Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

*** Official THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT Discussion Thread

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 of 4 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford


  • 26,438 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 31 2010 - 10:03 AM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Kids are All Right". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "The Kids are All Right" should be posted to the 
Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


#2 of 4 OFFLINE   Hans M.

Hans M.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 227 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 05 2003

Posted August 30 2010 - 02:56 PM

OK, here's something I put together: http://indieethos.wo...-deservedly-so/

#3 of 4 OFFLINE   Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer

  • 10,954 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted February 23 2011 - 01:26 PM

I watched this last night, the last of the Best Picture nominees I needed to see.

Initially I wasn't sure what to think about Cholodenko's treatment of the Paul character, but I'm beginning to agree more and more with Kevin Koster's perspective from his Blu-ray review. With all of that set up and depiction of real connection between him and the kids, it seems incredibly unfair for him to just be written off in the end as an "interloper." Yes, he messed things up by sleeping with Jules, and the family doesn't owe him anything, but was the purpose of his character really just to stir the pot? If so, why make him so likable and genuinely helpful to the kids? Why make the audience come to care for him at all if he's just going to be discarded at the end? It's like the writer didn't realize Paul was going to be such a sympathetic character and then didn't know how to fix it except to make him a tool.

In the end I think the film overly favors Nic and her point of view, and if she is a reflection of the director as some have claimed, I find that horribly self-indulgent. She makes some effort to change her controlling ways, but how has she really grown by the end? She just knows she almost lost her family and blames it on Paul, but what responsibility does she take for how she made Jules feel the way she did?

#4 of 4 OFFLINE   Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Executive Producer

  • 10,106 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 15 2011 - 06:10 AM

(Extraneous line to hide spoilers from the preview) I agree that Paul's fate was a little jarring, but I don't recall him becoming as villainous as Kevin found him to be (this could be poor memory -- it's been a week since I watched the film).  It was Jules who wasn't strong enough in her relationship to handle his presence.  To be honest the whole bisexual angle was a bit odd.  But overall I enjoyed this movie. IMO Paul hasn't seen the last of those kids.
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users