumbling. Rose Troche's "The Safety Of Objects" is one of the most interesting and poetic depictions of everyday life in a suburban "paradise" in the USA. Being from Mexico, is just another thing that allowed me appreciate it even more: I saw it like a foreigner, like a witness, without wanting to be part of the world Troche describes. But its message is so powerful, that I ended as part of this society that I already knew, but was afraid to accept. Based on the novel by A.M. Homes, "The Safety Of Objects" tells different stories, that reminded me of movies such as "Happiness" or "Grand Canyon", but in a really different tone.
We are presented early on to Esther Gold (a formidable, as usual, Glenn Close), a woman that has to deal with his sick son in a coma, and with her daughter who is unable to express what he feels about the situation of his beloved brother. We also are introduced to the Trains, a really nice couple that has come to a dead point in which the father, Jim (Dermot Mulroney in a really great performance) is dealing with a job crisis, and with the notion that maybe he doesn't have any goal in his life. His wife, Susan (Moira Kelly) tries to understand him but is unable to do so and starts to blame his husband for his usefulness around the house. Their kids seem like normal kids, but Jake, their son, has a strange obsession with a doll from his sister´s room. Also, we met the Jennings and the Christianson, two more families living near by, and with their own secrets. And there's this strange guy, portrayed by Timothy Olyphant, that seems out of place, until we realize what is his part in this story.
It may be difficult to explain the different stories that Rose Troche carry on without seeing the film, but one detail is certain: it almost seems that in the center of all things is Paul Gold (Joshua Jackson), the comatose son of Glenn Close's character. And as we are seeing this people living their lives, we are also committed to think about our lives. These characters have lots of problems to handle, their own insecurity and all their fears, their unfulfilled lives, their need of attention and support, but in their hearts, they only need safety: the safety to know that tomorrow everything is going to be fine, but only if they allow themselves to breath, and go on.
This film is just a beautiful essay of how everyone in this world tries to feel safe. Jessica Campbell, Joshua Jackson's character's sister, feels safe with the guitar of his brother in his arms. Dermot Mulroney's character starts to feel safe when he goes from goal to goal, trying to find something to feel fine with himself and his own life. It is only when they start to realize what they are doing, and start to accept the things that surround them, that they become aware of the vacuity of the safety that objects bring. And their problems then become real, and manageable.
"The Safety Of Objects" is an excellent motion picture, really. The work of Rose Troche as writer and director are really supreme, and the cast is really great too. Glenn Close shines as the always depressed and distant Esther, and Dermot Mulroney gives maybe the best performance of his life. Joshua Jackson's performance is credible, and Jessica Campbell is just great, along with Alex House, the kid with this "Barbie obsession". Maybe in other countries outside USA, "The Safety Of Objects" could be just another film about life in the 2000. But for Americans, and for seekers of good films around the world, this is a beautiful essay of the triviality of material objects, and the real assumption of our place in the world, our goals in life, and above all, the knowledge that the way to solve our problems is facing our fears and our responsibilities. Life is made of these powerful ideas, it would be a crime to let life pass us by without knowing that we are breathing... and that we have to walk ahead, farther along the way. -
honeybear13318 January 2004The plot of this movie had absolutely no redeeming value--filled with irresponsible, pervy, over-sexed kids, selfish, insensitive to anyone but themselves. (Yeah, I know that's what some kids are like, but this movie validates their self-absorption.) When the daughter says Glenn "owes" her, I would've smacked that daughter if I were Glenn Close! Too many martyred parents hoping their kids will like them. Let's bring back real parents who know who the adult is. These were lost people all searching for values. Ugh! Many, many distasteful scenes: looking at a comatose man's privates? Masturbating naked in the backyard? The whole subplot about the boy with a doll? Who ARE these people? This is the kind of movie that rightfully elicits the criticism that Hollywood is out of touch with America's values. What a waste of good actors. Would Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracey, Humphrey Bogart even watch this movie let alone agree to act in it? Hardly. Trash parading as deep and profound.
-
pntacle27 January 2013I don't know what it was about this movie, but it was very powerful and moving for me. The cinematography execution was just excellent. I wasn't tainted by having read the book, and it's really unusual that a movie makes me want to go read the book it was based on. This movie really just makes you want to surrender to the good in humanity. I highly recommend it. The character relationships in it are more dynamic than you would see in a cable series, and although it's very dramatic; doesn't really feel over-done or sappy to me. like Garden State and many other independent films , this is on the top of the list for movies about dysfunctional lives and the strength we find in difficult moments.