The Safety of Objects | | Cast : | Glenn Close, Dermot Mulroney, Patricia Clarkson, Mary Kay Place | | Director : | Rose Troche | | Studio : | Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | January 01, 2001 | | DVD Released Date : | January 13, 2004 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | May 18, 2005 | | Summary | Derailed not Destroyed | Content
 | Individuals in four handsome suburban families are coming undone; the causes are diverse -- the trauma of a tragic accident, a divorce, a missed promotion, a growing apart in a long-standing marriage. Yet, gradually, instead of spinning out of control a la the much overpraised American Beauty, the individuals here do what most of us do when hit hard by life, they crawl back on course and, bruised but alive, move on. For that reason, Safety of Objects rings much truer than AB. I wonder if that could be because Safety is a movie made by, and largely about, women rather than driven by narcissism. Be that as it may, The Safety of Objects has its bizarre -- a radio station SUV promotional stunt -- and creepy -- particularly the quasi-kidnapping that dominates much of its last quarter -- moments. But in the end people make the right decisions and director Troche brings together a nicely crafted final scene where new neighbors are welcomed with gifts of the Objects and those we have watched for two hours again begin to risk intimacy with their closest family members. All in all, not a great movie, but very watchable, with Patricia Clarkson stealing the show as she almost always does. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 30, 2005 | | Summary | Squeezing the Cliche for All It Is Woth. | Content
| From the outset, I must say that this film is bizarre. I must also say that, despite the fact that I liked it enough to give it three stars, you have seen this film before. Where? It is the same type of suburban-angst-gone-haywire plot you've seen in such films as American Beauty. If that is your sort of film, then this is your sort of film. If that is not your cup of tea, then this will not be either.
The film is the story of 4 suburban families who have much more in common than first blush would tell you. All of them are somehow intertwined with a the fate of one of the families' comatose sons. (One character was in the car that injured him, another was the boys lover, etc.) It is the story, then, of how each family copes in different ways with that, and a host of other suburbanesque goings on, like being passed up for a promotion, dealing with the possible kidnapping of a daughter, or fumbling, as an adolescent, through one's first sexual feelings.
While the film, as I've said before, takes bizarre (and often unrealistic) twists and turns in the manner of American Beauty, "The Safety of Objects" has a strangely likeable quality. Like "American Beauty," the characters and story lines are just quirky enough to grab you without being so strange as to let you go. None of the characters are overtly lovable or dispicable, but all of them are at the very least, interesting and at most, compelling.
Be that as it may, though, the film is still a bit too cliche to be of any but moderate interest. Too many films - American Beauty, Short Cuts, The Good Girl, etc. - portray the same type of 'off-the-deep-end' suburban situations that this film does better, and more convincingly, than this film does it.
In fact, it is disappointing to find out that this film is based on a collection of short stories by author A.M. Holmes, because another film called "Short Cuts" is the same idea, only involving the stories of Raymond Carver. And just as Carver is a superior writer to Holmes, "Short Cuts" is heads-and-tails superior to "The Safety of Objects."
But if you like suburbia-gone-angry-and-awry films like "American Beauty," then this film is at least worth one viewing. After all, cliches are called cliches becuase they work at least well enough to be cliches. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 02, 2005 | | Summary | Despite the Bad Reviews, I Loved It!!! | Content
| I absolutely loved this movie and highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet seen it. It's a wonderful collage of several suburban families who are somehow linked together although the reason is not revealed until the very end of the movie. Do yourself a favor and ignore the bad reviews and try it for yourself. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 13, 2004 | | Summary | I loved it! | Content
| I was really dragged into the story of the characters and how their lives crossed. It also shows how different everyone's lives are, yet people still go through the same emotions. I can't help to feel for each character, because at some point in our lives we've all felt it..desperation, love, sadness a quick release...This movie isn't for everyone, and it is a little strange, but so is life... |
| Rating | | | Date | September 27, 2004 | | Summary | A Confused Mess!!! | Content
| Large ensemble pieces like this take a great deal of directing skill, ala Robert Altman, that this filmmaker obviously did not have. The movement between stories of three different families and several individuals was awkward at best and completely muddled at worst. I also found myself not caring about these people, who struck me as uninteresting, unbelievable and unengaging. In addition, most of the actors, with the exception of the often wonderful Patricia Clarkson, either overacted or felt like cardboard cutouts of their characters. This was an abyssmally bad and silly film that should have gone straight to video with a warning on its cover that read "For less than mature audiences only." |
|
