Directed by Michel O. Scott and Rupert Isaacson
So, I walked out of this movie about an autistic boy and his parents who are trying to "heal" his disease thinking that I liked it. It was a well-put together documentary with some nice footage and an adequate amount of both interviews with medical professionals and the family that we're following.
But my fellow moviegoer despised it with a passion, saying that it was one of his least favorite movies of the year. As I was watching my next movie at the Newark Film Festival, I couldn't really stop thinking about this one and I slowly started to get angry about it...here's why...
Rowan is a six(?) year old boy who suffers from autism. His father, who loves horses, feels that Rowan is infinitely calmer when he is around horses and decides to take Rowan and his wife to Mongolia to (A) be around horses and (B) see some shamans who will maybe "heal" his son. The problem is (and this is even recognized by the parents at times in the movie) that this is really just a self-serving plan for the parents. The parents are pushing their agenda onto their son. Their guilt is seen as they're grasping for straws to find some healing power for their son. Who cares that when they get to Mongolia, Rowan is calmer while watching a tv, rather than when he's around horses? I feel like that dad could've easily said at any point in time, "You're getting on that damn horse, Rowan! We traveled all the way to Mongolia to ride these horses and we're gonna ride some frickin' horses!" The mother admits that Rowan's "attitudes" go up and down naturally, so why make this trip? In the end, Rowan is supposedly a much more even-keeled kid, but that also could be because that's the agenda that the documentarians were pushing.
While on imdb, it only lists Michel O. Scott as the director, wikipedia lists the Rowan's father as the director, too...and if that's the case, the agenda-pushing here is ridiculous. Even though the film looks good, I cannot help but think that the family was only pushing what they wanted the audience to see. And, although the father throws in a line or two to show that this trip was entirely self-serving for himself (even if it did have a somewhat beneficial result for their son), looking back on it, the movie is too manipulative for its own good.
But my fellow moviegoer despised it with a passion, saying that it was one of his least favorite movies of the year. As I was watching my next movie at the Newark Film Festival, I couldn't really stop thinking about this one and I slowly started to get angry about it...here's why...
Rowan is a six(?) year old boy who suffers from autism. His father, who loves horses, feels that Rowan is infinitely calmer when he is around horses and decides to take Rowan and his wife to Mongolia to (A) be around horses and (B) see some shamans who will maybe "heal" his son. The problem is (and this is even recognized by the parents at times in the movie) that this is really just a self-serving plan for the parents. The parents are pushing their agenda onto their son. Their guilt is seen as they're grasping for straws to find some healing power for their son. Who cares that when they get to Mongolia, Rowan is calmer while watching a tv, rather than when he's around horses? I feel like that dad could've easily said at any point in time, "You're getting on that damn horse, Rowan! We traveled all the way to Mongolia to ride these horses and we're gonna ride some frickin' horses!" The mother admits that Rowan's "attitudes" go up and down naturally, so why make this trip? In the end, Rowan is supposedly a much more even-keeled kid, but that also could be because that's the agenda that the documentarians were pushing.
While on imdb, it only lists Michel O. Scott as the director, wikipedia lists the Rowan's father as the director, too...and if that's the case, the agenda-pushing here is ridiculous. Even though the film looks good, I cannot help but think that the family was only pushing what they wanted the audience to see. And, although the father throws in a line or two to show that this trip was entirely self-serving for himself (even if it did have a somewhat beneficial result for their son), looking back on it, the movie is too manipulative for its own good.
The RyMickey Rating: D+
FYI...This is one of the few films at the Newark Film Festival that is being shown prior to it getting a limited release (I believe it opens in Philly in the next two weeks or so).
I think you just hate tards. For shame.
ReplyDeleteWasn't offensive enough for a response?
ReplyDeleteDarn.
Oh...I said something just as bad in the theater, so it's not that it wasn't offensive or too offensive, sir...
ReplyDelete"So, I walked out of this movie ......thinking that I liked it.
ReplyDeleteBut my fellow moviegoer despised it with a passion, saying that it was one of his least favorite movies of the year."
you are the WORST reviewer EVER. You changed your mind instantly when challenged. You are very weak. I've read a few other reviews from the Newark Festival that you wrote and you come across as bitter and childish.
Nope...you're challenging me into thinking that Keeping the Peace is a good movie...I'm not changing my mind on that one...
ReplyDeleteWhat I enjoy about watching movies is the debate that can occur after...it's entirely possible that someone mentions something that I hadn't noticed while watching the film.
And pot kettle black on the "bitter and childish" thing...
hahahaaa! I love it - it's as though I'm not in front of my computer but instead, just watching my stories.
ReplyDeleteand by my stories, I clearly don't mean -my- stories.
ReplyDelete