This movie is a pale imitation of a Wes Anderson film. It has an interesting premise with good actors, but ultimately come out flat.
Add a Review
-
alexpoleshuk9 February 2019
-
kosmasp21 November 2018It's not like you won't be able to see where this is going. But it's not about where it ends up (though there is a funny montage for that too, if you are open minded to it that is), but how it goes there. And while you can guess the twists and turns even before they come around the corner, the actors make it worth it all - more than decent performances.
Not Academy Award material, but still a really good movie that does entertain it a light way, that should be able to touch your heart. It's a bit crazy at times and it might seem to make no sense either at certain cornerstones. Stick with it though and just enjoy the ride if you can. The actors obviously had fun ... -
yusufpiskin17 February 2019A great critique of society. today's families are actually experiencing such feelings. It is important for them to make children like themselves. Do not rely on low ratings. Keep the blu-ray, keep it. Toni Collette is awesome. the children actors are also very good. and Stephen Rennicks' music is tremendous.
-
jellyrhubarb3 October 2020I stumbled upon this quirky comedy and stayed for the duration. Toni Collette is great as always. It was particularly fun to see Matthew Goode hiding his good looks behind a beard and big glasses. Don't think I've ever seem him so animated, not stuck playing the beautiful cool guy as usual.
The lakeside setting and period details were engaging. Music was good. Really an unexpected delight to watch this during stress covid19 times. -
ferguson-630 March 2018Greetings again from the darkness. Billed as a comedy, the movie will leave most viewers wondering wherefore art the laughs. Filmmaker Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais and his co-writer Marc Tulin aim high with a grown-up level look at the trials and tribulations of parenting - complicated here by a science experiment gone awry.
Matthew Goode plays Ben, the son of a long line of renowned scientists, and Toni Collette plays Catherine, the daughter of two noted physicists. The two nerds (a term of admiration) meet in graduate school, fall in love, and hatch a plan to conduct a revolutionary sociological scientific experiment. In 1977 they convince an arrogant and glory-seeking rich guy named Gertz (Michael Smiley) to fund an experiment with a premise that boils down to their intention of settling the nature vs. nurture debate once and for all.
Ben and Catherine plan to take their biological son Luke and turn him into an artist, while at the same time raising two adopted kids contrary to their genetic heritage. Maya, born into a family of "nitwits" will be raised as a Brainiac, while Maurice, born into a violent household, will be developed as a pacifist. It's an interesting set-up that also includes Russian athlete Samsonov (Andreas Apergis) as their live-in caregiver/nanny, and Mrs. Tridek (Fionnula Flanagan) as Gertz's well-meaning assistant.
The story jumps ahead to 1989 when Gertz arrives for the 12 year check-up and evaluation. When he deems the children to be "average", Ben and Catherine are devastated. Gertz threatens them with bankruptcy if the experiment isn't successfully expedited so he can publish the desired results. Mrs. Tridek also functions as the narrator who fills in the gaps with some details that might ordinarily leave us a bit confused.
Predictability rears its ugly head in the final act, and the film slips into more traditional cinematic story-telling and characterizations. Emotions and greed are the natural responses to the deception that has occurred, and while the adults leave us disappointed, it's at this point where the story finally shifts to the kids and we get to see the winner in the nature vs. nurture battle. Where the film works best is in its look at just how powerful and overwhelming parenting can be, regardless of the brain power and intentions one brings to the situation. Toss in some greed and the power of biology, and the final analysis can't be shocking, even if the film itself doesn't quite live up to its premise. -
Others in this string have pointed out, justifiably, how much this film tries to catch the tone of a Wes Anderson film - and fails quite badly. When a film is pretty much wall-to-wall narration, you know that the writers simply could not find their way into the story. The first 10 minutes are pure, raw exposition - mostly about the past of the parents - information that is supposed to by dryly ironic and funny - it is neither. After laying so much expositional pipe, the writers then proceed to ignore the emotional heart of the story - the children. They labour under the false impression that this is a story about the parents (they can't even decide on which parent is the actual protagonist!) almost completely overlooking the far, far richer ground offered by the kids. The nature/nurture debate is barely dramatized - instead, we are presented a series of more-or-less discrete episodic events that never accrete to form as world we can accept and believe in. There is never a really, deeply felt and earned moment of self realisation on the part of the parents - no, "OMG, what have we done!" moment that would at least redeem them somewhat. But this does not deter the filmmakers from forcing a completely unearned moment of reconciliation at the end when the family is momentarily reunited at the kid's private school and watch, gormless and idiotically, as their family history of warm intimate moments unspools in one of the son's film project. Didn't the director understand that these moments, or at least some of them, had to have been seen prior to this moment? Didn't he realized that we, as an audience, had to live through at least some of these good times in order for the little home movie to mean something to us? The screenplay is truly awful - poorly structured, much too reliant on voice-over, lingers far too long on irrelevant and redundant exposition and never gets under the skin of the characters. the greatest fault is perhaps that the filmmakers could never decide who story they wanted to tell. What is worst for English Quebec cinema is that the filmmakers had everything they needed to be successful: a great cast, a committerd producer, lovely cinematography, beautiful locations - they just forgot to bring the essentials; imagination and a script doctor who would have put them right. This is a poor sophomore feature effort from the team who did the spare but excellent "Whitewash."
-
emilybowdidge1 February 2019Watching this movie is so easy,because it is shot very well and the aesthetic is very pleasing. Matthew Goode does an AMAZING job as does Toni Collette! And all the cast! This movie is so funny,and just..just..Good. I find it like satire for socioloists and psychologists. Love this movie,one of my favourite comedies.
-
SnoopyStyle30 November 2018In 1977, scientists Ben Morin (Matthew Goode) and his wife Catherine (Toni Collette) want to prove the dominance of nurture over nature, influenced by their own childhood experiences. They are having a baby and propose to have him raised by artists parents. With two other babies, they chose them to be also raised to be their biological opposites.
After watching Three Identical Strangers, this would have a difficult time as a comedy. Instead of quirky, this may work as a dark drama. Its quirkiness is desperate to be funny which only makes the disturbing concepts even more off-putting. Also it's hard to remember the individual children's nature vs nurture changes. They don't become real 3-D characters. It seems highly unscientific to put them all together in the same place. There's nothing to prevent them from influencing each other. I can't laugh at this couple and I can't laugh with this movie. It's trying for something that is never going to work. -
Gordon-119 November 2019This film tells the story of a scientist couple raising three children.
The story is very interesting and very different from other films. The topic is unique, and the result is a thought provoking journey. It is funny and light hearted as well, given the ethical question marks of the situation. It is an enjoyable watch. -
quevaal5 November 2018This movie is a lot better than what the current rating of 5.7 suggests. I think to fully be able to enjoy it, you need to be familiar with the nature / nurture debate and also enjoy the somewhat dark comedy. You can not expect the science to be sound. Helium does not explode, and the experiments would be a failure from start to finish in real life. Still, there are actually people who think that nurture is everything and the movie is best seen as playing around with this idea plus some added drama and warmth.
-
The way this film began, I thought I might be onto something here with its dark humor leading the way. However, as the movie progressed it not only seemed to lose its focus but its humor as well.
Matthew Goode and Toni Collette star as two professors of science who obtain funding from a foundation led by Michael Smiley to use 2 adopted children plus their own soon-to-be baby in an experiment that they feel will prove no one must be a prisoner to their genetic make-up.
So for example, one of their adopted children, who comes from a family of "dolts" will be nurtured and home schooled so that she will become a "brainiac". In this controlled environment, they hope to confirm their hypotheses and eventually publish their findings.
However, aside from the fact that their children are treated like lab rats and are not told what is occurring, things will eventually go awry in various ways as does the movie itself, which seems to fall apart.
Overall, some of the very dark humor does work at times here, with Andreas Apergis quite funny as the assistant sent over by Smiley to help the parents. To note, for those concerned there's nudity in the film, as well as some rather explicit and suggestive sexual references. There's also what I thought was a rather despicable scene where an animal is killed in an experiment and a young girl is blamed for its death. -
Most of the critics missed badly the point and are confusing the frame with the story.
The film is not about "nurting vs nature". That is the subject of the experiment of a character.
The film is a satire of the family. The real subject of the film is how every parent, at some point, actually behave as if they should report back their results to a scientific commitee. The russian reporter is in our minds. The boss-scientist are our internal conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions about how our childrens should be. And the portuguese scientists are other supposedly perfect families that we may take as a model and make us behave as if we were in a capitalist competition to bring the better childres to the world. -
If the kids were taken from their parents they wouldn't end up at a fancy boarding school. Institutions like that cost a lot of money. They would end up with much more abusive foster parents and I would have enjoyed this more if that happened.
-
clintstevens14 July 2018What a silly waste of 90 minutes. The movie makes no sense. The adults are shown to be supposed scholars, which is far from the case. The only smart characters are the three children. Watching the father encourage his young son to have sexual stimulation by forcing him to watch old vintage photos of naked women was, at the very least, disturbing. And the fact that the boy walks out shows which one is the smart one.
Billed as a comedy, I found nothing at all humorous in the story. I am sure there are pseudo-intellectuals who will find hidden meanings and symbolism here, but I found it to be a waste of time. -
gabrielagherghisan20 August 2018Really enjoyed the movie, although it seemed to be boring at the begining.
-
ksf-26 November 2020From Canada! a scientific experiment where two married professors raise children as science experiments. Nature versus nurture. The only big name in here I recognize is Toni Collette, who always picks quirky roles. she was nominated for Sixth Sense. Here, she's Catherine, mom to the kids. and when things get weird, they bring in Doctor julie (Suzanne Clément) to make sure the kids are normal. and Julie says... it's the PARENTS who are screwed up! the kids are just fine. directed by Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais. Story by Marc Tulin. hasn't done a whole lot, acc to imdb. it's okay.
-
An interesting concept but let down by a poorly constructed script, underwhelming lead performances and a lot of gags that completely miss the mark.
-
deloudelouvain5 April 2023A bit of mixed feelings about this movie. I expected it would be funnier. Now it felt more like a light hearted drama with some mild funny scenes. It was watchable though, I was just expecting better. Certainly with Toni Collette, an actress that I appreciate a lot since the excellent series United States of Tara. The acting wasn't bad and that from the entire cast, even the children. The story itself, about nurturing your kids in becoming something specific despite their genetics was just mildly interesting, nothing that could win me over as I don't see much truth in that. To a certain degree you will have results but certainly not always which would prove this scientific experiment wrong. It's not a bad movie but it's just not that special.
-
The story: Millionaire wants glory, so he pays 1,4 million dollars so that 2 scientists can home school 3 kids for 12 years, to make them the opposite of what their parents are, in order to prove that nurture is more influential to child development than their DNA (nature). The 2 scientists have one biological kid, so they train him to be an artist, because that's supposed to be the opposite of a scientist. The 2 other kids are adopted: a girl from a family of idiots (so they'll teach her to be a genius), and a boy from a family of aggressive people (so they'll teach him be a peace guru). After some years, the millionaire says their kids are average, and they gotta push the kids further. So the mom thinks there's something wrong with the kids and brings a friend who tells them they are alright. The dad tries harder, making weird psychological experiments. They emotionally break up. The children get away from them. The millionaire says: Well, you guys did a major mistake, so you gotta pay me the 1.4 million dollars back, according to our contract. BUT, the truth is I've been experimenting on you. I wanted to see how far people who think are doing good will do unethical things. So if you let me write a book about that, I'll waiver the money debt, for me being able to publish a book about you without any of you having a say on it. They sign. The book comes out saying bad things about the scientists, it gets to number 17 on the most bought books. The kids read it. The scientists barge in their schools to talk to them. The kids are annoyed they've been lied to. The scientists tell them it wasn't all a lie, and they love the kids. The scientists are carried away from the school. On a second meeting the kids are fine with the scientists. At the end, one of the kids is an artist, another is an activist, and the last is a lawyer. Not the story/ my opinion: The millionaire was doing a lot of hooker and cocaines, before and after the book project. It makes no sense for him to pay 1.4 million dollars on this project, not even if his intent was to write some other book. The two scientists are far from intelligent, rational, planned or even knowledgefull about child psychology (even though that has been their job for 12 years). The way that those kids get adopted, get taken away from the scientists, and are still put in a very expensive school makes no sense. The way the scientists have problems with the kids listening to rock and roll, and reading porn, but don't care that all of them are making tribal paintings on their faces makes no sense. The fact that these scientists would only be parenting/ teaching these kids and have no more work beside that makes no sense. None of the characters are charismatic or slightly intelligent. The way that these 3 homeschooled kids can easily socialise, take leadership positions, say weird without getting bullied makes no sense. There's a point in the movie, where the kids are staging a play based on a book, and the dad says that the play was bad, because one of the kids was narrating, and that the story should flow from the actors. BUT HE DIDN'T WRITE THE BOOK (which means the scientist is an idiot)! AND THE MOVIE IS NARRATED (which means the movie is acknowledging that the movie is bad)! So, in conclusion, if this movie was an experiment, what would we have learned from it? That no matter how much money a mediocre person is given (the scientist, and the writer of the movie, and director, and actors), the result will be mediocre as well (kids, and the score on the imdb), and it will make no sense for that person to have been given that amount of money.
-
moulindebarre13 December 2020As I am not a big W Anderson fan, I quite enjoyed this. It has a story and is not soley style over substance
-
juneebuggy3 October 2019An okay movie, It had potential, started out good enough and then just kind of flopped as we spend 12 years watching two married scientists home school their kids in the woods. They've taken on a project and grant to explore the concept of 'nature vs nature' by raising three children in opposition to their supposed genetic tendencies.
This never really went anywhere and got boring fast, the breakdown of a marriage, winter in every single scene no matter the passage of time. It's meant to be a comedy, not so much, more occasionally amusing, the Russian guy had his moments "I'll be in the shower." I'd give this a miss. -
rosenda-136973 July 2018I love how each character relates to each other, the humor, the concept, the twist. Maybe its not the best of movies but it is definitely a must watch !!!
-
In 2018's lightly cerebral '80s-based "Birthmarked" scientist couple Toni Collette & Matthew Goode (assisted by Andreas Apergis) experimentally raise kids Jordan Poole, Megan O'Kelly & Anton Gilles-Adelman in direct contrast to each's genetic expectations - to prove that nurture beats nature. But a decade or so in their unimpressed philantropist (or is he?) benefactor Michael Smiley (assisted by Fionnula Flanagan) pushes them to up the ante, adding further strain to their already stressed marriage & family life. Writer Marc Tulin & director Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais made a passable enough dramedy, but like Smiley, many may be underwhelmed by its mediocrity.
-
floras_nightmare2 December 2018So, the story líne is interesting enough. But it's SO Tenembaums that kinda makes you angry and it's painful to watch the similarities that are all over the movie... Not a good movie guys
-
Predictable, a bit slow.
Good acting and kinda funny at moments.
What's most charming about this movie is the acting performance of Toni Colette. She perceives to be a neutral scientist but goes absolutely bonkers at moments, making her so called scientific experiment a total farce.
Is it all nature that defines a character? No. Is it all genetics that defines a character? No. It's a bit of both. This movie is a nice way of remembering that we shouldnt push kids too much in a direction that doesnt suit them whatsoever.