Beth Cappadora (Michelle Pfeiffer) is at her high school reunion when her 3-year-old son disappears from his brother's care. The little boy never turns up, and the family has to deal with the devastating guilt and grief that goes along with it. Nine years later, the family has relocated to Chicago. By a sheer fluke, the kid turns up, living no more than two blocks away. The authorities swoop down and return the kid to his biological parents, but things are far from being that simple. The boy grew up around what he has called his father, while his new family are strangers to him; the older son, now a teenager, has brushes with the law and behavioral problems. His adjustment to his lost brother is complicated by normal teenage churlishness, and the dad (Treat Williams) seems to expect everything to fall into place as though the family had been intact all along. It's a tightrope routine for actors in a story like this, being careful not to chew the scenery while at the same time not being too flaccid or understated. For the most part, the members of the cast deal well with the emotional complexity of their roles. Though the story stretches credulity, weirder things do happen in the real world. The family's pain for the first half of the film is certainly credible, though the second half almost seems like a different movie. Whoopi Goldberg plays the detective assigned to the case; casting her is a bit of a stretch, but she makes it work. All in all, a decent three-honky movie in the vein of Ordinary People.
Add a Review
-
Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson20 June 2008
-
Here we have a story that starts slowly but develops into a tense emotional drama. Michelle Pfeiffer is not only nice to look at but she plays the role of a frantic mother in search of her abducted 3-year old with great passion and at times hysteria. Whoopi Goldberg who plays the part of top policewoman in charge of investigation gives a moving sympathetic performance. What I greatly admire in this actor is the clear enunciation of her speech. I missed not a word delivered with clarity and depth of meaning. The film explores the feelings of children and parents caught up in the problems associated with child adoptions. Where does this baby belong: with his biological mother or his adopted father? It's an interesting film because the problem is real and with us to-day. The ending may surprise you.
-
Catharina_Sweden7 January 2013This movie is so famous, and has so many great actors in it, that I had expected more from it. As it was, it had some heart-warming moments, handsome people and beautiful exteriors and interiors - but all in all it was not very exciting. The story was the kind of sentimental family drama one would expect on Hallmark television in the afternoon - not a big cinema movie with famous stars.
By the way, I think it is not possible to place a lost-and-found kid drama in present times, because DNA technique, finger prints etc. can prove the identity with almost hundred per cent's certainty. The interesting thing in the lost-and-found stories, is to guess if the person found is who he/she claims to be, or an impostor. As in "Anastasia".
And YES I understand that this kind of mystery was not the major issue here, but the reactions of all the family members afterwards. But it is that kind of story that one expects, when one reads about this movie or watches the trailer. So - it was a bit of a disappointment. -
Tisha-McGhee27 February 2002I think that I would have liked this movie a LOT more if I'd never read the book! If anyone of you have the chance, READ the book! Oh, it's AWESOME!!! In my opinion, the movie left out some stuff that would have made it a LOT more interesting!!! Some people seem to think that parts of the movie are unrealistic, but when you read the book and get all the detail and everything, it starts to become a lot more believable than it is in the movie. Plus, the older brother has a MUCH larger role in the book, which makes more sense than how they protrayed him in the movie. Anyway, I guess you can tell, what I'm trying to say is, READ THE BOOK!!!! :-)
-
Catocala17 October 2022Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a great performance as a mother who loses her 3-year old son when she leaves him alone for a minute with his older brother. The movie is not only about how a missing child can affect one's life, but it gets stranger after the family moves to a different city and one day a child who looks exactly like the msising boy is spotted.
I personally had a little difficulty about the happenstance this would have to take in order to happen, but it did lead to interesting questions on how a (possible) reunion after such a long time would play out. Pfeiffer acts with a lot of feeling without it becoming over the top, so she steals the show in my opinion. The other actors do a fine job, but not as excellent as her. There are a lot of themes from different perspectives, so it is shown e.g. How the child feels, how the "other" kids are affected as well, even how it is for a police officer working the case.
However, I do feel the movie was lacking, though I have a hard time putting my finger on why that is: seeing what I've written above makes me feel like this movie is good, at least on paper. But the experience itself wasn't so great. I just felt bored a lot of the time and the movie seemed longer than it's runtime of about 1 hour and 45 minutes. I wasn't really in it, even though usually this type of movie is very heartfelt and captivating. Nothing - apart from Pfeiffer's performance - stood out. Perhaps it can also be attributed to the long time spent on filming what happens in the 9 year period the boy is missing. In any case, it felt like it wasn't going anywhere and my attention was often lost.
If you don't have anything better to watch, I recommend you view this movie yourself and judge if it's good or not. For me, it left me unsatisfied, but because of Pfeiffer and because of how much work obviously went into making this movie, I felt a 5 was too low a score. -
persian-jahangir14 August 2022Actually the last ten minutes was the only one that deserve to be watch, bit I couldn't or in other word it's just was touching moments, nice easy going movie you can watch it without being stress because honestly it didn't touch me that much. I don't know. Maybe I can but I don't have this type of feeling for this type of movies. Anyway, enjoy it but guys.
-
nirvana7-217 October 2000Standard story, missing child... family anguish.. etc.. Definitely a "no brainer" if there's nothing else on the tv. Michelle Pfeiffer deserves a better role than this, maybe she needed the money?
-
SnoopyStyle28 February 2016Beth Cappadora (Michelle Pfeiffer) is in Chicago for her reunion. She loses her son Ben in the crowded hotel lobby. Police detective Candy Bliss (Whoopi Goldberg) investigates but he's nowhere to be found. Many years later, young Sam Karras comes to Beth's door to offer to mow the lawn. She recognizes Sam as her long lost son Ben. It's discovered that Ben was kidnapped by a disturbed woman who has since committed suicide. His new father didn't know about the kidnapping. Ben is reunited with the Cappadoras but life with the family is problematic. Ben wants to go home. His brother Vincent is rebelling. Beth and her husband Pat (Treat Williams) are cracking under the pressure.
Michelle Pfeiffer and Treat Williams are both great. Cory Buck as young Vincent does an admirable job. Jonathan Jackson and Ryan Merriman are in a tough situation as the older versions of the sons. So much is expected but they aren't given the tools. This movie tries very hard to get emotional truths but it only gets glimpses. There is so much ground to cover. It would have been better to concentrate mostly after the reunion. Losing Ben is too alluring and takes up half of the movie. The first half is effective and traditional. The second half feels thin and more original. The movie feels split between the two. -
movieguy102113 December 2002"Kids don't just vanish up in smoke, kids don't just get lost, PEOPLE LOSE THEM!" Pat Cappadora (Treat Williams) yells in an argument to his wife Beth (Michelle Pfeiffer) about their three-year-old Ben being kidnapped while at Beth's 15-year reunion. It seems that seven-year-old Vincent (Cory Buck) didn't keep close enough of an eye. Beth's hysterical, and nobody knows what to do.
Flash ahead nine years. The baby Kerry is now nine years old. Vincent (now played by Jonathon Jackson) is a rebellious teen with a knack for hot-wiring cars. Pat has his own resturant in Chicago (named Cappadora's). Beth has given up photographing. When a boy, Sam Karras (Ryan Merriman), offers to mow their lawn, Beth takes photos. And, lo and behold, it happens to be little Ben.
Touching, superbly acted, well written, and emotionally moving. Pfeiffer and Williams give great performances. When Pfeiffer was hysterical, that seemed a little forced; other than that she was great. Williams delievered a strong dramatic performance, he was perfect in almost every way. The supporting characters delievered strong emotions and were very believeable.
Deep End's sap isn't falsely given to you: it's done in a very believable way, even if it does seem a little over-the-top and unlikely at first. Not many movies can truly force-feed you emotion and lump-in-the-throats, but this one does.
The plot twists actually were somewhat unpredictable. Actually, the movie was divided in half: the first half is when Ben is missing, the second is when Sam comes. When the finale comes in, I was surprised, even though they go for the "Hollywood Ending".
It definately didn't seem scripted. The human interactions were very real, and the chemistry between everyone (especially Jackson and Merriman) were extremely believeable.
The Deep End of the Ocean is a touching, sad, yet somehow satisfying yarn of family.
My rating: 8/10
Rated PG-13 for language and thematic elements. -
davispittman11 December 2016The deep end of the ocean (1999) is a very touching portrayal of a family of 5 who lose their 3 year old son Ben at a reunion. Fast forward nine years later, when they are miraculously reunited with him. Michelle Pfeiffer gives a wonderful performance here as the lead. I also really enjoyed Whoopi Goldberg as detective candy bliss. The acting is strong all around, even by the child actors. The writing is pretty good, the deep conversations between Beth and pat are well written and near perfectly acted. The movie is slightly slow in the middle, but not to the point to wanting to give up on it. The movie really is all about relationships, dealing with tragic loss as a parent, and then learning how to rebuild once what is lost is found. And in my opinion, this film does a pretty good job of showing all of those things in raw detail. Bottom line: If you are looking for a film that shows these things I have mentioned above, and is strongly acted and very dramatic, then I would suggest this to you. But if you are looking for simple escapist entertainment, then steer clear of this movie. 7/10.
-
I really don't have much to say on this film except that I didn't feel the least bit of sorrow for Pfeiffer or Williams when they lost their son. I really didn't feel anything for any character on any level in this movie.
Let's see Pfeiffer's character spends 9 long years in wallow and self pity for losing her son. She then miraculously finds her son living only 2 blocks away from her, Pfeiffer's character should have played the lotto in the movie with this kind of blind luck. She then instantaneously recognizes him when he comes to ask to mow her lawn (yeah sure). A plethora of police cars then go to retrieve her son. You could swear by all of the police vehicles they are going to go capture a serial killer, but they are just going to get her son back. The police knock on the door only to find the adoptive father has no clue that the boy is not his son and he just allows his adopted son to leave with the police without so much as a threat of legal action!!!! The son then discovers that he has no emotional feelings for his real family two weeks later and Pfeiffer then just allows him to move back in with his adopted father?! What? She abused drugs, neglected her children and she finally finds her son and now she just accepts that he wants to live with his adoptive father? The cedar chest scene was also some of the lamest script writing I've ever witnessed. "Wait, I remember that smell". Yeah kid, it's a cedar chest and the cedar is used to keep moths away. What, did Pfeiffer lock you in the cedar chest when you were 2 years old or something? Let's see the kid didn't remember the stuffed rabbit, but he remembers playing hide and seek in the cedar chest?!
I love Whoopie Goldberg in other movies, but like all of the other characters I did not understand her role either. For example, at the beginning of the movie when Pfeiffer goes to touch her in a gesture of kindness and Whoopie shoots back in her chair. Whoopie then states out of the blue that she is gay and this is the reason for her pulling away from Pfeiffer. Huh???? What relevance does her being gay have anything to do with anything in this movie???? Let's see Whoopie is the head detective and all she spends her time on is finding an abducted child? What, there's no drug dealers or murderers in Chicago?
Save your money at the rental store on this one folks. I've seen some bad made for TV movies that are better than this trash. -
Starduster10 July 2010I actually found this movie by accident. I purchased a bag full of VHS tapes at a church rummage sale and this was one of the selections.
I understand that this movie is based on a book. I have not read the book and will not speak of the movies ability to convey the original material from the book. To me, a movie should stand on its own merits.
This is NOT the usual "kid goes missing" drama which is quite common. Its not based on any particular "true" story that I know of. It presents a somewhat unique situation of "what if a missing child is found, living a very well adjusted lifestyle where nobody is aware of the missing boys past;" except for the biological parents of course.
What I found amazing was the total strength of character that was given to the boy who had been kidnapped when he was only 3. It is hard to find a more loving and caring child than the one we have in 12 year old "SAM" who's birth name was Ben. You would have to believe that such a child could only be a product of a very loving and caring family. However, One of these "family" members had a deep dark secret that she struggled with until her untimely death. Nevertheless Sam, was left with a wisdom love and understanding that most adults don't have. He never knew of the deep dark secret of his abduction or had long forgotten it at least.
In contrast, his biological family struggled with their own "secrets" and feelings of guilt and blame. Each had their moments of seeming to get their lives together, but never really coming to terms with the "loss" of a young child. Each seemed dysfunctional in a different way, and the dysfunctional aspects clashed with each other much of the time. Suddenly the nearly "unimaginable" event happens. Their son is found and right in their own neighborhood.
The question here is how do you integrate an amazingly well adjusted child, into a family who is still torn up with feelings of blame and guilt and loss etc. What happens to this miraculous child AND what happens to the person who he loves and regards as his father.
Ryan Merriman plays Sam, the lost boy who is truly not "lost" as far as having his life together. He is nearly a picture perfect child. a parents "dream come true". I marveled at the strength of character he has and the maturity well beyond his years. "Sam" is like the glue that binds everyone else together. Merriman's performance is amazing.
I became very emotionally involved in the characters and the plot. I especially felt involved with Sam and his "father", George, who raised him. The movie was well acted and in my opinion it was well presented as to the storyline. I guess it may be a bit different from the book, but without reading the book, I had no preconceived ideas or expectations. In that respect, the storyline seemed fine as it was presented. I would like to have seen "George" incorporated a bit more into the ending. All in all, it was a very great movie and I plan to buy a DVD copy for my movie library. -
rge851227 June 2018Clearly so much has changed even in the 20 years since this movie was made. It was as if it was an either/or choice as to whether the child is forced into a family situation that the parents, as well as the social services, could only bring trauma all over again to the child after he is found. And that it did.
Why would he need to choose between the man, 2 blocks away, who considers him dad and the biological parents, no matter how the situation occurred? The simple answer is he should not have had to make such a choice. Even the ending does not resolve that issue. Could he not have spent half his time with his bio family and half with his adoptive dad, at least until he was ready to decide who he was most ready to live with? Or perhaps just keep it open and let him consider both families his?
The parents act as though the adoptive father was an enemy and do not even invite him into the house. Downright cruel and creepy. I am glad that social services now realize more often that both adoptive and biological relationships are forever important to the child in question. Period. Apparently they didn't know it back then, and yet I think even at that time open adoptions and other such arrangements were possible.
All in all I thought it was a poor movie, yet well acted. Some of the reviews see it exactly the opposite--great movie but not well acted, but I think as stated that the rigid either/or choice given to Ben/Sam was utterly traumatic and not something that helps anyone concerned. To me that was the real false dilemma created by the unwillingness or inability to think outside the box here. -
There's no doubt that this movie brings forth feelings of sympathy from anyone who watches it. You feel sorry for everyone: for Pat and Beth, whose 3 year old son is kidnapped; for Vincent, who loses his brother; for Carrie, who never knew her brother; for Sam/Ben, who was kidnapped and lost all memory of his birth family and ends up being torn away from everything he knows; for George, who unknowingly adopts Sam/Ben as his son and then loses him. Everyone in this is a sympathetic character. So, the movie pulls the heartstrings well, but in the end offered very little depth to either the subject matter or the characters. It came across to me as superficial - it introduces the issue but only scratches the surface. Maybe that's inevitable in a movie dealing with such a difficult subject, or maybe it was just the result of a poorly constructed movie that tried to give us a sense of everyone's feelings, when it might have been more powerful had it focused on just one of the characters, and how they reacted to this insane situation. Then, it makes the biggest mistake it could have made - going for the happy, sappy ending, which was just too easy. Yes, there was a sense of uncertainty to the ending, as Sam/Ben admits to Vincent that he doesn't know if his decision to move back with the Cappadoras is "permanent," but it still seemed too fairy-tale to me.
The opening of the movie works. It draws you in as you share the growing sense of panic after Ben goes missing. Unfortunately, the plot ends up being driven by a device that's just too contrived - Sam/Ben and his adoptive father living just two blocks away from the house the Cappadoras move to in Chicago, and Beth recognizing him when he shows up offering to cut their grass. I also found Whoopi Goldberg's character of Det. Candy Bliss distracting and unnecessary - and why would anyone care that she was a lesbian? That revelation came out of the blue and served no purpose whatsoever. That does, however, serve as a good illustration of another overall problem with this. Some of the script seemed poorly thought out and had little purpose: either either too cliché for the situation or extraneous to the story. The basics of the story are interesting enough to keep the viewer watching, but as a two-hour drama, it's really not that well constructed. -
cinemel9 March 1999Ulu Grosbard has directed this fine adult drama adapted from the best-selling novel by Jacquelyn Mitchard. Michelle Pfeiffer and Treat Williams portray Beth and Pat Cappadora, parents of three youngsters. On a trip to her high school reunion, Beth loses her three year old son in a busy hotel lobby. The boy is absent from the family for nine years, after which he is surprisingly returned to his birth family. This is just the bare bones of the plot. However, it is the touching performances of all of the principals which transcend the television movie-of-the-week sound of the plot.
Michelle Pfeiffer adds another moving performance to her gallery of roles. If the film had been released in the fall of 1998, as was originally planned, she might have had an Academy Award nomination. Treat Williams' role is less defined, but it is alway a pleasure to watch this under-used and under-rated actor. However, it is Jonathan Jackson and Ryan Merriman as the oldest son and the lost boy who make this such an emotionally satisfying drama. Whoopi Goldberg adds some needed humor to the serious proceedings as the detective assigned to the case.
Stephen Schiff, writer for the New Yorker, has done a lean adaptation of the novel. Grosbard has unpretentiously directed this fine cast. "The Deep End of the Ocean" is one of the best contemporary dramas to come along in quite a while. -
I kept noticing a copy of this 1999 release in a drama section during my frequent visits to a local video store, and if it hadn't been for that, I would still be totally unaware of its existence, just like the book of the same name which this film is based on. This adaptation of Jacquelyn Mitchard's "The Deep End of the Ocean" only caught my attention because I could see that the lead role was played by Michelle Pfeiffer. I haven't read the book, and didn't even know the film was based on a book by the time I rented it this week. The film's premise seemed interesting to me, but I knew that this adaptation was polarizing, which gave me mixed expectations. I obviously don't know how good the book is, but the movie is what one can refer to as a mixed blessing.
Beth Cappadora and her husband, Pat are the parents of seven year old Vincent, three year old Ben, and baby Kerry. Beth leaves town to attend her high school reunion in Chicago and brings her kids along. While there, she leaves Vincent and Ben together in a crowded lobby only briefly, but when she comes back, she sees that only Vincent is still there! A search for Ben quickly ensues, but sadly, the little boy is not found, which sends Beth into depression, causing her to oversleep and neglect her two remaining offspring. Nine years later, the Cappadora family moves to Chicago. At this point, it obviously seems like they will never see Ben again, but not long after they move into their new house, Beth meets a boy who lives in the neighbourhood and introduces himself as Sam. He looks very familiar, and it turns out that this boy, now twelve years old, really is her long-lost son, but sadly, the family reunion leads to more complications.
This is clearly a film that's meant to be emotional, but I didn't feel it much until towards the end, and even then, it certainly didn't touch me the way certain other dramas have. For a while, I even wondered if I should have been watching the movie or not. I think I found myself struggling a bit to try and feel the emotion at times. A major reason why it didn't completely work for me might have been that I didn't know enough about the characters. I found that the film didn't tell enough about them before it got to the part where Ben goes missing. It also felt a little tedious at times. On the other hand, the family trouble did keep me interested, with no desire to stop the film before it was over, and the acting is decent enough I guess, though there is some weak dialogue, and the script of a movie can always affect the performances. Fortunately, at least the dialogue never got bad enough to make me laugh, and I found the film to be moderately gripping towards the end, still not enough to put a lump in my throat or tears in my eyes, but I certainly can't describe it as boring and/or laughable.
If you read my reviews on IMDb, you will probably find that a lot of them are for movies based on novels, and in most cases, I haven't read the novel which the film I am reviewing is based on. There are some exceptions, but this is not one of them. I read novels, but unlike movies, I can't get through an entire novel in one sitting, which is obviously the main reason why I've seen so many movies based on novels I haven't read. Maybe the book entitled "The Deep End of the Ocean" is better than this adaptation (it wouldn't surprise me), and maybe I will read it someday, but right now, I'm reading a different novel. Anyway, this film is severely flawed and reminded me somewhat of "Stepmom", though it definitely is at least a BIT better than that film, as this one doesn't have the despicable characters. "The Deep End of the Ocean" doesn't work with its emotional content as well as it should, but I thought it was alright for at least one viewing. -
Noble, decent film about a crises in suburbia: a boy, kidnapped nine years ago from a nice, normal family, is returned to them--a virtual stranger. This premise was done great justice in the grittier TV-film, "I Know My First Name Is Steven". This theatrical drama has fabulous, full-throttle performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Treat Williams as the parents, some interesting plot turns, but nowhere to go after the boy comes home. We've seen it all before--even Whoopi Goldberg as a detective seems shoehorned in from somewhere else (it's virtually the same character she portrayed in "The Player"). I would forgive the film for its assembly-line construction were it not for a downright drippy finale. Sure, it wouldn't have been as uplifting had the film ended a different way (turning on the kid's decision), but why do we always need to be uplifted at the movies? Is there some Hollywood legend that says all downbeat endings result in flop films? Well, this one did flop, so there's a double excuse not to end the thing with everyone leaking happy tears in the driveway. **1/2 from ****
-
movieluver10 September 2002I dislike tearjerkers for it makes you feel down,sad and whatever. the cable channel was on, had nothin else to do..and there was Michelle Pfieffer so I just jumped on it. I mean what the heck?
At first..yeah,losing child and screaming,sobbing..there were enough scenes looking very shallow & so predictable. I'll just pass here. But usually,this kinda movies end up finding the kid and that's it. Happily ever after, home sweet home. But this wasn't like that. As last it's happy ending but there were several emotional highs & lows; adjusting each other, starting all over again.
What am I saying here?-it's not a perfect movie. Not even remotely. (heck, is there one?) But for some reason, I liked this movie and every one of the casts here. All actors are pretty good to watch. There are films that aren't good enough-your head tells you so-however,your heart tells 'well,anyway I like this one'. This one is kinda like that. This cannot be explained logically or reasonably. I don't care about the director or writer for this movie. It was all about actors and they made it. And I've seen one young good-looking fella coming here called Jonathan Jackson. Hope to see more of his THIS kind of acting in the future. -
kosmasp13 August 2022No pun intended - the movie is about what to do when you lose a kid. Literally - other movies have dealt with it in more of thriller kind of a fashion, this delves more into the whole tragedy and drama part of it all. What does it do to the family, especially the mother in this case? And you will get answers - but also a few questions. What does it do to the rest of the relatives? What can one do and how to deal with other people about it? So not an easy movie to watch - also one filled with certain cliches as is to be expected.
Still performances are really good. And the twists keep the story going forward. There are certain things this could have delved more into - gotten more out of certain themes so to speak. But as it is it is a decent drama - and one that feels close to life. Of course I have not read the source material so I can't compare it to that ... but books generally have more to it than adaptations anyway. So there is that ... -
InnerWisdom100030 August 2020This is a movie taken from the beautifully written book of the same name that is directed with panache and sensitivity,scripted to perfection, and acted with an honesty and integrity that is so oft missed in many films. The honesty of Ben/Sam is both heart-wrenching and inspiring. And a lesson to parents and adults alike as to the true path of love.
-
anaconda-4065822 May 2015The Deep End of the Ocean (1999): Dir: Ulu Grosbard / Cast: Michelle Pfeiffer, Treat Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, Jonathan Jackson, Alexa Vega: Drama that inquires how far one would go to obtain information or achieve goals. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a mother who turns her back for only a second only to be confronted with the reality that one of her children is missing. Nine years later she hasn't gotten over it but still continues her job as a photographer. One day her daughter arrives home with a friend to mow the lawn. Pfeiffer is stunned at his resemblance to her missing son. After taking snapshots she involves police resulting in a disturbing film where no one can ultimately win. There is an intriguing twist in the conclusion that ties everything together. Directed by Ulu Grosbard who previously made Georgia. Fine performances by Pfeiffer who suffers for a mistake but will go at lengths to correct it. Treat Williams as her husband is cardboard and basically there to tell Pfeiffer to give up. Whoopi Goldberg has the thankless role as a gay detective with misguided humour. Jonathan Jackson plays the now older son who remembers nothing but is overwhelmed by this sudden life that he cannot reflect. Alexa Vega plays the younger sister who avoids being missing. Depressing film with a strong message about protecting children from society's deep end. Score: 7 / 10
-
basit10 October 1999The trailers for this looked really good. As it happens they turned out to be the only engaging parts of an otherwise forgettable film as a whole.
The premise behind the movie is an extremely tense and emotional one, but the script and directing let things lag to the point where you realize that this is TV fodder. I half expect to see (better) versions of the same thing on Lifetime TV on some derary Sunday afternoon. What's so confusing is how Pfeiffer and some other apparently great actors wound up in it. -
triple815 July 2005MANY SPOILERS THROUGHOUT POST:
This is one time I have to disagree with the majority. I thought Deep End of the ocean was a really good movie. I'm surprised so many don't like it. I found it to be a mature, thought provoking and disturbing drama with excellent performances all around from everybody. The cast actually, were not just good but superb. The movie was not overly long and in the time it ran, I was able to really get a good grasp on all the characters and thought the character development was actually excellent. I was really surprised by the low rating.
Many have mentioned how the movie glossed over a lot. I can understand that but the movie wasn't all that long-it didn't really have time to go into everything. And also, I rather liked that the movie stayed fast paced and engrossing without lingering to long on just one thing. A lot of what the characters were feeling were picked up in the various scenes and the story was simply to complicated to go into everything-otherwise it probably would have been about eight hours. Though I really could see this having been a mini series....
I think, in a way, Deep End was boxed a little into a corner, if it had gotten to much heavier it may have been labeled manipulative. As it is, the ending was considered to "Hollywood." I actually thought the way it ended was the best possible ending a story such as this could have had. And it was believable to, though throughout the whole thing, I was thinking "joint custody". Although that wasn't exactly the way it was done it was close enough, and I found it a great ending to a very good movie.
One other thing I liked was the fact that the story didn't go into never ending tragedy land. By that I mean, none of the main characters are critically injured, , no divorces and custody fights etc etc.... the focus was kept on the individuals and how they dealt with this situation, rather then introducing as many bad things as possible. This played very well as it was a tearjerker in one sense, but also was really thought provoking, and much empathy could be felt for almost everybody from Sam to the natural parents to the adoptive father to the natural brother and sister. All were complex and interesting characters.
I'd give this an 8 of 10, I really thought it was very well done and wish it had a somewhat higher rating on here. -
"The Deep End of the Ocean" is one of the most heart warming family dramas from 90s. I've watched in recent years with an enormous amount of clarity and an anticipation on things to resolve. It deals with a family coping with the sudden disappearance of a 3 year old son, only to find him after years and turmoil in the family to reconcile the relationship.
The drama is fabulous with the pleasure of reading a novel with a nice setting and the perpetual interest it imparts along outstanding performances in the center. However, the flaws are the inadequate fulfillment of the situation with a feel good ending or the implausibility in the drama including the investigation of the lost child and circumstances in which the child is found. Overall, it still offers a pleasurable watch keeping one engrossed.
Rating: 2 stars out of 4. -
Not very long into "The Deep End of the Ocean", I got the sinking feeling that the only thing that stopped this film from going straight to television was the fact that Michelle Pfeiffer starred in it. Think "the crisis movie of the week" with a big-name actress in it, and you've got "The Deep End of the Ocean".
This film has perhaps one of the worst screenplays I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Luckily, I was watching with someone who had read the book, so I was able to have a few gaping holes filled in. Unfortunately, those who haven't read the book will be left clueless in a few crucial moments.
I guess it was fitting to cast Treat Williams--someone who should stick to TV movies--in what is essentially a TV movie released in theatres and on video. I personally would have chosen someone more animated than Williams, who is one of the most wooden actors around.
The corny attempts at sentiment are forced and predictable, and they ultimately fall flat. The characters are inconsistent, hating one another one moment and seeming perfectly content the next. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about "The Deep End of the Ocean" is the fact that it ends. This is one movie to avoid.