MUBI

What to say about The Kids Are All Right?
Some good moments, but couldn’t see any sophistication or humour. It’s a high concept movie wich only difference is to bring a lesbian couple as the apparently perfect family: the father-provider (Nic), who works hard and always get the bad part (the boring parent), the free spirit, lovely but bored housewife (Jules), the beautiful and nice kids. It’s interesting how the “bio-dad” figure is brought to the story and all its consequences, but it could’ve been better explored and not fall into common sense.

All the structure family is about to ruin with Paul. He’s a cool guy and is doing “his” role quite well being present and giving confidence to both Laser and Joni. In any moment they wonder what all that means, except for Nic. They only see themselves as a (close) family again when Paul fucks up. And when that happens, all the fault is put over him. Joni says she just wished that he could’ve been better. Wouldn’t it be more sensate and logical to expect that Jules, her mother, could’ve been better and not him? Jules has all excuses (marriage is hard, she didn’t feel appreciate) and in the end is nothing but the common “it’s all men’s fault” (easy sex, immaturity, the family destroyer).

Paul basically says Jules she’s talented and agrees with all she does and that is enough to make her feel appreciated. Ok, it can happen, but we could understand it if it was with a woman. Lesbians don’t have such fantasies. Bisexual women do. Is human sexuality complicated? Oh, please! Not to mention the typical (and tiresome) “male-wild” sex scenes.

Good review (not only for being a lesbian’s point of view): http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/only-the-kids-are-all-right/

A leisurely and gentle film that knowingly twists the conventional family dramedy. Here’s a family unit (led by two lesbian moms, plus a sperm donor) that’s as non-traditional as you can get, and it’s clear from the start that they’re no more (or less) insecure, lost, dysfunctional, and loving than anything traditional society has to offer. That alone makes the film a valuable statement for the times. To confess, I did find it a bit tame and expected. But it’s elevated by the soulful performances of all involved, and after all, this is 2010—maybe it’s time for the LGBT community to have tame awards season films too. Final verdict: all right.

7 out of 10.

The good thing from The Kids Are All Right is, even though this movie tells the story of lesbian family, the values are universally applicable. From the most simple point view, this movie tries to the story about the values that exist in marriage, relationships among humans, and, most importantly, about the family. The bad news, this movie brought the theme of lesbian (homosexuality) which of course is not suitable for homophobic audiences. You’ve been warned.

Jules (Julianne Moore) and Nic (Annette Bening) are a lesbian couple who live in California. Not explained whether they were legally married or not, their status considered “married” just because Nic said that they are married. By using the same sperm donor, each of them has been producing children (what a weird term to use). Nic gave birth to a daughter, Joni (Mia Wasikowska), while Jules gave birth to a boy, Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Nic, a doctor, plays the role as the “head of the family.” While Jules, more or less have the position of the mother who gives her full-time to raise children. For career, Jules can only do a small business, move from a one to another (and none came successful). They all live together as a “happy (lesbian) family.” Now their children have grown up. Laser is fifteen years old and now a potential athlete in school. While Joni is eighteen years old, an intelligent student with all A-grade obtained, and about to leave home for college. Judge by their age, no wonder a curiosity over their “father” is come out. In short, they secretly met, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), which is biologically the “father.” The “happy family” condition threatened when Nic and Jules learned that their children had met the “sperm donor,” especially when they start getting closer to Paul.

This is one of the brightest comedy this year. The movie touches many dimensions, not just a family matters, but also youth, parenting, and gender (or sexuality) problem. What I liked best about this movie is the characterization of five main characters that practically perfect, and certainly effective and efficient.

Nic is described as someone who is strong, dominant, manipulator, and family leader. While Jules is described as someone who is more motherly, naive, weaker, tend to be more depressed and confused, and more easily manipulated. Both are faced with common problems of marriage (not just the lesbian couple): “midlife crisis.” On the part when Jules was asked to arrange the Paul’s garden, their professional relationship was transformed into something intimate. Here we see the clear figure of Jules which easily manipulated and inedible. That is contrast with Nic whom was more quick and aware of the situation. Sexual scene between Jules and Paul is may caused a small question: Is it possible that the marriage between Nic and Jules, you could say, happened because of, among others, the naivete of Jules and the dominant nature of Nic?

There is a scene when Laser and his best friend, Clay (Eddie Hassell), secretly takes a porn video from mothers’ room. Instead of getting a lesbian video porn, they found a gay video porn which contains two muscular hunks grabbing and hugging each other. Furthermore, as a result of getting caught, Laser was lectured by his mothers, especially regarding the emotional and psychological problems of female sexual arousal explaining why lesbians watch gay porn. Which means more or less lesbian, sometimes, can also be physically and sexually stimulated by a scene of two hunks crisscrossed each other. Check Google for more psychological, pathological, and sexual explanations. The meaning of the explanation scene can be simply seen at the scene when Jules sees Paul “thing” (when they are going to have sex). Sexuality cans be surprising, right?

The scene when the Laser, with Clay, watch his mothers’ gay porn in the rooms are also causing a prejudice of his sexual orientation from his mothers. Is Laser gay? Laser and Clay friendship is fall under suspicion of Nic and Jules as a form of “wandering” and “exploring” of his sexual orientation, even though Nic and Jules never like Clay due to his attitude. But Laser admitted not gay. And when Josh Hutcherson saying, “Did you guys think I was gay?” His remarks are clearly feels that he is not gay. This is also affirmed by the dialogue, “Maybe we should fast forward,” while watching the gay porn. For these matters we need to review Laser characterization.

Laser is the only male in the family. And need to be underlined also that the mean Laser, since his birth, was raised by two women in a house full of women. No wonder he grew into a sensitive teenager. Laser sensitivity can be seen when he was conversing with his father, and most noticeable when he and Clay found the stray dog on the street. Based on these conclusions, I prefer to see the closeness between Laser and Clay as a manifestation of his desire to have male figure in her family. It also can be seen from the critical questions (and depth) thrown to Paul when the two spending time together.

While Joni, like most girls at her age, is in an effort to pursue the teenage romance. Joni fell in love with his friend, Jai (Kunal Sharma), but can never dare show it. Raised by two mothers, Joni grown into a pure and innocent girl, but have a wish of rebellion inside. When Paul entered her life, bringing the new values, Joni became closer with Paul. Paul makes Joni would cross over the boundaries that she never dared to do. One of them was drunk and smooching Jai’s lips.

Laser and Joni closeness with Paul responded coldly by Nic who consider Paul as an “interloper” in the family. Paul is described as someone who, not literally intellectual, but smart in more practical way , tend to be an easy-going person, and open to a new social standard (can be seen when Paul received the arrival of Laser and Jani). And when it feels closer to her two children (plus a relationship with Jules), appears to have a family feeling, and hoping to be accepted by his new family he calls “an unconventional family.”

But interlooper will always be interloper. And that is what Paul’s position on this movie, Paul only plays as a bearer of new values for Joni and Laser. In the end (especially due to the damage that has been caused by him), none of the family members really cared about the intruder. Watch the movie to the end if you are confused about what I mean in this paragraph.

I really enjoyed this movie mainly because of the performances of the five main actors. No doubt about quality of both Julianne Moore and Annette Bening. Mark Ruffalo himself give a successful job in convincing his character. The young actors, Josh Hutcherson and Mia Wasikowska, also give superb works. I really like the Josh Hutcherson’s performance in Bridge to Terabithia, and his performance in this movie is one of the best of his. The movie was directed by Lisa Cholodenko which previously made High Art, an indie movie, which also tells the relationship of women and women (lesbian), which explores mood, sexuality, and ambition. The movie is like a more version friendly, lighter, and more audience-friendly from Lisa Cholodenko. Although this is not the best comedy I’ve ever seen, The Kids Are All Right is an example of an attractive modern comedy from all the main aspects.

Title: The Kids Are All Right
Year: 2010
Country: USA
Language: English
Genre: Comedy
Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Writers: Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg
Cast:
Julianne Moore
Annette Bening
Mark Ruffalo
Mia Wasikowska
Josh Hutcherson
Yaya DaCosta
Kunal Sharma
Eddie Hassell
Zosia Mamet
Rating: 9/10

I have watched this film twice before I am going to write this review, namely it is my most anticipating film of the year. The most sensitive issue (and slightly annoying) is whether my goddess Moore could get her fifth Oscar nomination next year while Bening has already been selected as the frontrunner in the race of BEST ACTRESS in a Leading Role 2011 (along with Natalie Portman from BLACK SWAN), plus a crowded year for leading actress (Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Lawrence, Leslie Manville, Michelle Williams, Gwyneth Paltrow, Diane Lane and even Halle Berry), I hate to admit that Moore’s chance is not very promising.

After watching the film for the second time, my conclusion is that this film could be this year’s JUNO (2005) or LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006), waving the INDIE flag and directly running towards the ceremony. Also if Bening could get a nomination, Moore should deserve one as well (of course as a leading actress), since they equally balance each other in their opposite roles and create a magnetic tug-war which is heartfelt and poignant, their performances are daring and subtle, convincingly persuasive in every gesture and expression. Bening’s role as the control freak and dominant figure of the family easily stands out while Moore’s talent is more like an undertow throughout the film, with a second watch, it amazes me with perfect precision indeed.

The script is excellently well-crafted, centers on the martial crisis between a lesbian couple and their two kids’ pubescent troubles when their biological father intruded into their lives. The dialogue between two leads pinpoints the mundane frustration
and bitterness which one could receive from the significant one, as shit happens but life must continue. I am not sure for a lesbian, having sex with a straight man is a plausible way to get some relief, the chemistry between Moore and Ruffalo is surely sparkling. Ruffalo also gives a marvelous performance to prove his charm on screen, so I do feel sorry for his character eventually since in the end he is the most pitiful one.

This is a comedy about average family life, the lesbian stunt is just to catch audience’s eyes, gay or straight, no one really cares, basically it is a sincere masterpiece with a witted-script and outstanding performances, maybe its Oscar road is rough, the bottom-line is that without doubt it is on the list of my all-time guilty pleasure.

The Kids Are Alright is another one of the few American dramadies that doesn’t totally steal from Todd Solondz (a director who’s genius everyone is going to realize long after hes dead) and his more popular films like; Welcome To The Dollhouse andHappiness. I haven’t been a fan of Director: Lisa Cholodenk. In fact, I thought her highly praised directorial debut; High Art was pretty awful. I think she’s finally come around with her third film. In The Kids Are Alright, a brother and sister raised by two lesbians, played by Annette Benning and Julianne Moore (who are currently having some typical marital problems), look to find their biological father. After tracking him down, not only do they hit it off, but they even form somewhat of a bond. However, the new addition of the children’s biological father in to their lives doesnt sit well one of their mothers in particular. Eventually, the marital problems that Moore and Benning are having come to major head-on collision and the families strength is put to the test. This is one of the few American films with 2 gay characters, yet the homosexuality isn’t “the issue” of the film (something German director Rainer Werner Fassbinder was doing decades ago). In fact, Gus Van Sant is the only active American director I can think of that does this. This movie has a perfect blend of humor, tolerable quirkiness and drama reminiscent of early 90’s sundance films like Tom Noonan’sWhat Happened Was…, The Opposite of Sex and Hal Hartley’s Trust (3 movies worth seeing if you haven’t). For an American film centered around a family, this is a pretty progressive film. The few films that portray gay couples raising kids is usually something to be poked fun at. I think choosing a gay female couple was the best thing to do. I don’t think most audiences would be able to take this movie serious with 2 men as the main characters. Benning and Moore are two of the best American actresses out right now, and were perfectly cast. I couldn’t see the leads played by anyone else (well, maybe Katherine Keener and Jennifer Jason Leigh). This may be the year that Annette Benning finally wins an academy award.

Um dos maiores trunfos deste filme é nunca usar maneirismos para tratar seu objeto. A diretora evita o panfleto na história dos dois filhos de um casal de mulheres que querem descobrir o pai biológico. O filme, que ganhou um título brasileiro estúpido que parece querer idiotizar o longa para torná-lo atrativo para outro tipo de público, sabe se equilibrar entre o bom humor e o drama com um texto bem inteligente. O elenco, incluindo as crianças, está perfeito.

I walked out of the theater last night not quite sure what to make of ‘The Kids Are All Right.’ I knew that the acting was great, for it was the kind that always inspires me as an actor whenever I witness it. Annette Bening’s performance in particular was so exceptional that it reminded me of the immense power an actor can have in telling a captivating and potentially emotional story—the kind, crudely put, that makes you forget that it is in fact an actor onscreen. Julianne Moore portrays her character appropriately too, I think; strangely reminiscent of a lost and scared puppy, or some kid in her late teens struggling to grow up, unable to find herself.

It is impossible for me to review this film, however, without writing of the film’s implications regarding right and wrong. The theme of responsibility, after all, is quite prevalent in the story; therefore situations arise in which things can go wrong and people can let other people down. The two main characters are a lesbian couple, Nic and Jules (Bening and Moore), who take on a substantial degree of responsibility in raising two kids by themselves.

The kids, Joni and Laser, seek out their biological father, who, as events unfold, forms a warm relationship with the two of them. Later, Jules, who is frustrated by her controlling, often bitchy wife, finds herself attracted to the father. After she advances on him (his name is Paul, by the way.) they start sleeping together. After Nic finds out about the relationship all hell breaks loose and Paul, who has evidently grown attached to the kids, is shunned by the rest of the family. As the credits rolled, I found that it was Paul’s banishment that had me somewhat resenting the film.

This is my first ‘review’ of a film. It is strange, I suppose, that the inspiration came more from the narrative aspects of the film, rather than its technical or stylistic elements. Either way, it was this resentment that motivated me enough to write it down.

I think Paul was at fault in that he took far too little consideration for the welfare of a family, let alone one that he apparently had come to care about. But I feel that it ends there. He is not, by any means, a bad man. He was sought out by the kids, Joni and Laser. It was he who was advanced upon my Jules, not the other way around. No, he was not meant to be a father nor a role model. He knew this, and therefore made no pretenses to suggest so.

I feel almost as though he was an everyday man, happy in his ways, living a solitary yet honest life—solitary, because that is merely who he is—and then one day, he has thrown to him what is more or less bait when he gets a call from his biological daughter. It is bait that, once he bites, is unable to handle due to his nature—a nature that we’re surely meant to look down upon, but in actuality is perfectly human.

And so, because he took the bait, he ends up being brutally punished for it. He follows a mirage depicting a life in which maybe he isn’t as lonely, one in which people depend on him and vice-versa. Yet because he has difficulty adjusting to such a life, he finds the oasis to have vanished, and is therefore left thirsty and alone in an expansive and daunting desert.

Jules, however, seems to be in the clear at the end of the film. Keep in mind, she does establish the pretense that she can be a mother and live a life in which people depend on her. She is apparently susceptible to the same temptations that are part of Paul’s human nature. She was not sought out, like Paul, and thrown into a situation that called for her to adjust to anything in a matter of weeks. She was the one who started the relationship with Paul, and was just as guilty of indulging in it as he. And yet, we ought to be sympathetic towards her, whereas Paul gets left out in the cold—literally, as his last scene sadly depicts.