fortionat1

I wanted to like I Care a Lot (2020) as I know much about the adult living care business and nursing homes and the horrors. I had also just watched The New York Times Framing Britney Spears (2021) that makes relevant the issues of wards and conservatorships. But this is a fictional movie where none of the main characters have any redeeming value and therefore there is no "good guy" to root for. The acting was hit and miss, probably because of the screenplay or writing and directing but there were some notable standouts by Dianne Wiest and Rosamund Pike. Most of the men appeared to be incompetent and, as is standard in movies today, the main characters' relationship is gay.

So from the get go you feel outrage and frustration with Marla Grayson's callousness as she just takes over sweet old (or so we think) Jennifer Peterson's life and sends her off to a nursing home meanwhile taking over her financial accounts and assets such as her house. This appears to be a regular routine for Marla and her partner. Jennifer's son Roman (Peter Dinklage) is a cliché bad guy eating danishes in a covered parking lot while talking to his incompetent lackey using bad guy jargon. We are not sure how Roman becomes so successful when all the guys working for him appear to be morons including his attorney Dean (Chris Messina). The first quarter of the movie I was ready to give it a 2 or 1 but the movie was somewhat saved by the last half and ending. There were two notable scenes, one when Jennifer and Marla are talking outside in the patio of the nursing home and second when Marla and Roman have a conversation at the hospital while Roman is in a wheel chair. In the first scene Dianne Wiest does an outstanding job of showing her strength and subtle evil power with the ever slight smile. And in the second we finally get to see the great acting skills of Peter Dinklage when he finally acquiesce to Marla. But again who do you root for? A woman who controls, abuses, and steals from the elderly or a mobster who traffics slaves? Those are your choices and in the end while certainly making wards and conservatorships a concern there is no body you care about or want to come out ahead. It could be a statement about today's society and whether the government should control all aspects of your life, or a statement of the lack of concern adult children have for their elderly parents, but I think it's more about evil people getting ahead.

Today the movie looks like a early 80s movie - kinda grainy and definitely on film (which is a good thing compared to digital). The movie gets slow in the middle but overall the acting is very good, especially Judd Hirsch and Kate Nelligan and the final scenes with Danny Corkill playing the young boy Alex. It is heartbreaking. I saw it as a young adult in the 80s not being a parent yet. It was wrenching to the gut, the sadness of child abduction and fear of not knowing what has happened to your child as Kate showed so well in this movie. Re-watching it as a parent now it is even harder. (minor SPOILER) But even more rewarding in final scene. That is what makes this movie stand out among all movies, the so powerful ending. And it still holds up today (2020). I recommend this movie just for the outstanding final 15 minutes. Like other movies of the time that were kinda boring in the middle, ( or 70s movies The French Connection I & II), the final scenes more that make up and leave you quite satisfied.

In the last few years I have become cynical and very disappointed with movies that Hollywood has put out. Being aware of this I still try as Gene Siskel use to say no matter how jaded you have become with a particular genre always in your first watching of a movie keep an open mind. So, though not expecting much, in watching Seven In Heaven I was thoroughly entertained , at times quite thrilled, and very satisfied with the acting in a movie of the high school thriller/horror genre type. (Though I guess you could say sci-fi) A definite positive was that in the first 20 minutes of the movie setup the script and acting and dialog was never over the top and super cliché like you see in so many movies today. I was thinking "oh no here we go again with another typical over acted extreme bully scene" at school in the hallway after the science class but instead it was more subtle and realistic jabbing that teens do. Not to say bullying does not exist or is not a problem at all but just this scene called for a particular mood of awkwardness, humor and mild bullying like calling him Judy without some sort of violent slapping down of the books, etc. I have young adults and teen children and the dialog between the mother Megan (Jacinda Barrett) and lead character Jude about the party was amusing and very realistic and I could hear my wife and sons having this conversation: "You know, where the girls put different color lipsticks on," and the boys try to sleep..." " Oh, my God, Mom. No!" As for the overall plot problems do exist especially if you cannot suspend reality and forgive the plot holes around the playing cards and the closet and the fact that we only really get one explanation for the whole twist. (Minor Spoiler Alert) The only slight bit of reasoning we get as to why this whole weirdness is happening is when Mr. Wallace (played very well by Gary Cole) says: "They want to hurt you for as long as they can. 'Cause they can. Because you let them. This is the place where the worst thoughts take over. Everybody's worst thoughts. And you sure as hell turned everything upside down." My question is who is Mr. Wallace or what can we analogize him to? And in the end when we think everything is going to turn out ok.. a final zoom in shot done quite well by director Chris Eigeman. I always recommend to people looking for a movies to watch to disregard at first the score ratings and just read the summary and if it sounds like something you're interested in then watch it. Maybe you'll agree with many of the IMDb raters and think it is a mediocre movie, or maybe you will be pleasantly surprised and thoroughly entertained like I was.