The Cider House Rules

Rating:
Summary: Superior Soaper
Review: Conservatives, Fundamentalist Christians, and Pro-Lifers will automatically dislike THE CIDER HOUSE RULES on principle. Although such individuals may couch their criticism in terms of script, actors, and production values, the cause for their dislike is the film's highly existentualistic tone re personal values, its pro-choice stance re abortion, and the fairly compelling argument it makes in favor of that position. Set during World War II, CIDER HOUSE is the story of a child named Homer(Tobey Maguire) raised in a Maine orphanage by stubborn but likeable Dr. Larch (Michael Caine), who trains Homer in medical arts. As Homer comes of age, however, he becomes increasingly unhappy with Dr. Larch's tight grip and extremely displeased with the fact that Dr. Larch also casually provides safe but highly illegal abortions to women who demand them. Consequently, Toby sets off to see the world--and finds himself working in an apple orchard, where he lives in "the cider house" with black seasonal farm workers.

There is a great deal to recommend this film. Although Tobey Maguire sometimes overplays the innocence of the character, his performance of the unworldly Homer is generally effective; the real stars of the film, however, are Michael Caine, who brings remarkable humanity to the difficult role of Dr. Larch, and Charlize Hallstrom, with whom Homer falls in love. The supporting cast--which includes Delroy Lindo, Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, and Erykah Badu--is quite fine. The cinematography is remarkably beautiful, and although not necessarily memorable in terms of dialogue the script is quite effective.

Still, the film tends to rely more upon mood than upon actual substance, and as such becomes increasingly predictable as the action progresses, and most viewers will know how the story will end by the time they reach the film's midway point; it also has a very leisurely feel that some viewers will read as slow. Although it forms the crux of the conflict between Homer and Dr. Larch, the issue of abortion is never really fully explored and is presented in a rather one-sided (although very effective) manner. Those expecting an intense, fast-paced drama will be disappointed, and as previously noted pro-life viewers will despise the film from the word go; even so, and in spite of its occasional failings, most viewers will find it thought-provoking, extremely touching, and quite memorable.

Rating:
Summary: Grossly over-rated ----- a marvel of shoddy storytelling
Review: Tobey Maguire is utterly annoying in this film, almost as annoying as he is in *Wonder Boys,* his performance is as morose and clueless here as it was there.

And to add insult to this heap o' injury, the exploration of the pros and cons of abortion in this film is naïve and juvenile at best (all the depth and understanding of college freshman debating the issue); and Tobey's treatment of the pregnant woman at the end was too pat. (Come to think of it, what wasn't too pat in this movie?)

This was a very poorly crafted story (it is, however, a film with lots of cinematic eye-candy), based on an over-rated book.

That said, this film is HIGHLY recommended --- super-duper, incredibly, stratospherically recommended --- to fans of Magnolia, The Green Mile, Wonder Boys and Shawshank Redemption. If you liked those movies, boy o boy are you in for a treat with this one. I guar-on-tee that you are gonna love this film (to be read as if spoken/written by Justin Wilson).

And if you weren't particularly taken in and duped by those modern day cinematic marvels (!), then PASS on this one.

Rating:
Summary: liberal junk
Review: A beautifully filmed but only adequately-acted movie oozing with pro-choice and maudlin romantic sentiments. Rightfully overlooked at the Oscars. Epitomizes most of the over-rated junk that has come out of Hollywood in the last four or so years, starting with Titanic, and including such melodramatic misguided claptrap as American Beauty, The Green Mile, Magnolia, and Wonder Boys.

This film is definitely a junker.

Rating:
Summary: Great Film (for those with open minds)
Review: 1.) It's interesting to note that some of the people who rated this film with 1-2 stars are pro-life, when this film is not entirely about abortion. The storyline presents us with romance, abortion, incest, and a boy on his journey to finding himself. It's a classic American story that touches on some issues, and yes, it does have a pro-choice theme. But, it does place a good argument on the table. Women who receive unsafe abortions will likely die, and many children are dumped into orphanages because they were not wanted. So, to those who are pro-life, I encourage you to give the film a chance. The best way to support your viewpoint is to know the argument of the opposition.
2.) So this film presents some questionable situations.....that's entertainment! Life isn't peachy, fair, or the way you want it to be...why not have films represent this??
3.) This movie is in my top ten favorite, if not #1! Just give it a chance....if you dare to have an open mind!

Rating:
Summary: If This Film Had Been Anti-Abortion...
Review: ...it NEVER could have been made, and it CERTAINLY never could have won an academy award. Those are the facts. Hollywood is swimming with liberal politics, it's no secret, and if you think they're above promoting a political agenda you are fooling yourselves.

Rating:
Summary: A pleasant little crowd-pleaser.
Review: Aspiring young doctor (Tobey Maguire) at orphanage wants to leave his job against the wishes of his father-like mentor (a pretty good Michael Caine) to "experience life" and go apple-picking. He encounters a woman in peril and uses his medical expertise to assist her. This film wasn't bad, but did it really deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Nah. Nevertheless, this film is well acted and nicely photographed despite its familiar storyline. There were better movies in 1999, but you can easily do worse than the Cider House Rules. Like a glass of chocolate milk, this film goes down easy.

Rating:
Summary: Not exactly pro-abortion propaganda, but.....
Review: ...I have a feeling that if The Cidar House Rules wasn't so out-and-out pro-abortion it wouldn't have gotten the positive attention it has. Tobey Maguire wasn't particularly compelling in the lead role, and the Oscar-winning performance by Michael Caine was good, but not among his best. The plot was emotionally manipulative in that the worst possible test case for abortion (incest) was used as the turning point for the protagonist's "conversion," when in reality only a tiny fraction of unwanted pregnancies are due to rape or incest. And any anti-abortion sentiments were given short shrift in the film.

When you add to these observations the rabid comments of some of the pro-abortion reviewers of the film (the one below mine, for instance) and the remarks made by John Irving at the Oscars, thanking Planned Parenthood and NARAL, it makes one think that there's more to this than just a good film that happens to have abortion as one of its subjects. What you have here is an average film being touted as a great one because it takes a politically correct stance (and a rather simplistic one, I might add) on a divisive issue.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful film
Review: Wonderful film with wonderful performances and a heartfelt screenplay by the author of the novel. Thank goodness women have a choice in this country...now if only more would fully understand that they have it. We might have less ignorance and less poverty in this country. Keep abortion legal!! Outlaw fundementalism!

Rating:
Summary: A wonderful book, a wonderful film.
Review: It disturbs me when people who have no idea of Irving's works and ideology dismiss a great film based on an even greater novel as "pro-abortion propoganda."

"The Cider House Rules" is not propoganda of any sort, nor is it pro-anything. It's a movie. It's also a book. Both mediums tell a story. Yes, the story does include bits about abortion, but is that all it's about? No. "The Cider House Rules" is a coming-of-age story about a young man who learns to shape his future. IT is about relationships, it is about love, it is about destiny. Abortion is only apart of this complex web of people and interaction; it is not IT.

Five stars for this magnificent film.

Rating:
Summary: an alternative view
Review: In a recent review, Roger Ebert wrote that The Cider House Rules is "all process and no destination". His two-star rating credited the film with "many charming sequences and an overall sense of intelligence", but found that these lacked relevance within a meaningful plot line. "What is the movie really about and where does it lead" was his rhetorical verdict.

This criticism suggests a narrow view of what makes a movie work. It reproduces a familiar Hollywood blockbuster model where, beneath the surface, characters and plots tend to work in predictable ways. For all their obvious strengths, these blockbuster heroes are essentially passive. They move because they are pushed and pulled. Their lot is to solve or deal with things imposed upon them by history, circumstance and a preconfigured soul. Whatever motivations they have--deep reasons for behaving in one way rather than another--are not their own but received from above, and explained neither to themselves nor to the audience, presumably because no explanation is necessary.

This passiveness may go unnoticed behind bold elements in the film, and behind trappings that make the characters seem masters of themselves. A film may intoxicate with over-the-top theatrics, mind-blowing special effects, and heady drama and romance, all calculated to leave us reeling rather than critical. Characters appear determined and courageous; hard-hitting but also tender; flawed, yet graced with a redemptive justice that wins the day and our sympathy in the end. But passive characters can never be strong willed, determined, powerful or original because they lack the inner source these conditions entail. Remove the distractions and we would see only clones, characters whose so-called inner drive and originality are really just surrogates for the same, monotonous ethical standpoint, itself completely unexamined by the character or by the audience. No one wonders why so many characters from different movies all think in the same ethical terms, make the same choices, have the same sense of justice, make, recognize and fix the same ethical mistakes. Have they all been talking to each other?

In a ratings-driven commercial environment, this singular vision is also dogmatic: it does not merely represent one idea but silences alternatives. The Cider House Rules apparently got bad press from Ebert because it doesn't fit a standard mold. Its hero, Homer Wells, is more than just a billboard for stereotypes; instead, he dares to be an active agent in his own destiny. If a cloistered childhood supplied an urge to leave home, neither he nor the audience knows any more than that when it happens; you might have seen it coming but you don't know where it's going. All we know, and all he knows, is that he wants to see the ocean. Such is the lot of someone driven from within in a world too large for comprehension. Unlike the kind of character above, you feel that any future is possible for Homer, and that the things he will learn are up for grabs. You feel that his own will and openness, as much as external circumstance, lead to the events that happen: his time on the apple orchard, his love affair, and his return home.

His love affair is with a married woman, but because Homer's discovery is genuine and not dictated by an installed moral program, the usual moral taboos don't kick in the same way. He is not a sinner who must repent or else be despised, but a learner who will come to reframe past events within a developing conscience and a growing foundation of experience, whatever that turns out to be. He also learns about contradiction, a real kind that potted characters never face. When Homer discovers his boss's incest, the audience witnesses the genuine paradox of someone for whom a consistent morality isn't worked out yet. Homer genuinely abhors the incest, but cannot answer the boss when confronted with his own affair with a married woman. He can only repeat that incest is wrong.

At that point the issue of abortion returns. Homer faces a decision to recognize his training and the oath it implies, and thus comes full circle as a character who now understands a balance between the lure of new discovery and responsibility to one's own past. This new understanding leads him to return home again to fill the vacuum left by Dr. Larch. Fittingly, it is a position of greater responsibility to the orphanage than he ever had before. You know that the orphanage is again in good hands and has a bright future, precisely because Homer has made a journey to get there, a journey through experiences whose unpredictability was also their vitality.

This does not describe a movie with no destination, a journey without a purpose. It merely describes a movie with a refreshingly new, profoundly human purpose, one without many of the usual canned elements Hollywood so often depends on. In this sense I believe Ebert's review substantially missed the point. You do know what the movie was about and where it led by the time it ends. If the unpredictability of the meantime had been traded to satisfy usual expectations, it might have earned more stars but it would also have ruined the movie. As it stands, viewers can appreciate full, vital characters, top-notch acting in all key roles, and the work of a master storyteller flowing underneath. Too few Hollywood products can make that claim.