The ending with the homevideos just seemed too manipulative and forcful. As if the director wanted to say "Look at this adorable little kid. That kid is now dead! Isn't it sad!"
Would have been a much better film without it.
"Be it a grain of sand or rock, in water they sink as the same."
Had it been without that great song in the background maybe I would have thought the same.
No expectations, no disappointments.
[deleted]
[quote=WllmShakespeare]The ending was absolutely necessary. The whole point of the ending of that movie was to show that homosexuality is love. It is innocent, it's born, it's not a choice. So when someone shows bias towards gays, what they are doing is showing bias towards love, bashing a grown gay guy is equal to giving that little kid the same kind of abuse and hell. That was the whole point of the movie which was also pointed out in the opera scene;
"I am the god that comes down from the heavens, and makes of the Earth a heaven. I am love."
What someone is doing when they bash gays is bashing love. The movie would have made no sense without that ending. It would have been just another courtroom drama where the guy wins the case the end. The movie was not about the law it was about love and the opposite of love which is fear. Hate is not the opposite of love. Fear is. From fear we get hate.[/quote]
Amen.
~j~
Unfortunately, that's Jonathan Demme for you. He loves his way-too-closeups, and his lingering on sentimental crap.
And I think you meant homovideos...amirite?
Doy OMG ur so rite! fkn filmmakers always trying to manipul8 us by scenes and stuff. Like that fkn scene in UP where they showed us those old geezers falling in luv! yuk. No homo. Duhhhh Amirite?
shareAgreed with OP. While I don't think the film would have been any "better" without it, maybe showing the family's reactions to the video or Denzel's would have been better. I found the hospital scene to be much sadder than the home video which I too thought felt forced.
shareIt seems like this may be the minority opinion but I liked it. Through all the movie it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Andrew is still just an ordinary human being. The only thing that made him different was that he was gay. He was still just like anyone else. The fact of the matter is that it is sad that Andrew died. Obviously we knew it was going to happen. He died of a terrible disease that nobody ever deserves to have.
shareI also liked that scene. It depicts that this was a normal family; and the home videos is something that most of us can relate to, family vacations, playing ball, etc. I think this movie works so well is that they cast Tom Hanks. Hanks has that natural charm that both men and women like him. He is someone that most can relate to. While I am sure that there are still strong opinions out there, this was a time that most people were very scared about AIDS and some people did not have any empathy for anyone that got the disease through gay sex.
There was even the scene when one of the lawyers expressed concern for a worker that got it from a blood transfusion, however, stated, he did not feel bad for people like Andy that contacted the disease through gay sex; practically implying that they deserved it.
by kaunte ยป Sun Oct 16 2011 14:31:25Not exactly, but maybe a little. The movie seems to kill two birds with one stone by addressing prejudice against people living with HIV/AIDS and also homophobia in a general sense. Likewise, with the ending, it might be forcing a tear-jerker by rubbing the tragedy of "The little kid in this video is now dead"; but more importantly, it implies that people with HIV/AIDS and/or homosexual can be one of our children, a brother, a sister or a friend, etc. So going out with that idea thus engrains this fact into the viewer's head.
IMDb member since June 2005
The ending with the homevideos just seemed too manipulative and forcful. As if the director wanted to say "Look at this adorable little kid. That kid is now dead! Isn't it sad!"
[deleted]