Rating: 
Summary: A movie resonant with truth
Review: I am dissapointed by movies, as a general rule. Few movies, even independent ones, dare to speak about anything but the obvious. Some movies have great acting and visual style. Others have a structure that enhance the story and themes, or explore uncommonly profound themes. It's rare that one finds all of these things together in one mind-blowing film. The Sweet Hereafter is one such mindblowing film. It is about a terrible bus accident that kills 15 children, although we only see it from afar, and halfway into the movie - the accident is a pivotal temporal point but not the focus. The focus is on the actions surrounding that accident, and what they tell us. All the while, the story is not told in chronological order, but more or less in thematical order. Past, present and future are shuffled effortlessly, because the accident is our anchor to the story. The story concerns many people, but especially one Mitchell Stephens, played by Ian Holm, as a lawyer hired by the Walkers (one of the victimized families) to start a class action lawsuit. He hops from family to family, from evidence to evidence, in increasingly manipulative attempts to rally town inhabitants to his cause, while the sordid secrets of the community threaten to derail him at every turn. A survivor, Nicole, is now handicapped and holds an important testimony. Ian Holm never had a leading role before this movie. Watching his incredible performance, I want to scream bloody murder. He's perfect. That this guy can't get a leading role is mind-bogglingly insane. The other actors, though less well-known, don't unbalance the movie at all. At first, it seems that the movie is a simple left-right conflict, with the hypocrite and conniving community on one hand, and the profiteering lawyer from the big city on the other hand. And it seems that most critics have interpreted it as such, even taking position for one or the other when no such bias is apparent in the movie. I think that says more about their statist political views than it says about the movie. The subtextual richness of this movie is stunning. Using the story of "The Pied Piper of Hamelin", it compares Stephens' cynical crusade to channel the parents' anger, as well as the independence-destroying authority of Nicole's father, to the Pied Piper story. In essence, they are leading people to more disaster, the former social and the latter psychological. Stephens' blatant use of invented narrative to coax parents into joining his case brings up the evil uses of storytelling in our society. We see Stephens' desire to lose himself in his case and the town around him, we assume because of her daughter's drug addiction, masterfully played by Iam Holm. The question of responsibility comes up repeatedly, as people's desire to find a guilty party blinds them to the fact that some things are simply accidents. Some of these themes find great resonance in today's lawsuit frenzies used to undermine capitalism. If there is one thing I find lacking in the movie, it is a lack of moral center. Nicole does provide us with a possibly moral action at the end of the movie, which I will not reveal, but the rest of the movie is very morally bleak from a rational perspective. It is not that I found it depressing, but simply morally bleak. Then again, that is what reality is like - as most people lack such moral center and desire to do good, messes like this one are common. The movie was directed by Atom Egoyan, a Canadian director. I'm not a big fan of his, and I didn't like Exotica, but he has to be good to have a movie like this in him. Perhaps the fact that he didn't create this world has something to do with it. As for the movie being Canadian, it is set in British Columbia, and the most obvious indicator of this is that there is no media circus surrounding the whole affair. But written as a fable-like story, it could be set in a great number of places. It is not the accident itself which resonates with the viewer, or the town, but the truth of the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: a gripping movie from Egoyan
Review: Atom Egoyan basically shows you the lives of the people that were struck down from a horrible accident, the accident being the most shocking and disturbing part in the movie when a school bus falls over the side of a snowy cliff full of kids and then it slides onto the ice, cracking the ice and it falling in. some children died. emotions run array. Ian Holm in one of his best is an attorney who has to deal with his own problems with his rebel teenaged daughter who fancys drugs and sex. Bruce Greenwood and Sarah Polley are riveting also in supporting roles. one of 1997's best.
Rating:
Summary: Why Nicole lied
Review: The Sweet Hereafter is one of the most beautiful movies ever made. After watching it several times the past six years I understand it was about reconciliation, and forgiveness, similar to the "illusion vrs reality" message of his other great movie Exotica. Nicole knew that Billy Ansel had improper relations with his eventual wife while she was still a young teenager. She understood this the night before the accident when Billy gave her the sweater which his deceased wife had "grown out of". By lying Nicole saved Billy from the exposure a trial would bring (Nicole was wearing the sweater during the accident). At the same time she was indirectly coming to terms with (forgiving) what her father had done to her. Notice Nicole's teary eyes when she looks at Billy the night he visits to talk her parents out of continuing with the lawsuit. The sweater was the key to the movie. Forgiveness is one of the most "human" experiences a person can have, and cuts to the very soul even though you may not recognize why the movie is affecting you that way. This movie is a must see for our messed up (but never hopeless) world. Forgiveness is redemption.
Rating:
Summary: Best of the Best
Review: People who hate this movie are afraid of the places in themselves this movie may touch. Very SAD!!
Rating: 
Summary: Not a movie deep meaning that it aspires to be.
Review: Perhaps I am a bad person for not being moved by "The Sweet Hereafter". The overwhelming majority of Amazon.com reviewers would seem to indicate this. The unanimous acclaim heaped upon it by respected film critics would also seem to support that theory. However, I must stand by my initial reactions to seeing this movie, which have not lessened in the time since. On some levels, "The Sweet Hereafter" just fails to generate any true emotion and empathy for the characters involved in coping with the horrible tragedy of the death of 14 young children in school bus accident. On other levels, it generates the wrong kinds of emotions when watching how these characters cope with the tragedy while also revealing the dark secrets they held prior to this life-changing event.
The story centers on a lawyer (played by Ian Holm) who has journeyed to this small town to capitalize on the grief of the bereaved parents by involving them in a class-action lawsuit against a villain that seems not to exist. This terrible accident was just that, an accident. "The Sweet Hereafter" follows the lawyer as he coerces the parents to go along with this lawsuit while intercutting scenes dealing with the lawyer's own personal failures as a father and scenes dealing with the clandestine lives of the townspeople. This would seem to have the makings of a truly powerful film. Certainly, such respected film critics as Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli see it as such. Unfortunately, it just doesn't pan out that way for me. Holm's lawyer seems too cold and distant to truly understand the plight of the townspeople or even that of his own daughter. I suppose that's the point, but in order to connect with the movie, one needs to connect with him, as he is the central protagonist. It just doesn't happen here.
However, the more I think about this movie, though, the more I believe my disconnect may not be caused by Holm's performance, but rather by the revulsion I felt for inappropriate handling of some truly horrific behaviors. The first, most obvious, of these is the incest between a young girl named Nicole (who is also central to the story) and here father. It's hinted at early and then shown as a revolting display of intimacy, complete with candles and romantic setting. It's set up like a love scene from most romantic movies, not as some dirty, immoral, horrible act by a depraved parent against an unwitting child. To treat it is as such distracts the viewer from the message that the movie is trying to make. Then, to barely even tangentially reference this act again can only serve to anger the viewer even more. There was no reason for this subplot to be in this movie. It angers me to no end how poorly it was used since they did decide to have it in the movie. Another area of inappropriateness, which is never touched on at all, is how a set of 'hippie' parents raised there adopted son, Bear, who was one of the children lost in the accident. Attention to details around their house, which can be seen when the lawyer visits them, reveals some inappropriate photo portraits of their son. This, coupled with an earlier scene where Bear is being sent off to school with an art project that looks like it was inspired by Robert Mapplethorpe, makes one wonder what kind of dark secrets may lurk in that family's past. Of course, aside from a painful visit by the lawyer, these characters are never dealt with again.
The situation with Bear has seemed to go largely unnoticed by critics and customers alike, but the atrocious predicament of Nicole's life has been cited by many as one of the truly gripping aspects of this film. She supposedly transitions from a sweet and innocent child before the accident (incest aside) to a bitter and vindictive person afterwards (as she lost use of her legs as a result). As I watched, I noticed very little difference between the before and after emotions of Nicole. She was little more withdrawn, which is understandable, but there is none of this gripping emotion in her that other critics seem to have seen. They also tend to gloss over the treatment of the incest storyline.
There are places where this movie could have been so much more than it was and other places where it should have been much less than it proved to be. The attempt at making something profound gets this movie two stars, but the failure to generate real empathy for the characters and ham-handed treatment of some truly abominable actions are what keep this movie from being recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A MOVING STORY, SKILLFULLY FILMED¿
Review: ...and I must say I'm much more pleased with Egoyan's conversion of Russell Banks' novel to the screen than I was with his previous effort on William Trevor's FELICIA'S JOURNEY. This time out, the director has taken fewer liberties with the original - and the changes/additions he has made (most notably the inclusion of Robert Browning's poem 'The pied piper of Hamelin' as a metaphor) are respectful to the novel's theme and mood, and very effective. Ian Holm is outstanding as lawyer Mitchell Stephens, coming into a small town in the wake of a tragic school bus accident to try to rally the grieving survivors into a group lawsuit. The residents are very suspicious of him, leery of his motives - some are resentful and even aggressive towards him, still stinging from their sorrow and loss, feeling a need to lash out at something - anything - in their pain. He makes a nice target. Stephens has problems of his own - mainly, a drug-addicted, rebellious daughter who calls him only when she needs money. Trying to balance his personal woes with his career has obviously taken a toll on him, both physically and emotionally. Dedicated to the task at hand - as he sees his work - he sets about attempting to uncover the facts surrounding the accident. This is where one of the film's central themes comes into play - what exactly is the truth? As we can see in this case, it depends on who's telling the story. One of the unique aspects of Banks' original novel - preserved nicely in the screenplay - is the viewing of the events from four different angles. Each person remembers and sees things in a different way, reflected not only in their position at the time of the accident, but by events and emotions at play within their own lives. This is shown most poignantly, I think, in the part of the story that deals with Nicole, a high school girl who dreams of becoming a singing star. Left paralyzed by the accident, she feels that her dreams of her career - and her life - have been shattered. She reevaluates the relationship she has with her father - and the anger and pain that surfaces find their release in one of the film's most electrifying moments. Sarah Polley portrays this young woman with sensitivity and skill - she is completely honest and believable in her role. Egoyan's screenplay tells Banks' story well - the film is intelligent and entertaining, and gives the audience much to think about: the meaning of the 'truth' as viewed from different angles, as well as the methods by which humans deal with pain, loss, suffering and love. For another fine adaptation of a Russell Banks novel, check out AFFLICTION, directed by Paul Schrader, starring Nick Nolte, Sissy Spacek and James Coburn.
Rating:
Summary: Rare & Revelatory Cinema
Review: In the first scene Ian Holm is on his way to the town where the bus "accident" occurred. En route to the town where he plans to investigate the "accident" and file a claim on behalf of those families who lost loved ones Ian Holms character has an "accident" of his own--his car gets stuck in a car wash. Its a fitting beginning. Later Ian Holm claims he does not believe there is any such thing as accidents--claims he doesn't understand the meaning of the word. For a class action lawyer there must be someone to blame, otherwise theres no one to sue. From the onset we suspect this lawyer who has dire family troubles of his own is not approaching the bus "tragedy" (as he later calls it) with a clear head. In fact as the film progresses he too realizes that he is evading his own grief and sense of helplessness by inventing a mystery which will allow others to evade their own grief and helplessness. He claims he wants to help them direct their anger over what happened but what he is offering that is so hard to resist for many of the famlies is some sense of control over their lives again. And individually thats what many of the characters do--newly awoken by tragedy they turn their lives around. Ian Holm is a great character and there are many great characters in this film but there is one character who really steals the show for me and thats one of the survivors, a blonde teenage girl who proves very wise for her years. In the early goings as Ian Holm interviews different families and attempts to gain their trust we get little glimpses of the different ways different individuals deal with their loss and their grief. Some of these meetings are a little stagey as in the meeting with the hotel owners who are obviously having marital problems and who openly fight in Holms presence. And some ring a little false as is the case with the hippie couple who at first want nothing to do with a lawsuit but after a 5 minute conversation are asking where to sign. Some of these interview scenes are a little forced and a little rushed but once we meet the blonde teen who is a singer in a band and become aware of her story the film really takes off. Egoyan fills us in on the various character story lines in extended flashbacks as the bus picks up each child on the morning of the day which we all know will lead up to a terrible event and the blonde teens storyline is by far the most interesting. In one of these flashbacks she is babysitting and she reads the tale of the pied piper. And throughout the film her reading of the tale is heard in voiceover and the words gain an ever increasing poignancy and resonance, the words "the sweet hereafter" are taken from that story. This young actress really becomes the backbone of the movie. Ian Holms character is emotionally feeble and becomes ever more feeble and vulnerable as he reveals his story to another young blonde in one of the films forward time shifts. But its that young singer who survives the incident who makes her own judgement and provides the proper perspective with which to view not only the incident but human failings in general. Its her voice which we hear reading the pied piper and its her integrity and instinct to move forward that we are left with. She a literal survivor in more than one way proves the perfect embodiment of both the tragedy and the hope that despite all manner of "incidents" life can and will go on. It is fitting that she is a singer for layered within the film are songs which express the sadness of the story, but also those songs are full of a sustaining kind of power and beauty. Music provides the film with its most poignant lament and as the film goes on and different characters go through a renascence of their own the music acquires a redemptive aspect as well.
Rating:
Summary: A pretty good movie after I let it sink in
Review: My initial reaction to this movie was below what I eventually rated it. It wasn't until later that the meaning hit me and I'm not sure that I got the meaning that may have been intended. I did not read the book...I never heard of the book, or the movie for that matter. I noticed it in the book "The New York Times Guide to the 1000 Best Movies Ever Made" and then I saw it on the video rental shelves. The liner notes suggested it to be a mystery. That's not what I would categorize it as. It's more of a psyco-drama and it is difficult to follow because it jumps around in time and place. That concept may have made it a better film overall but it may turn off a lot of viewers who don't want to have to work to follow the story line. We know from the start that there has been a terrible accident involving a school bus. We see much of the story through the eyes of a lawyer who comes to town to "help". This character immediately put me on edge because he kept speaking of the need to sue those at fault even though there was no apparent "fault" that ocurred. The movie did a good job of keeping the viewers in the dark and searching for truth. The actual bus accident was not shown until past the midway point in the movie. That scene was a cinematic marvel. The viewer knows by this point that some kids died; but how many? They have seen the damaged bus but it gave the appearance that many may have survived. They have seen the bus driver interviewed by the lawyer and, except for a neck brace, she seemed to have made it without any outward signs of injury. We watch the scene of the accident taking place and, as it unfolds, we remain in doubt until reality slowly and defintitely sinks in. The story ends with one of the survivors lying to effectuate an end to the lawyer's pursuit of riches. My initial reaction was that there was way too much lawyer and way too much of the lawyer's ongoing problem with his drug-addict daughter. He may have come off helpful to some viewers but, to me, he seemed too sure that someone should be sued without having any evidence that anyone was "at fault" for anything. His attitude seemed to be, "People died so someone is going to pay." The lives of the people seemed to simulate Peyton Place at times. I had a couple of interuptions during the movie so I may have missed a scene of two of importance. (It's hard to say, there seemed so many scenes that really weren't important). Ultimately it was up to one person to bring down the legal "house of cards". This was done with an apparent lie and the movie ended (as did the idea of a lawsuit) shortly thereafter. As the movie was sinking in the next day, I realized that this character created one simple lie in order to eliminate the multitude of lies, inuendos, and legal chicanery that would have eventually destroyed their whole community. The brief imagery of incest earlier in the movie may have served more as a metaphor to such a potential upheaval in the community than as an explanation of why the lie was uttered. Once that idea found its' way into my head, I suddenly realized that I DID enjoy the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Bittersweet rather than sweet
Review: I was a little hesitant to see this movie, because all I was told about it was that it was heart-wrenching...and it is, but it's absolutely worth it. A few reviewers called this film pretentious, and I really disagree with that. I feel as though this is, at its heart, a very simple tale (with multiple subplots), and I loved the parallels with the tale of the Pied Piper. All of the actors, particularly Sarah Polley, are phenomenal. Some reviewers also claimed this glamorized incest. I absolutely disagree, although I could see how this could be true from a very superficial viewpoint. Clearly, Nicole's anger shows that she felt victimized. The "romantic" incest scene only underscores how very much of a victim she was, and was manipulated by her father to believe that she loved him in all possible ways. Pure psychological manipulation, and she retaliates in a similar fashion...because it is her only recourse, and she has learned from the master.
Rating: 
Summary: There's no "Zero Stars" Rating....
Review: ... which is what my vote would be. I did not see the DVD, but the version I did see on "Starz!" premium channel was exactly the same length listed on the IMDB website. However, I recorded it while I watched it because of all the rave reviews posted here,---I thought I'd be wanting to see it again and again(!),---so I went back over it carefully, replaying scenes over and over to make absolutely sure I was getting it all correctly... I was. But it wasn't! Is this a case where the rave-reviewers had all read the book and then didn't care whether the flick followed it meticulously? If so, I'm reviewing this here for those who did NOT read it first. It makes almost no sense at all, and the sense it does make left me feeling cheated. I'm left with so many questions that I don't even want answers to! O.K., so the little girl's father was porking her... so why did she turn around and ruin the poor busdriver's life? And what was Mitchell the lawyer after?????? WHAT "NEGLIGENCE?" WHO WAS HE GOING TO SUE???? Why? We SAW the accident! It was nobody's fault, unless you wanna say that parents are negligent for letting their kids ride around in motor vehicles (the school bus)....????? Why was the auto mechanic so upset???????????????? WHYYYYYYY!!!? And WHY, for heaven's sake, was the young father banging his daughter when he was married to a perfectly lovely woman????? The movie offers no answers. They're not there. Period. I don't know what the movie's about after two CAREFUL viewings and scores of rewindings.... I really tried!!! I'm sorry, but I'm 55 years old and own over 750 movies, ALL of which make perfect sense. So I doubt that this is all MY fault. I also have a 170 IQ. But I'm not clever enough to understand why perfectly rational seeming people would rave so highly about such a stinking mange-hound of a movie. There's a mystery here every bit as interesting as any UFO story, but it has nothing to do with a movie... ! Ugh. I'm not interested.
|
