free counter with statistics Reign Over Me | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

adam_sandler1.jpg
Won’t Get Fooled Again

Reign Over Me / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | March 24, 2007 | Comments (45)


It’s inevitable that comedians reach a point in their careers when they want to be taken seriously as actors or thinkers or writers or anything other than the guy who got rich making poop jokes. Robin Williams spent two decades crawling his way up from birthing Jonathan Winters on a not-that-great sitcom to earning an Oscar for teaching Matt Damon how to be a man, which is probably the gold standard of career trajectories; so far, Jim Carrey hasn’t managed to shed his manic past personas by pretending to be overly serious, and Tim Allen even tried his hand at metaphysics to atone for “Home Improvement.” (Keep trying.) Given all that, it was inevitable that Adam Sandler, who started out making weird noises on MTV and then “Saturday Night Live,” would make his try for the brass ring of dramatic credibility. For the most part, he’s succeeded, turning in surprisingly watchable performances in Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, his two previous “serious” outings to date. But if drama thrives on honesty, then Sandler’s most honest work so far has been in The Wedding Singer, which required him not to do a goofy voice (most of the time, anyway) or wear a wig but to fall in love, and to win the audience’s sympathy by portraying a realistic character going through something real. Writer-director Mike Binder’s Reign Over Me elevates Sandler to a new level and coaxes out of him one or two moments of genuine power, but for the most part, there’s something artificial about the film, almost otherworldly, that keeps it from resonating completely: Sandler’s mouth may be saying all the right words, but his eyes are like empty glass.

The film opens to Graham Nash’s “Simple Man” as Charlie Fineman (Sandler) glides on his scooter through the darkened streets of New York City at night. Binder sets the mood right away as one of emotionally self-aware drama with Charlie’s cruises through town listening to classic rock, then transitions to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a well-to-do dentist who, despite being married, keeps attracting the attentions of his prettier female patients. One of them, Donna (Saffron Burrows), at one point offers to perform oral sex right there in the office; the flustered Alan, to his credit, remains true to his wife (Jada Pinkett Smith). Driving home one day, Alan sees Charlie walking down the sidewalk and attempts to flag him down. It turns out they were college roommates, but they’ve long since fallen out of touch. Recounting his sighting of Charlie to his family over dinner, Alan’s oldest daughter asks, “Is he the man whose family was on the plane?” There’s no further explanation given or needed in modern American society, especially in a New York story, and suddenly it all becomes clear: Charlie’s wife and kids are gone, dead since Sept. 11, 2001. Drawing its title from the Who’s “Love, Reign O’er Me,” Reign Over Me has to be one of the first, if not the first, film to deal with Sept. 11 without actually dealing with it, which is the beginning of its paradox: The death of Charlie’s family and the unspooling plot has no tie to Sept. 11 other than that it’s a guaranteed way to create a situation pre-loaded with a certain kind of emotion. But more on that later.

Alan runs into Charlie a few weeks later on the street, but Charlie doesn’t remember him at all, and in fact seems to be suffering from a learning or developmental disorder and not just the posttraumatic stress that’s been implied. Alan persuades him to go for coffee, after which they head back to Charlie’s to hang out. Charlie’s apartment is a spare wreck, with the kitchen that’s constantly being remodeled serving as a half-clunky metaphor for Charlie’s inability to repair his life and the hooks on the walls serving as a subtle reminder of the family photos that used to hang there. Charlie’s obsessed with the PlayStation 2 game “Shadow of the Colossus,” about a man trying to slay giants (wow, another metaphor), and draws Alan into his emotionally regressed world.

Alan eventually becomes attached enough to want to save Charlie, or see him get some help, despite his wife’s protestations that Alan’s assistance is both unwanted and futile. Alan even enlists the help of a psychiatrist who shares his office building, Angela (Liv Tyler), to try and get Charlie some help. But Binder’s script takes plenty of time getting there, opting to pull Charlie and Alan through a parallel series of hurdles but not really investing the minor obstacles with any real consequence. Alan, oddly enough, feels superficially similar to Chris Rock’s character in I Think I Love My Wife in that he’s begun drifting from his spouse without knowing why. There’s so much missing here that would provide clues as to why Alan is starting to feel restless with his home life, especially since one of the other dentists in his office tells Alan to get rid of the stalker Donna so that what happened “last time” doesn’t happen again. Last time? Did Alan cheat on his wife with a patient? Was he tempted to? If Binder knows, he didn’t feel like writing it down, and Alan goes from being a man with depth to a messianic placeholder who just wants to save Charlie for old times’ sake.

Sandler is engaging as Charlie, and actually courageous enough to be frustratingly trapped by his own damaged psyche. But his performance feels gimmicky until the scene in which he recounts his version of Sept. 11, and how he misses his family. Binder and editors Steve Edwards and Jeremy Roush keep the cutting to a minimum, focusing instead on Charlie’s face as he weeps and exhumes his memories while Bruce Springsteen’s “Drive All Night” plays over the headphones permanently draped around Charlie’s neck. It’s fair to say that Sandler has never filmed a more moving scene than this one in which Charlie’s heart breaks all over again for the family he lost more than five years before. But here’s where Binder’s film loses traction on the slippery slope of evocation and manipulation. Any writer or director dealing with the largest foreign terrorist attack in recent memory has a responsibility to discuss the event itself and at least justify the use of Sept. 11 as a plot point. Binder’s politics are hidden at best: Alan’s secretary has a “01.20.09” bumper sticker affixed to her wall, but that’s the only hint of partisanship or real-world commentary in the film. Binder’s inability to use the tragic events of that day as a springboard into anything else keep the film from being the reflective modern drama it wants to be and instead make it simply manipulative. If Charlie’s family had died in a car wreck, or been gunned down by a madman, or been killed by a burglar, the story would be the same. What’s more, the viewer would have to rely on the characters themselves to draw them into the story and not just the collective subconscious pain we as a country and audience associate with September 2001. There’s an honest film somewhere inside Reign Over Me; I just wish I could’ve seen it.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Shooter | Last Mimzy, The



Comments

Alan eventually becomes attached enough to want to save Charlie, or seem him get some help

Seem him?? I am intrigued by this movie since I love Don Cheadle (the best part of the Ocean's series. Most likely it will have to wait until the DVD is released for it to enjoy my company.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at March 23, 2007 8:13 PM

I just finished watching 50 first dates.

Posted by: Sarah at March 23, 2007 9:37 PM

I don't understand how the idea of growing apart from someone for no reason frustrates you pajiba critics so much. To me it seems something very common and believable, not requiring any reason or explanation. Just picking up a few classes on Anthropology in college I've had to sit through countless lectures on the 7-year itch and arguments against monogamous lifestyles. And as for discussing the event of 9-11 although i haven't seen the movie would of been an easy fit into the movie? was it just lazy writting and directing? or did the story not allow for it to fit in any place and if so was the route the story was taken its problem?

Posted by: Jack at March 23, 2007 9:59 PM

Don Cheadle, why won't you love me? Be my baby daddy? Alas, your heart is with another, lucky bitch.

I'll watch Don read a Chinese restaurant menu, but I hate Adam Chandler with the fire of a thousand suns. Thus, I cannot watch this. Sounds like I'm not missing much.

Posted by: Daphne at March 23, 2007 10:01 PM

and when i say it i'm referring to the discussion of 9-11 you said was left out, sorry.

Posted by: Jack at March 23, 2007 10:02 PM

Daphne-I hate Adam Chandler too but he is a character on All My Children. I think you were referring to Adam Sandler who is actually in this movie. Sorry, AMC is one of my favorite soaps so I had to say something when I saw the name.

Posted by: jmurae at March 23, 2007 11:07 PM

I just saw the movie, and it moved me. I'm still a bit teary. Your criticism of not really "using" 9/11 didn't matter, in my opinion. The movie was about how very sad things can happen in our lives to any one of us and how truly hard it is to recover from them. I liked the fact that the movie was about the person, not the event.

Also, this is one of the few movies I've seen where the "crazy person" isn't treated like the stereotypical weirdo, and where the "cut and paste answer" of putting a grieving person into a canned treatment program is challenged. And, it made Don Cheadle's character recognize that you shouldn't drift through life because you can lose what you love, but don't really appreciate, at any time.

Yes it wasn't the best movie ever made, and the crazy woman plotline was kind of silly, but it was very touching and messy and human.

If you see this movie and it makes you hug your loved ones a little tighter for a few days, what's wrong that? I'll take this flawed story over a movie like "The Departed" any day. (I'm still upset that this horrible piece of crap won Best Picture.)

Posted by: Suzeet at March 23, 2007 11:21 PM

Daphne-I hate Adam Chandler too but he is a character on All My Children. I think you were referring to Adam Sandler who is actually in this movie. Sorry, AMC is one of my favorite soaps so I had to say something when I saw the name.

LOL. Thank you for setting me straight. And making sure that my vitriol is directed to the appropriate person! My apologies for inadvertently offending Mr. Chandler from AMC.

Posted by: Daphne at March 23, 2007 11:26 PM

Must this story have a political angle for it to be "honest" at all? I haven't seen it, so you might be right. I question the need for a "sprinboard" into a discussion of modern politics.

Might it be enough for the filmmaker to allow us to bring our own Sept. 11 baggage into the theater, and frame the story with that, instead of being beaten over the head with the director's politics?

Posted by: pr9000 at March 23, 2007 11:29 PM

ah, it was "springboard," not a "sprinboard" ...

Posted by: pr9000 at March 23, 2007 11:30 PM

Might it be enough for the filmmaker to allow us to bring our own Sept. 11 baggage into the theater, and frame the story with that, instead of being beaten over the head with the director's politics?


Or might it be shamelessly manipulative? Film can be art, but first and foremost they are profitable mass entertainment. September 11 is still not fit fodder for entertainment. A gunman would have done just fine, except it would have made this film smell even more like what I suspect it is: a *Fisher King* retread.

Posted by: Erin at March 23, 2007 11:42 PM

I literally laughed out loud reading Anthony Lane's review of this flick for New Yorker when I came to the part about Liv Tyler playing a psychiatrist. Ditto the part about Saffron Burrows having the hots for Don Cheadle. But, god, even though I actually liked Sandler in "Spanglish", "The Wedding Singer", and "50 First Dates", I can't accept him as a grieving father of three -- especially with that ragamuffin hairdo he's sporting. John Cusack in the same role: yes. Cusack does melancholy beautifully. Sandler I just want slap his wig off.

Posted by: Matt at March 24, 2007 12:01 AM

I can barely continue to live happily in a world that would place the super-talented Don Cheadle in any movie, regardless of topic, with one Adam Sandler.

Mouse should know how to take care of Sandler, quickly & efficiently.

Posted by: ErosLane at March 24, 2007 1:04 AM

Despite the fact that I hated Binder's last film (The Upside of Anger, which was trivial, manipulative crap) I'll see this one b/c I was really looking forward to it, and I was pleasantly surprised by Adam Sandler's role in Spanglish; a movie that didn't get enough recognition, IMO. And I'll listen to Don Cheadle read a phone book. LOL.

No mention of Donald Sutherland in your review, which is odd. I take it that means one of 2 things: he or the role sucked, or he wasn't in enough of the film to really garner a mention.

Posted by: Brie at March 24, 2007 1:06 AM

[i] Also, this is one of the few movies I've seen where the "crazy person" isn't treated like the stereotypical weirdo, and where the "cut and paste answer" of putting a grieving person into a canned treatment program is challenged. [/i]

How about "The Fisher King?" That deals with both. So does "A Clockwork Orange" depending on your viewpoint of "crazy" and "canned treatment program." Other movies dealing with "canned treatment programs" include "28 Days," "The Prince of Tides," "The Watcher" and "Analyze This" (not that I recommend any movie with Sandra Bullock in it). Actually, if you type the word "psychiatrist" into key plot words in IMDB you'll find 451 movies.

Posted by: Betty at March 24, 2007 2:38 AM

Haven't seen the movie, but, being a gamer, I felt I should point out that 'Shadow of the Colossus' might actually be worthwhile; most of the game is about a guy bargining with the gods to bring his girlfriend back from the dead, in the end though (spoiler?) he pretty much gets screwed over by everyone. She comes back, but not before he's destroyed; nothing can go back to the way it was, being the point. Very fairy tale.

Ironically the game is probably better than this movie, but I just wanted to point out there might be a deeper meaning to its inclusion. Or it could be a shallow art game reference, kind of like those indie songs that sell certain types of movies. Wee, pessimissim.

Posted by: Mango.Miasma at March 24, 2007 3:29 AM

I felt I should point out that 'Shadow of the Colossus' might actually be worthwhile;

Um, it's a bit more than just worthwhile. Easily one of the best games of the last few years. I was surprised to see it here, of all places, esp. considering its plot. I wonder if it was just coincidence or if there's a gamer among the writing staff.

I also liked the "The Upside of Anger." I can't really call a movie manipulative when I spend over half of it loathing the protagonist I'm supposed to be rooting for.

Posted by: twig at March 24, 2007 9:38 AM

Sandler looks like Bob Dylan or something in this movie...

Posted by: this is all I can possibly contribute! at March 24, 2007 12:53 PM

I was surprised to see no mention of the ending of the movie in your review, because I thought it deserved to ripped apart as only Pajiba knows how. I thought the first 90 minutes or so were decent, but as soon as we moved into the courtroom the movie changed completely. (And Brie, you're right - Donald Sutherland's only in the movie for 10 minutes or so.) It felt like the writing had changed, and people were doing horrible, horrible things to Charlie and each other without any motivation at all. Not to mention, that's not how family court works. I also hate the antagonistic attitude to having Charlie committed. It's for his own good; this isn't One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest here. The ending just got me really angry.

Posted by: Sarah at March 24, 2007 1:15 PM

Just wanted to reinforce the Shadow of the Colossus sentiments. Its one of the few games that I can honestly call 'art' with a straight face.

Posted by: madams at March 24, 2007 1:29 PM

Ummm, Sarah? Ya think there's a reason Dan didn't bring up the ending?

Posted by: dirty at March 24, 2007 2:14 PM

Madams;

Ever play 'Ico'? Same company. Costs about $5 bucks used at any game store. Same ambiance. Utterly cool.

Posted by: twig at March 24, 2007 4:29 PM

Twig:

Ico was another one of those games I was talking about when I said "one of the few." Beautiful game. And very sad at some points too.

Posted by: madams at March 24, 2007 6:11 PM

No way, Daniel. This movie was absolutely heartfelt and touching. And I agree with Jack on how ridiculous it is that Pajiba critics get so upset over how people drift apart for no reason. It happens all the time in almost everyone's lives. And I thought Sandler's performance was amazing. I was blown away by this movie, and I knew I would be. I just didn't expect a "Holy crap, TMNT was great!" review and this got a "Enh, mediocre?" Not what I expected from you, Pajiba. Shame.

Posted by: Kim at March 24, 2007 6:46 PM

Sandler looks JUST like bob dylan in this, when I first saw previews I thought it was Dylan for a minute.
i love dylan..

Posted by: rdsf at March 24, 2007 7:33 PM

adam sandler , billy crystal,robin williams, chris rock, two common threads , the second thread is all of thier movies suck balls . heartfelt and touching code for chick flick. yuk

Posted by: pasadenamike at March 24, 2007 7:41 PM

I just don't "buy" Sandler as an actor, I find him very unconvincing no matter the role.

Posted by: Omar at March 24, 2007 8:37 PM

dirty

Ummm, Sarah? Ya think there's a reason Dan didn't bring up the ending?


Yeah, I know. But it merits discussion, even without spoiling the end. I thought I tried hard not to give out any spoilers while still discussing it.

Posted by: Sarah at March 25, 2007 10:49 AM

Am I alone in having absolutely detested "Spanglish" and everybody in it? Dear God, I hated that movie.

Posted by: Samantha T at March 25, 2007 2:46 PM

Samantha T, I usually agree with you, but we must part ways on this one. I really liked Spanglish, but only because of Paz Vega. And in spite of Adam Sandler. I have no idea what Flor saw in whoever Sandler's character was in the movie. Also, I regard Paz as the rich man's Penelope Cruz, so I'm admittedly biased.

Posted by: Daphne at March 25, 2007 3:26 PM

Daphne, I regret this parting of ways, but can forgive you, if only because you hated Sandler in it. I will never, ever understand choosing this dude for any dramatic role.

Posted by: Samantha T at March 25, 2007 5:48 PM

Gracias, Samantha T. Alas, we come together again, as I, too, stand in bewilderment at the fact that the guy has been cast for any dramatic role, let alone three. Also, I haven't seen Carrey's latest film (and don't plan to), but I actually believe that he has a higher propensity for drama than Sandler ever had. I assume that's an unpopular opinion in these parts.

Posted by: Daphne at March 25, 2007 6:13 PM

I didn't love Spanglish, but I didn't hate it either, and I think it helped prove that Sandler could be a good dramatic actor. His relationship with his daughter (a good little actress in her own right)was well-played and touching, reminding me of my relationship with my dad.

But I'm biased because....(secret shame coming.....wait for it.....wait for it....)I used to be a Sandler fan, and still have a bit of a soft spot for him. Mind you, he's a lot less funny to me since I graduated and stopped smoking blunts, but I can't bring myself to hate him.

Posted by: MaiGirl at March 25, 2007 9:25 PM

I didn't see the movie..although I enjoyed Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love and wanted him to do amazing in this movie.

The one thing I do want to say is this: love him or hate him, I've read in multiple places that Adam Sandler donated his entire salary from this movie to what I believe is a 9/11 charity....

Posted by: Nat at March 26, 2007 10:46 AM

I'd just like to say Shadow of the Colossus was an awesome game. And sad.

Posted by: Squints at March 26, 2007 2:33 PM

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person to probably appreciate that A)they used a real video game rather than just making one up and using stock Donkey Kong-esque sound effects, B)the game content itself actually was metaphorically tied into the story, C)it's a great fucking game to begin with, and it wasn't some kind of lame product placement. (Weirdly enough there's no PS2 in the movie, I guess for Sony they didn't want to remind people it still exists?)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 27, 2007 1:44 AM

"But if drama thrives on honesty, then Sandler's most honest work so far has been in The Wedding Singer, which required him not to do a goofy voice (most of the time, anyway) or wear a wig but to fall in love, and to win the audience's sympathy by portraying a realistic character going through something real."

The parenthesis comment made this paragraph unreadable on first read because it disrupted the flow and order of an already complicated sentence.

Posted by: Daeyeth at March 27, 2007 2:55 AM

I thought this film was brilliant. Having dealt with the loss of loved ones, I was stunned by the depiction of the profound devastation to a person's life that death brings.

I remember after watching "Farhenheit 9/11" that people weren't talking about the two moments I found most powerful. There was a woman who wept for her lost husband and another for a lost son with the Capitol in the background. Loss. Pain. Devastation. On a personal level. I think that's the "untold" story of 9/11. Binder does the best possible thing by not bringing his politics to the fore. He treats 9/11 as what it is, an enormously painful wound that is as much a part of our national life as the air we breathe.

People died. People were hurt. One of those "people" was Charlie Fineman. And I thought Mike Binder told his story beautifully.

Posted by: Orlando at March 27, 2007 5:42 PM

Erin and Betty, I too thought immediately of "The Fisher King" after reading the first few paragraphs of this review.

Posted by: Lilly at March 27, 2007 7:32 PM

Don Cheadle is one the best actors in the industry today, and I respect and admire his work, but...how do I say this? I love Adam Sandler. It's an illness.
I never saw anything Sandler did prior to the Wedding Singer (Happy Gilmore, Water Boy, that kind of crap). I thought he did quite well in Punch Drunk Love, and although Spanglish wasn't very good, I loved him in it. I know! I'm sick!
I detested Upside of Anger, which is the why I am reluctant to see Reign Over Me.
But because of my love for Don and Adam I may reconsider.

Posted by: Fabiola at March 27, 2007 7:43 PM

I found myself somewhat frustrated by this review. I haven't seen the movie, and it will have to wait til I can rent it (I have been to the theatre twice in over two years) but I'm basing my opinion of things on this review. First of all, I am one of the last people to succumb to cheap manipulations in a movie. I hate em.
Now, it really bothers me that you would say you feel like the use of 9/11 in this movie was nothing more than a manipulation, as it could have been replaced by any other event and nothing in the movie would have changed. It bothers me that you feel that the use of 9/11 as an event in a character's life requires the director to get political, or dish out social commentary, or anything else. In fact, it more than bothers me. I think it's utter bull.
First of all, from what I understand, this is a movie about grief. Not politics, not terrorism, not the vast social implications of a large disaster-- it's about this one guy's grief.
I believe that the process of grieving is going to be different for a person who lost loved ones to the events of 9/11, than for someone who lost their loved ones to a gunman at a bank, or a car crash, drunk driver, serial killer, etc etc. Here's why.

I remember all that "The day the Eagle cried" stuff. America got it's heart broken, the entire country, the -entire country- grieved. I remember that day, everyone was dazed, confused, at a complete loss.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone whose family died in a car crash. Now put yourself in the shoes of someone who lost their family to an event that the entire country, possibly even the world, felt inclined to suffer for. There's a difference in how you're going to feel. No, the grief won't be greater in one or the other-- what I am saying is that the grieving process is going to be different.
Grief is a highly personal thing. Imagine you lost your family and not only all your friends, but the entire country, is there grieving for this traumatic event, as if it's their personal loss too. Your own grief might get lost in the sheer magnitude of emotion around you. I imagine it goes down quite differently, when you have this consciousness that the entire nation is feeling what you're feeling.
But at the same time, they're not are they? In the 5+ years since it happened, I have not met a single person who even knew anyone who died that day. I'm not in New York but I am in the same country, the same country where everyone claimed to be personally and profoundly affected by 9/11. The fact is, if I had lost my family that day, I would have a very hard time dealing with the grief because of the people around me. The people who didn't know anyone who died, but who want to come and commiserate with me, mourn with me, tell me how sorry they are. I'd find it hard to deal with the -constant- politicking about that day. How can I deal with my grief with all of that going on?

In short, to grieve, one needs a level of emotional privacy that will be hard to come by for the families of the victims of an event which had such huge consequences, which touched so many people. So, for 9/11 to be the event which caused this trauma in Sandler's character's life, for it to be something that he is having a very difficult time overcoming-- that adds a level of resonance to the film that makes me want to see it. It doesn't make the tragedy of his loss any more profound than if it had been a car accident, but it makes the grieving process more profound.
I didn't watch "World Trade Center" or the other movies about 9/11. This one, about one man's attempts to come to grief with the events, with how it touched him -personally-, not how it touched America-- this one I want to see.

Posted by: Ari at March 28, 2007 12:16 AM

I saw this movie last night. I can't stop thinking about it. I live in New York. I worked two blocks from the World Trade Center. This movie is NOT about dealing with September 11, 2001, it is about dealing with loss. Loss, of loved ones, loss of self, loss of ideals. Everyone in this country felt the extreme loss of September 11, and by using it Mike Binder opens a window through which most people can contemplate their own losses, no matter the magnitude. There was no reason to comment on it politically, it was simply an event that broke this man's life, and the point of the film was his slow crawl back to the world, not "a post 9-11 world" but simply a world where people still live, and love and feel and care for each other.
It moved me.

Posted by: redkitten at March 28, 2007 10:15 AM

Thank you, Ari, for saying what I was thinking, but in a much better way than I ever could.

And now moving on...
(Weirdly enough there's no PS2 in the movie, I guess for Sony they didn't want to remind people it still exists?)

Why would that be, Anonymous? Because they want people to focus on the PS3 instead? Not likely. They are making more money off the PS2 and PS2 games than they are on PS3. So it doesn't make any sense for them to not want to remind people it exists.
When Apple releases the iPhone, will they want to stop reminding people about the iPod? Absolutely not, because the iPod will still make them money.

Posted by: MDA at March 28, 2007 2:53 PM

I just saw this movie and was tempted to ask for my money back. The story line was completely unbelievable. Why would Don Cheadle's character, Alan care so much about this guy Charlie? He's mean, nasty, disrespectful, and in general unlikeable. I'm sorry, but this would never happen in real life. I think the story would have worked better if we could have been introduced to Sandler's character before his wife and children were killed in the 9/11 tragedy. I'm sure he was a wonderful person. But we were left with character that was torn to shreads. I think this movie failed to deliver the type of emotion behind such a tragedy. Sandler should probably stick to comedies. Perhaps Binder will consider another profession. The Upside of Anger was another weak movie. Again, it was hard to feel for characters that were so annoying. I couldn't stand the mother just as I couldn't stand Charlie in this movie. Binder needs to make his characters more likable if he wants to generate sympathy from viewers. In both cases, I left the theater wondering why did a spend money and time on such awful movies. It's nice to see African Americans not performing the stereotypical roles, I applaud Binder on his efforts here. However, please present believable story lines. There is no way, Alan, a successful dentist with a beautiful wife, would have put his own family on the back burner for Charlie, a hope less, helpless victim of the 9/11 tragedy. This would have never happened. I wish directors would make believable plots. Save this stuff for the Monday night movie on CBS or NBS.

Posted by: RN at April 1, 2007 10:45 PM

RN, I hate to say but your comment makes you sound like you lack life experience. I have com across numerous stories of people who put their lives, their families, and everything else on hold for the sake of 'rescuing' one other person, or numerous other causes. Maybe you wouldn't do this, but there are plenty of people who would/have done that sort of thing.

Posted by: Ari at April 15, 2007 6:27 PM