free counter with statistics My Sister's Keeper Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

4501_10838961020.jpg
Weep, Goddamnit. I Said Weep!


My Sister's Keeper / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | June 26, 2009 | Comments (77)


It’s appropriate that My Sister’s Keeper opens during the same week as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Keeper, in a way, is the chick-flick version of a Michael Bay film, and Nick Cassavettes (The Notebook) is Bay’s chick-flick counterpart. While Bay movies are essentially a series of brain-assaulting explosions and loud noises, Cassavetes brings us a series of weep triggers and schmaltzy white-boy songs. In either respect, neither director understands that a little goes a long way, preferring instead overkill to the point of absurdity. Each time during My Sister’s Keeper that Cassavetes brings his audience to the brink of tears, he pushes it just a little further. The result: Instead of weeping like a German teenager at a David Hasselhoff concert, the audience breathes an exasperated, “Are you fucking serious?”

Indeed, while Bay assaults us with slo-mo cleavage and too many Decepticons to count, get a load of the weep triggers in My Sister’s Keeper: 1) A teenage girl with leukemia; 2) a cute, doting little sister trying to gain medical control over her body; 3) a boyfriend with cancer; 4) a lawyer with an iron lung; 5) a cute dog; 6) a judge who has recently lost of 12-year-old daughter of her own to a drunk driver; 7) a neglected dyslexic brother; 7) and a couple whose marriage is strained by their daughter’s condition. A cancer kid movie, alone, apparently wasn’t enough for Cassavetes. He needed to force as many opportunities to jerk your tears as possible and then he crowds everything out with maudlin tunes. There are no less than seven sequences set to these sob songs; it’s like stringing together the last five minutes of 10 “Grey’s Anatomy” episodes. And in order for a movie like this to be effective on at least some level, you have to mix the sweet with the sorrow. Sadly, there’s no sweetness in My Sister’s Keeper. Just unrelenting sorrow.

The bigger shame of it is, taken in isolation, there are actually some really solid performances in My Sister’s Keeper. Alec Baldwin — sans blowhard snark — is capable, as always; Abigail Breslin continues to be the best and least obnoxious child actor in recent memory; Sofia Vassilieva, who plays the daughter with cancer, does so adeptly and without overplaying her hand; and the biggest surprise of all is how great Cameron Diaz, as the crazy-bitch mother, is. She’s as good as I’ve seen her since her Oscar-nominated performance as the crazy bitch girlfriend in Vanilla Sky. Apparently, Diaz does have a niche.

However, taken as a whole, it’s just too much. It’s like the Counting Crows — they’re a pretty decent radio band, so long as you only hear one of their songs every 12 hours. But, try listening to their greatest hits (excluding “Mr. Jones”) for two hours. At a certain point, you’re like: “Jesus, Duritz. Mope much, motherfucker?” And I say this as a critic whose kryptonite is usually cancer kid movies — they’re manipulative as hell, but done with half-an-ounce of restraint, they’re effective in at least getting me to silently bawl. Five minutes into My Sister’s Keeper, however, and I was already desensitized. Hell, the two-minute trailer was far more effective than the two-hour movie.

The con: Teenage daughter, Kate Fitzgerald (Vassilieva) has been battling leukemia for most of her life. Her only real chance at survival was to find a good donor match — for bone marrow, cord blood transfusions, and — eventually — for a kidney. So, parents Sara (Diaz) and Brian (Jason Patric) decide to have a “designer baby.” They genetically conceive Anna (Breslin) and then essentially use her for spare parts. When she turns 11 and Kate goes into renal failure, however, Anna recruits Campbell Alexander (Baldwin) to help her sue her parents for medical emancipation — or the right to refuse to donate to her sister. And if you suspect that there’s more to it than the fact that Anna simply doesn’t want to give up her kidney to the sister she loves, congratulations! You’ve seen a movie before.

In addition to framing the movie around the emancipation hearing overseen by Judge De Salvo (Joan Cusack), there are also a series of flashbacks stuffed into the movie in the clumsiest ways imaginable. The major flashback involves Kate’s relationship with Taylor (Thomas Dekker), a patient she meets in the cancer ward. They quickly fall in love, go to cancer prom together, and consummate their relationship. And if you suspect that Taylor dies soon after, congratulations! You’ve seen a movie before.

Besides a few noteworthy performances, there is absolutely nothing exceptional about My Sister’s Keeper except in its ability to make easily manipulated moviegoers weep, not so much through the use of talent or a well-written script, but by sheer brute force. Cassavetes—adapting from Jodi Picoult’s slightly more restrained novel —has apparently opted for the Kama Sutra method of filmmaking—poking, prodding, and pummeling from every conceivable angle in the hopes that he can force salt-water ejaculate from your tear ducts (yes: There’s even a scrapbook). And what’s the absolute best way to wring those tear ducts out? Well, if you suspect that the daughter dies in the end, congratulations, you’ve seen a cancer movie before.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. You can email him or leave a comment below.


Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Review | The Funniest Television Episodes



Comments

1) A teenage girl with leukemia; 2) a cute, doting little sister trying to gain medical control over her body; 3) a boyfriend with cancer; 4) a lawyer with an iron lung; 5) a cute dog; 6) a judge who has recently lost of 12-year-old daughter of her own to a drunk driver; 7) a neglected dyslexic brother; 7) and a couple whose marriage is strained by their daughter’s condition.

Honestly, this sounds like pretty much every conversation I have with my mother. Every time I talk to her she's telling me some story about some person I don't know who has cancer, whose hubsand cheated on her, whose dog has dimentia and whose kid was hurt in a car accident.

Every. Time.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at June 26, 2009 3:57 PM

I cried all the way through "UP." I have nothing more to give, so I will not be seeing this. Is "The Proposal" still playing?

Posted by: BWeaves at June 26, 2009 4:00 PM

*SPOILER*

Yeah, but which daughter dies at the end? Same as the book?

Is it a stupid M. Night Shamwow twist like the original?

Posted by: Snath at June 26, 2009 4:07 PM

At a certain point, you’re like: “Jesus, Duritz. Mope much, motherfucker?”

That's why the Counting Crows are the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked.

Also, Diaz got a Golden Globe nomination, not an Oscar nomination, for Vanilla Sky.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 26, 2009 4:07 PM

Why can't Cameron Diaz get cancer? That would be a happier ending than the Asian massage parlor that I frequent gives.

Posted by: John Denver's Wingman at June 26, 2009 4:13 PM

Speaking of "Grey's", didn't they do an episode just like this once? Where the parents had a spare-part baby to help his brother but then they didn't want to go through with it? Or was it ER? One of those two ridiculous shows with melodrama up the ying yang.

Posted by: figgy at June 26, 2009 4:16 PM

I will undoubtedly be dragged drugged to see this movie in the theater. What color will best hide the tears/mucus that will be left on my shoulder?

Where the parents had a spare-part baby to help his brother

Thanks, figs, I'm picturing an infant on cinder blocks in someone's front yard.

Posted by: branded at June 26, 2009 4:27 PM

I think Cameron Diaz was also great in Being John Malkovich, and not necessarily because she looked unattractive.

Posted by: Sofía at June 26, 2009 4:34 PM

-- adapting from Jodi Picoult’s slightly more restrained novel --

you have got to be kidding me. that novel was so bad it made me rethink my friendship with the person who suggested i read it. unfilmable. noone held a gun to Cassavetes head and said make this film, but god, there'd be no overcoming that material.

Posted by: spielcat at June 26, 2009 4:45 PM

Sister, you say? That reminds me of one of the best songs ever.

"I don't turn water into wine, like my famous kin. But if you've got a little sister than there's room at this in" *pelvic thrust*
---Stephen Lynch

Posted by: the_wakeful at June 26, 2009 4:53 PM

And by "in" I of course mean "inn". Damn my grammatical ineptitude.

Posted by: the_wakeful at June 26, 2009 4:55 PM

So it's a lazy Sunday popcorn thriller, then?

Posted by: annoyingmouse at June 26, 2009 5:02 PM

Hate to be that person, but Diaz hasn't been nominated for an Oscar yet. She probably came closest with Vanilla Sky, but only got to the Globes.

But hey - if they expand all races to ten nominees, maybe we'll get to see her and even Mariah Carey there some day!

Posted by: whatBENwatches at June 26, 2009 5:08 PM

Bor-ring.

Where'd the Freebies topic get to?!

Posted by: Jerce at June 26, 2009 5:24 PM

As per usual, you are spot on. I hid in the bathroom after the movie because I could not walk into the lobby with eyes swollen shut. I looked like I had been in a boxing match.
There is just no reason to have this much sorrow in a movie. Enough.

Posted by: Frothygirl at June 26, 2009 5:30 PM

Yeah, the Freebies diversion seems to have disappeared! If you look at the comment diversions the link for it links to the 2007 version.

Maybe it capped out at 600 comments?

Posted by: figgy at June 26, 2009 6:02 PM

I thought this was going to be a tv movie. Am I a moron? Why did I even think that?
Anyway, I probably won't ever see (or read) it, but I would still like to know how the whole kidney dilemma plays out...

Posted by: Nora at June 26, 2009 6:04 PM

Having read a number of the Picoult books, I can assure you that everyone of these stories follows the same damn pattern. Take a controversial topic ripped from People Magazine, transplant it into an everyday suburban family and wham bam boom! you my friend have a Jodi Picoult bestseller!
I've cried at some weird stuff in the past. Wall-E had me weeping, Juno put me into a state of blubbery embarrassment thanks to Cat Power and Michael Cera's quirkiness. Hell, Lars and the Real Girl had me on the verge of a panic attack I was crying so hard. This one...eh. I'll find it on HBO and maybe roll my eyes, say, "That's nice" and flip to something else. You know, with substance.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at June 26, 2009 6:09 PM

Snath I have never, nor will I ever read this book or see this movie but thats what I totally thought when I was reading the review... that the spare parts daughter bites the big one in the end by giving up her kidney or whatever "for love" and the book is maybe wrapped up in a nice hallmark bow by the cancer sister who is now totally healthy and living the life "that her sister would have wanted for her"

BLAH! do not want...

Posted by: Tammers at June 26, 2009 6:09 PM

I guess I won't see this movie because I fucking hate the Counting Crows.

Posted by: wsapnin at June 26, 2009 6:12 PM

They didn't include a scene where litter of puppies gets killed by the ambulance carrying one of the characters to the hospital?

Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 26, 2009 6:15 PM

Welcome to Pajiba: Congratulations! You've seen a movie before.

Posted by: Sweetie Dahling at June 26, 2009 7:08 PM


Figgy, I think you're remembering an episode of CSI: Vegas. Basically a teenage boy has cancer, his parents have daughter to use for multiple bone marrow transplants. But the transplants don't work and the cancer gets worse. Then the parents decide to start harvesting organs out of her next. Apparently the son didn't want her to be used as a human AutoZone but Mom & Dad would hear nothing of his protest. So the son poisons her to death to end her suffering (and his). Why? Because he was Catholic and believed if he killed himself he'd never get to heaven. However if he decided to kill his little sister, later die of the cancer, and repent his sin before kicking over, thus magically wiping his slate clean. The parents get caught covering up their golden boy's crime by fabricating their dead daughter's kidnapping/RAPE/murder (I shit you not).
As for myself, I'm just ashamed that for all the useless nuggets of trivia rattling around my head that useless episode was one of them.

Posted by: bleujayone at June 26, 2009 7:36 PM

I'm never going to see this movie. Nor am I ever going to read the book (unless I'm at the beach one summer and there is NOTHING else to read because I can't sit on the beach without a book, ever).

So, why doesn't the younger girl want to give up her kidney? If I don't know this, I'm just that much more likely to pick up the copy of this book laying around the beach house than drag myself to the store and pick up a $4.99 erotica romance novel. And that $4.99 will help the economy. Save the economy. Tell me the end of the story.

Posted by: That Girl at June 26, 2009 7:57 PM

***SPOILERS FOR THAT GIRL***

SpareParts is fine with giving up the goods, but CancerGirl is sick of being sick and guilty about making her sister go through all that crap on her behalf and begs/forces SpareParts into stopping it from happening.
Then SpareParts get herself in a car accident on the way to the hospital to visit CancerGirl (after winning the court case), and ends up being used for her spare parts anyway. Everybody else, including CancerGirl, lives somewhat happily ever after. The End.

**End Spoilers**

There, I have done my part for the economy and girl-porn.

Posted by: ScienceGeek at June 26, 2009 8:31 PM

I was walking in the park today with my sister and we saw a mommy duck with two baby ducks swimming in the pond. TWO baby ducks. My sister said to me, "Aren't there usually more than two?" "Yes," I replied. A silence. "They other ones are dead, aren't they?" she asked. "'Fraid so," I told her. "Circle of life".


I'm thinking of writing the screenplay to sell it to the makers of this movie. *Spoiler* - Every baby duck in the world is clubbed to death by precocious 8-year old girl who does it to save her puppy who has cancer. And fleas. No it doesn't make sense, but apparently that's not a prerequisite for these people.

Posted by: malechai at June 26, 2009 8:35 PM

ScienceGeek
**Spoiler**
Oh no they didn't kill Little Miss Sunshine!
**end spoiler**
I'll kill someone if that's true and keep their kidney for myself, and pair it with a nice chianti.

Posted by: Agente Provocatrice at June 26, 2009 8:49 PM

Itt quite honestly mystifies me how Cameron Diaz is one of the best-paid actresses in Hollywood. She seems pleasant, and comes across very well in interviews, but she can't act, she's not that hot and she doesn't seem to have been in that many successful movies, and certainly none that were successful on the strength of her pulling power. Yet there are more talented actresses, better-looking actresses and actresses with more rabid fanbases, none of whom can usurp Diaz's crown of borderline adequacy. Le sigh. The actressin' game is a strange one.

Posted by: Shay at June 26, 2009 9:30 PM

I could've sworn Diaz was nominated for Being John Malkovich. Guess I must've gotten that mixed up with the 17 MTV awards she got.

Posted by: Optimus J. Rhyme at June 26, 2009 9:38 PM

After research, it was Katherine Keener who got the om nom nom.

Posted by: Optimus J. Rhyme at June 26, 2009 9:39 PM

I have a PVR so I don't usually have to watch commercials, but I was over at a friend's house so I had to watch them, like an animal!

The commercial for this was on like 100 times and all I could focus on was the fake bald head on CD.

Other than that, thanks for spoiling the movie ScienceGeek, now I can save myself from one day having to watch it just to satisfy my mild curiosity about the ending.

Posted by: Alli at June 26, 2009 9:48 PM

Figgy: as well as CSI, there is a Private Practice ep which covers the same territory.

Now excuse me, I have to go stab myself through the eye with something long and pointy for even knowing that...

Posted by: redfeathers at June 26, 2009 9:49 PM

Oh, and there was a Casualty episode a few years back covering exactly the same thing. I guess "reluctant younger children being forced to donate to older siblings" is a common medical theme.

Plus, let's not forget Brittany Murphy's character in Drop Dead Gorgeous. "Look, Amber, I'm not gonna win. And let's be honest, a family only needs one "Liza" and you know Peter's got much better legs than me." "Your parents'd kill you." "Oh c'mon, I love 'em, but you know they only had me 'cause Peter needed a kidney." There's no hope of this movie being that short and to the point, is there?

Posted by: Shay at June 26, 2009 10:06 PM

"Cancer Prom."


HAHAhahahahaha omfg.

Posted by: Bequafina at June 26, 2009 10:24 PM

HA. Got you. Now you've all confessed to watching the shows. My work here is DONE

ScienceGeek my face looks like this right now:

O_O

Posted by: figgy at June 26, 2009 10:41 PM

The major flashback involves Kate’s relationship with Taylor (Thomas Dekker), a patient she meets in the cancer ward. They quickly fall in love, go to cancer prom together, and consummate their relationship. And if you suspect that Taylor dies soon after, congratulations! You’ve seen a movie before.

No, no, no. Dustin you missed the subtle underpinnings of the film, not realizing that it is in fact Terminator V. You see, Cameron Diaz is a cyborg sent from the future to kill John Connor who is living undercover as Taylor (Thomas Decker). She kills him using cancer though in a twist move that the Connors never see coming. She's obviously a first generation terminator (remember the rubber skin is the give away).

Kate however is actually Sarah Connor reverse aged through over exposure to temporal radiation. The sadistic Freudian love between Kate and Taylor is a brilliant twist, topped only by the introduction of Anna as the genetically engineered flesh farm for the next generation of terminators (it's not like they can grow flesh in vats, that's just silly).

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at June 26, 2009 10:56 PM

How does the spare parts thing work, anyway? You find our your kid needs a kidney, okay. But conceiving a child can take a bit of time, then there's that whole 8-9 months thing. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume hospitals don't take kidney's from 1 month old babies (since that really wouldn't make sense anyway). WTF?

Posted by: mary at June 27, 2009 12:04 AM

House used the storyline too.

Posted by: Monica at June 27, 2009 1:22 AM

A cancer kid movie, alone, apparently wasn’t enough for Cassavetes. He needed to force as many opportunities to jerk your tears as possible...

From your list, Dustin (cancer kid/dyslexic brother/iron lung etc), it sounds exactly the same as the book. So, to be fair to Cassavetes, he wasn't actually the one who ham-fistedly threw every tear-jerker cliche into the story. That was Ms Picoult. He was just the one who decided to ham-fistedly throw all of the book's tear-jerker cliches into the movie.

Posted by: JJ McClay at June 27, 2009 1:30 AM

@Mary:

In the book, it starts off where they just want to use SpareParts' cord blood. Then it progresses to bone marrow a couple years later, and eventually the whole kidney drama when SpareParts is 13.

As sappy and ridiculous as Picoult is, I didn't hate the book. The movie, however, from day 1 on IMDB, looked godawful.

I want it to be July so Harry Potter can come out and play.

Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2009 2:20 AM

The spare parts baby was concieved medically. The doctors took the exact egg and sperm or whatever, fertilized it then implanted it. I believe that is how it goes.

Posted by: Isabella at June 27, 2009 3:05 AM

Holy balls. After reading this, and laughing for part of it then questioning whether I should have been crying instead, I decided to just read the summary as opposed to the whole book and for god's sake, even that made me tear up a smidgeon. This is a movie I cannot watch around other people. Or ever.

Kid-cancer movies make me feel so evil.

Posted by: Kelli at June 27, 2009 5:36 AM

am i the only one who finds it painful to see the name "cassavetes" associated with a film like this?

Posted by: celery at June 27, 2009 8:05 AM

Jodi Picoult’s slightly more restrained novel

I have never heard that phrase used and I don't believe I'll ever hear it again. As someone who went through a veritable Picoult obsession period, "restraint" is certainly not something the authoress prides herself on.

This is a big disappointment. The trailer gave the appearance about a movie with levity and sorrow, just like real life. I was excited about that. So really, the light moments in the trailer are the only light bits in the movie?

Posted by: Ling at June 27, 2009 9:19 AM

Honestly, this sounds like pretty much every conversation I have with my mother

Know how they say you become your parents? Yeah, my mom picked this up from grandma. "Remember that woman I work with?........" ending in death, dismemberment, unemployment... Great dinner table conversation. "Mm"...shake your head....what the hell do you say to that...and why are you talking about it?

Then she'll go and watch Extreme Home Makeover and fill us in on their tragic story.

I remember my boss read this book and was just flat out angry. "DON'T read it...Gah!"

Thanks, figs, I'm picturing an infant on cinder blocks in someone's front yard.

spit take.

Yeah, I don't go Counting Crows either.

Posted by: Jay at June 27, 2009 9:31 AM

Everytime I saw the trailer for this movie it looked more and more like one of those awful Lifetime movies - My Sister's Keeper: The Story of SpareParts and Cancer Girl: Not Without My Bone Marrow.

Posted by: stardust savant at June 27, 2009 10:33 AM

Last time I went to the lady-doctor, this book was miraculously in the waiting room. I say "miraculous" because usually the waiting room is filled to the brim exclusively with baby, parenting, and Stepford wife magazines, so anything different was a welcome change. I read it while I was waiting (couple speed-reading with skipping pages here and there), and I agree with others here- that movie plot doesn't sound any more overloaded than the novel was. And the writing was a lot like DaVinci Code, but with tearjerkers popping up regularly instead of cliffhangers. I was very sad I didn't instead read about baby feng shui.

Posted by: Phaeolus at June 27, 2009 10:36 AM

HolyGodFuck, this was bad book. I want to stab the author in the face for writing such utter drivel. So bad. SO BAD. So bad.

I imagine the movie is even worse. I can't even get my mind around the amount of suckitude this movie had brought into the world. Ow. It hurts. The badness, it hurts. Please make it stop. Please? Make it stop?

Posted by: Kate the Great at June 27, 2009 10:54 AM

I say "more restrained" only in the sense that I've read a couple of Picoult books that were apparently more restrained than this one, which I haven't read. But, judging from some of the book spoilers above, the movie does not maintain the book's original ending, although knowing what the book's original ending is, I don't know which is worse.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at June 27, 2009 11:29 AM

If the spoiler referred to the book's ending, how then does the movie end? I don't want to see the movie (I get misty from commercials), but now I will not be able to sleep if I don't know which daughter dies and how!!! BTW, I'm also guilty of gossiping about other people's tragedies/misfortunes/deaths; guess it's a bit of morbid fascination mixed with "count your blessings" and "there but for the grace of God go I".

Posted by: latvian lady at June 27, 2009 2:54 PM

So this is "Girl Porn"? Hmm...no sir, I don't like it.

I'll stick with the traditional "Guy Porn" -- oh look, Slow Motion Tits just bent down to pick something up while an RPG shoots where her head just was and destroys two Decepticons.

If only we could stick a third boob in there....

Posted by: Fredo at June 27, 2009 2:57 PM

Not one of my favorite Picoult books, but I cannot cannot cannot get behind Cam Diaz as the mom. Cannot.

Also, don't refer to Picoult as an "authoress," Ling. She's an author. Aside from "actor/actress," most of those female titles are just degrading and sexist.

Posted by: Ariel at June 27, 2009 2:58 PM

@Ariel: There was a great (Katherine Hepburn? Maybe Bette Davis) quote floating around where she said she wasn't an "actress" she was an "actor". If you called yourself an actress you either got to play The Slut or The Bitch and she was better than that.

As to the book/movie--I even read the Piccoult interview at the end of the book. She said she let her twelve-year-old read the finished manuscript and he was all "Mommy why did the healthy sister have to die?" and she realized that in order for the book to end properly (you know, cancer-girl not dying, because nobody likes a dead cancer-girl and obviously the healthy one was a stingy bitch) there had to be an act of God so the characters didn't have a choice. Oh. And the lawyer marries the judge and cancer-girl becomes a completely healthy ballerina. I WISH I was making that up.

Posted by: Ava at June 27, 2009 4:04 PM

I weep looking at Cameron Diaz's face and thinking, "Didn't you used to be kinda cute?"

It has nothing to do with the movie.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at June 27, 2009 4:29 PM

This was the second Jodi Picoult book I read. Not cause I wanted to, it was for a book club. Luckily, we all take turns choosing the books to read. If I ever have to read any more drivel out of this author it will be too soon.

The only thing that confused me is that Valerie Bertinelli - Queen of the cancer/rape victim/puppy mill rescuer/courageous stander upper for all things chick as brought to you by Lifetime and Oxygen - was not somehow involved in this waste or film.

Posted by: The Woo at June 27, 2009 5:52 PM

Ava: I guess we can call Diaz an "actress" then -- she's really only good at playing the ditzy slut or the bitch, right?

Posted by: Ava at June 27, 2009 6:09 PM

Jodi Picoult is the Keanu Reeves of books. She seems like a nice person and she seems to try really hard and put a lot of effort into her work.

And just like Keanu, she kind of sucks ass.

Posted by: grinder at June 27, 2009 7:10 PM

Aside from "actor/actress," most of those female titles are just degrading and sexist.

...really? They are? I'd say they're stupid, pointless and unnecessary, but 'degrading'? And 'sexist'? C'mon now, really? They differentiate women unnecessarily, so I guess you could say that they're sexist in suggesting that women are inherently different to men, but it's not like there's anything about the word 'authoress' that suggests any innate inferiority on the part of women, which is generally what I'd take 'sexist' to mean. And there's sure as hell nothing inherently degrading about the word. Not to harsh all over your righteous feminist buzz or whatever, but crying "sexist!" at something as innocuous as the word 'authoress' is fairly counterproductive, since it just detracts attention and gravity from...you know...all actual sexism.

Posted by: Shay at June 27, 2009 9:48 PM

Sorry I disagree with this review. I am a man and saw the film and loved it. It captures everything that happens to a family when they know someone int he family is going to die. The mother figure always fights for the life and it is left to the others to tell her when it is time to let her go.

I have a personal experience similar to this one(no court hearings involved of course) so maybe I have that attachment that made me appreciate the movie.

Needless to say Vassilieva was great in this movie! She is good on Medium but this leads me to believe she has a big career ahead of her!

The only thing I dislike is the ending. The books has a twist to it that is a lot more meaningful.

Posted by: Angelmonster at June 27, 2009 11:06 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the girl in the picture looks exactly like Matt Lucas from Little Britain?

Posted by: AbFab at June 28, 2009 6:14 AM

Having read the book, I have to disagree with "a lot more meaningful" twist. I enjoyed My Sister's Keeper right up until the twist. I got the point the author was trying to make. I even agreed with it. But the execution leading to it was so arbitrary and unrealistic that it kind of got lost.

I refused to consider seeing the movie unless someone told me they changed the ending.

Posted by: cinderkeys at June 28, 2009 6:34 AM

"weeping like a German teenager at a David Hasselhoff concert"

I am SO stealing this phrase. It's gold!

Posted by: Armando at June 28, 2009 10:52 AM

Shay, I (obviously, having made the statement) disagree. Linguistically, it's implying that there is a necessity to distinguish among the sexes who produce poetry (poetess) or literary works (authoress), and why would there be a necessity to do so unless it's diminishing the work produced by a "lesser" gender? I'm no righteous feminist, but it's so similar to me as one saying "Jane Smith, female CEO" instead of just saying "Jane Smith, CEO." Why add gender to it when it's not necessary? Would it have made any difference to call Picoult an author? I'm not one to cry "sexism!" upon pointing out legit differences, but the use of those sorts of words seems rather..... belittling. Better word?

Posted by: Ariel at June 28, 2009 12:41 PM

Hmm...you know, when you put it in the context of the "Jane Smith, female CEO" thing I get where you're coming from a lot more. I'm still not sure it's sexist though, because your argument hinges on this part:

...why would there be a necessity to do so unless it's diminishing the work produced by a "lesser" gender?

And I think that's not necessarily true. I think it's more likely that words like "authoress" come from an attempt to be more PC and not just lump women into an existing word that some people may feel has traditionally been male-only (which would be the case for authors prior the the 20th century, wouldn't it?). It's the same reason you're more likely to hear someone referred to as "chairperson" than "chairman", for example, and is more an overspecification of language than a slight. Plenty of other languages have similar gender-specific job titles without it being demeaning - in French, for example, the word for baker changes depending on whether it's a male baker (boulanger) or a female one (boulangère). I think it's unnecessary to do the same thing in English, where words tend not to have specific gender attachments, but I don't think that using them has to imply inferiority on the part of women as a whole.

Can I just say how much more interested I am in debating gender politics and the semantics of using "author" as versus "authoress" than I am in watching the damn cancer movie? That either says a whole lot about how jaded I am or about how boring this movie looks.

Posted by: Shay at June 28, 2009 1:16 PM

I read the book a few years ago, liked it because I was seventeen and fighting with an asshole boyfriend and it let me forget all about that. It's 'escapist,' you might say. If I were to re-read it, I might not love it so much.

But I will not be seeing this movie--I don't care about the crying part, I cry all the time, I probably looked like a total emotional mess after seeing Milk in the theater. I'm not seeing it because they took my favorite character (Julia) out, and from what I can see changed Jesse from an arsonist to a dyslexic. What's the point, people?

Posted by: Genevieve at June 28, 2009 6:56 PM

So the whole Kate/Taylor thing was lifted from the whole clinical trial arc of Gray's Anatomy, the episode with Cancer Girl Jurnee Smollett getting deflowered. (I think that that had to be the first time anyone had sex at Seattle Grace somewhere other than the on-call room.)

Posted by: Jerry at June 28, 2009 7:24 PM

So the whole Kate/Taylor thing was lifted from the whole clinical trial arc of Gray's Anatomy, the episode with Cancer Girl Jurnee Smollett getting deflowered.

To be fair, the book was published in 2004 (and, from what I can tell from the Wikipedia page, included the romance subplot, whereas Grey's only started airing in 2005. I doubt Picoult was the very first person ever to feature a "two dying people fall in love" plot, but it's a little unfair to accuse her of stealing from a TV plotline 3 years in the future.

Posted by: Shay at June 28, 2009 8:44 PM

Good to know!
And thousands of sincere and serious tall people I met on ___Tallconnect.com___ are the most amazing people I ever met! they care nothing but real love and chemistry! that's what we are looking for in today's world!

Posted by: gary at June 28, 2009 11:03 PM

While I agree that there is not any innate inferiority in using the feminine ending for the title "author", I will point out that it does have those connotations for other jobs. A "waitress" generally has connotations of a diner that do not occur with "waiter", "stewardess" does not have the same overtones that "steward" does, and "mistress" has some very different alternative definitions that color its use. That being said, not every use of the -ess ending comes with a connotation of inferiority; for example, a "goddess" is not lesser than a "god", and a "sculptress" is not any less than a "sculptor". I don't think the sense of inferiority is an innate semantic component of the -ess ending.

However, I teach Business English, and our textbook calls these endings "gender-specific language". The emphasis seems to be on the fact that adding a feminine ending relays information about the person's gender, while the neutral non-female ending does not. Since in many situations it is not necessary to underline the fact that a person is female, or to even relay that information at all, the -ess ending may be drawing attention to a characteristic that should be unimportant.

Posted by: Phaeolus at June 28, 2009 11:19 PM

highly inappropriate, spambot gary.
but we've all seen worse and so, no offense.
besides once this thread headed into gender-sensitivities-land, all went down the toilet.

i'm gonna go watch something degrading to women (like, the oxygen channel) and beat my very manly meat.

Posted by: gp at June 29, 2009 12:30 AM

gp, don't refer to yourself as meat. That's reverse sexism, and you're better than that.

Posted by: Ariel at June 29, 2009 10:51 AM

"Jodi Picoult is the Keanu Reeves of books. She seems like a nice person and she seems to try really hard and put a lot of effort into her work.

And just like Keanu, she kind of sucks ass."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! So true, except I prefer Keanu's acting to Jodi's writing. I thought this book was such a pile of dogshit, I'm sorry. An author who can take a compelling premise and render it boring stupefies me. The characters were so incredibly flat, especially the daughter's quirky-ass lawyer.

I also think Diaz is too young to play the mother, if the movie is true to the book. She's the same actress who had a private surgical practice at the age of 24 in "Something About Mary", though, so perhaps she's just special.

Posted by: samantha t at June 29, 2009 11:29 AM

"Last time I went to the lady-doctor, this book was miraculously in the waiting room. I say "miraculous" because usually the waiting room is filled to the brim exclusively with baby, parenting, and Stepford wife magazines, so anything different was a welcome change."

I thought I was alone in being disturbed by the reading fare at my O.B.'s office. I know I have a vagina and all - that's why I'm here, after all - but I *can* handle more than Redbook. Shit, can't they at least throw a Vanity Fair out?

Posted by: samantha t at June 29, 2009 11:33 AM

cancer girl dies.
everyone else lives happily ever after.
so the message of the movie is kill sick children so they don't cramp your style.

Just once I would like one of these chick flicks to end like a Shakespearean play. Everyone dies and the only Important Life Lesson(TM) that anyone learns is don't fuck your brother's wife.
The end.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 29, 2009 5:22 PM

My obsessive-compulsive need to know outweighed my utter lack of interest in ever seeing/reading this one, so I looked up the endings and...WTF? The endings are so completely different - doesn't that subvert the feel/lesson of the original?

Not to over-analyze this POS - I'm just always puzzled when movies depart from their source material so much as to completely alter the story.

Posted by: that_damn_monkey at June 29, 2009 11:47 PM

"4) a lawyer with an iron lung; 5) a cute dog"

The lawyer doesn't have an iron lung, he's an epileptic. When he says he has an iron lung, he's making a joke to cover up the real purpose of his dog (it's a seizure dog). There is no such thing as a dog that makes sure his owner with an iron lung stays away from magnets, as far as I know.

And why is cute dog on the list of reasons this movie will make you cry? I can count on one hand the number of scenes that the dog is even in, and it doesn't really have an impact on any of them except the one when you find out the lawyer is epileptic - one of the few parts I didn't bawl through. The dog isn't particularly tear-jerking or heartbreaking.

The book is much better than the movie, but both will make you cry. I still really enjoyed them both, but its easy to see how many others wouldn't.

Posted by: al at July 10, 2009 1:59 AM

Private Practice used that storyline too.

Oh crap, I just admitted to watching Private Practice.

Posted by: bombscribe at July 21, 2009 11:07 PM