The storyline in this film has potential, but the execution is poor. The main character is as one-dimensional as ever and the others are just not developed well. Again, the actual story-line is very interesting... young man looking for meaning in a sexually-superficial world, finds it after impregnating a one night stand, challenges convention and family by insisting on raising the child... good material. However, I just didn't find anything significant, touching or engaging about the acting/ writing/ directing/ score, etc. I wish someone else would take a shot at telling this compelling story because it really could be a great one.
19 Reviews
Unsatisfying film with incoherent plot !
nicholas.rhodes25 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
From reading the plot in my TV magazine, I was really expecting something better than this. I could not feel ANY emotion on seeing this film and could not sympathize with any of the characters. The boy is a n'eer-do-well, OK, some are. But I could never envisage having sex with some woman about whom I knew nothing, neither her background nor her family - and she won't kiss on the mouth either !! Any normal person would leave such a psychotic well alone and scarper to more sane surroundings. So I just cannot believe this. And then we have the father telling his son what do do, even though the son is adult and not even living with his parents any more. Why all this concern ? Why push his son into asking for an abortion when he learns the girl is pregnant. Abortion is an immoral evil act of murder and such things shouldn't be recommended by fathers to their sons. Illogical yet again. The behaviour of Kelly, the girl is totally psychotic and no normal person would remain with her. Always having to go to the toilet, won't meet her fiancé's family, gets in foul temper over nothing and the boy just sits there and doesn't react. But he doesn't seem to feel any love for her either and just seems resigned to his lot in life. No, this is an entirely unconvincing film where none of the actors or ideas contained therein contain an iota of anything salutary for the human mind. At best I would recommend it for Sunday afternoon showings in mental asylums but certainly not for normal healthy moviegoers.
The effect of this movie depends entirely on your frame of reference
sometimesagreatnotion10 January 2010
Ultimately this movie is about parenting...the entire spectrum of parenting. From horrific parents and how they destroy that child's ability to have reasonable relationships and a reasonable life; to well meaning parents who still make every mistake possible...and the new parent fear of knowing they are probably not completely equipped (who is?)and the choices ahead of them.
The actress who plays Kelly (Rachel Blanchard) gave us a person whose parents "didn't do their job". This is the way Harvey Keitel's character assesses his son's pregnant fiancé. We have written her off as a total California, flakey, crunchy granola, weirdo who has unprovoked flare-ups until we discover her completely botched upbringing late in the film. Rachel Blanchard portrays this character in a way for us to understand that Kelly isn't just "a psycho" but someone whose parents should never have been allowed to breed the same struggle she is having with Jeff: Should they terminate this pregnancy or have the baby? Do they love each other? Are they equipped to be parents? This movie isn't a statement on single parenting but on how equipped we are to be parents and how little attention and contemplation this gets prior to giving birth.
The actress who plays Kelly (Rachel Blanchard) gave us a person whose parents "didn't do their job". This is the way Harvey Keitel's character assesses his son's pregnant fiancé. We have written her off as a total California, flakey, crunchy granola, weirdo who has unprovoked flare-ups until we discover her completely botched upbringing late in the film. Rachel Blanchard portrays this character in a way for us to understand that Kelly isn't just "a psycho" but someone whose parents should never have been allowed to breed the same struggle she is having with Jeff: Should they terminate this pregnancy or have the baby? Do they love each other? Are they equipped to be parents? This movie isn't a statement on single parenting but on how equipped we are to be parents and how little attention and contemplation this gets prior to giving birth.
An insidious little soap opera about paternal instinct and family ethics that will make you laugh.
TheVid26 November 2002
There isn't too much in this film that rings true, although first-time director/writer Joel Silverman seems intent on selling this as some sort of reality drama. A young, good-looking kid from the right side of the tracks moves to LA to become a screenwriter and has a quickie affair with a dysfunctional bimbo from the wrong side of the tracks (apparently, he has some sort of weakness for fallen angels...oh yeah!). She ends up pregnant and he ends up with a sad case of paternal instinct (to the utter dismay of his Pop, Mom and the rest of the siblings). It all leads to inane revelations by everyone involved and becomes some sort of modern treatise on the joys of child rearin'. This is a movie that Rosie O'Donnell would surely love! Given the money and the cast, just about any literate, wannabe filmmaker could write and direct a better family drama than this one. Dubiously dumb!
Lifetime for losers
CipherCode12 October 2002
This movie is terrible. It's purpose is to let us know that if you didn't receive the Beaver Cleaver upbringing, then you don't deserve a baby, love, or even acceptance. The family are in fact such closed-minded bigots, I had trouble even finishing this film. I say stay away.
Another Manic Movie!
fantasticdoug7 February 2013
A lot of reviews have been written about this movie called "Nailed". The approval ratings have been varied. I looked it up in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide and he never bothered to review it. That sent up a red flag immediately. Anyway,I found myself with a morning to kill and discovered this movie on TV while I was channel surfing. So I propped my feet up and decided to watch it. That was one bad mistake. This film is about a family so mixed up they don't know what they are doing. Not only do I not recommend it, I will never ever see it again. It is beyond terrible! I gave it one star approval and I was very generous with that rating. Next time I am in a mood for a really good movie, I will watch "Casablanca" starring Humphrey Bogart. Now that's entertainment!
My head hurts
MBunge28 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
*BONK*
*BONK*
*BONK*
*BONK*
What's that sound? That's me banging my head against the wall after watching this movie. Why? Because it was the umpteenth time I've witnessed a writer/director making the same narcissistic mistake. It is an error so basic, so obvious and so fatal that I can't comprehend how it gets repeated in script after script, film after film. After all, there are roughly 18,347 books out there that teach people how to write screenplays. This isn't some mystery religion where no one knows how it's supposed to work. Yet this stupidly self-centered flaw is one of the most common problems in cinema, particularly in the work of writer/directors.
What's the trouble? Not giving the viewer a single, solitary reason to care what the bleep happens to the main character of the story. No reason to care who he is or what he wants. No reason to care if he lives or dies. The character doesn't do anything to attract anyone's interest. He doesn't say anything to draw anyone's sympathy. There's nothing about him, his personality or his situation that justifies a single second of anyone's attention. The audience is merely presented with this schmuck and it is assumed that they will care about him.
That's not how it works. The character has to do something to establish he's a good person. Or he has to be presented in a situation that can be identified with. Or he has to step on screen with an overtly comedic or dramatic or romantic persona that people instantly want to know more about. Or well, there's got to be something. You can't begin a motion picture by treating the viewer like a child in a Dickensian orphanage, handing them flavorless porridge and demanding that they eat it.
In Nailed, that tasteless gruel is Jeff Romano (Brad Rowe). He's an aspiring screenwriter who's left his close knit New York family behind to try and make it in LA. How are we introduced to Jeff? We don't see him struggling with rejection. Even though he lives in a garage and never has a job besides pecking away at his computer, there's never a moment where he appears to be struggling with money. Jeff himself opens things up in narration by telling us he's constantly meeting and bedding these gorgeous "angels". Jeff even has regular phone calls with his family and a dopey best friend in LA (Dash Mihok) to shoot hoops with, so it's not like he's isolated and alone. And the two first things the viewer sees Jeff do is pay for an abortion for a cute girl he got pregnant, then quickly fall into bed with another hot chick.
Why, in the name of Cecil B. DeMille, should I or anyone give a hot damn about this shallow construct named Jeff Romano? Unless you're an aspiring screenwriter in LA and are so beaten down with professional and personal rejection that you need to see a little wish fulfillment on screen, you shouldn't. Jeff Romano is an uninteresting guy living an unchallenging existence where his greatest burden is how all these beautiful women sex him up and then break his heart. Boo frickin' hoo. And just in case you're wondering, Jeff doesn't do anything the rest of the film to change that well earned indifference.
It's too bad because unlike most flicks where the non-entity main character is only the start of what's wrong, writer/director Joel Silverman didn't do a bad job filling things in around Jeff. The plot is about how he knocks up this fragile, New Age chick named Kelly (Rachel Blanchard) and decides to try and make a life with her and their kid, something that enrages Jeff's overly invested father Tony (Harvey Keitel) and creates this emotional tug of war with Jeff in the middle. And unlike Jeff, Kelly and Tony are legitimately engaging personas. Kelly had a bad childhood that's left her unable to have a normal relationship with a guy, even though he tries very hard. Tony is tortured by seeing the boy he loves more than life itself throwing his own life away on a foolish impulse. And it's not like Rachel Blanchard and Harvey Keitel are simply that much better than their roles. Both parts are relatively well written.
None of that matters, unfortunately, because they're two planets orbiting a dead sun. It also doesn't help matters than Silverman has this annoying habit of using these abrupt, 5 or 6 second long scenes as completely unnecessary segues. If I had cared one iota for Jeff Romano, Nailed might have been a nifty little family drama. Since Jeff could have been staked down in the desert, smeared with honey and eaten alive by ants without it bothering me a bit, I've got to tell you not to bother watching this film.
*BONK*
*BONK*
*BONK*
What's that sound? That's me banging my head against the wall after watching this movie. Why? Because it was the umpteenth time I've witnessed a writer/director making the same narcissistic mistake. It is an error so basic, so obvious and so fatal that I can't comprehend how it gets repeated in script after script, film after film. After all, there are roughly 18,347 books out there that teach people how to write screenplays. This isn't some mystery religion where no one knows how it's supposed to work. Yet this stupidly self-centered flaw is one of the most common problems in cinema, particularly in the work of writer/directors.
What's the trouble? Not giving the viewer a single, solitary reason to care what the bleep happens to the main character of the story. No reason to care who he is or what he wants. No reason to care if he lives or dies. The character doesn't do anything to attract anyone's interest. He doesn't say anything to draw anyone's sympathy. There's nothing about him, his personality or his situation that justifies a single second of anyone's attention. The audience is merely presented with this schmuck and it is assumed that they will care about him.
That's not how it works. The character has to do something to establish he's a good person. Or he has to be presented in a situation that can be identified with. Or he has to step on screen with an overtly comedic or dramatic or romantic persona that people instantly want to know more about. Or well, there's got to be something. You can't begin a motion picture by treating the viewer like a child in a Dickensian orphanage, handing them flavorless porridge and demanding that they eat it.
In Nailed, that tasteless gruel is Jeff Romano (Brad Rowe). He's an aspiring screenwriter who's left his close knit New York family behind to try and make it in LA. How are we introduced to Jeff? We don't see him struggling with rejection. Even though he lives in a garage and never has a job besides pecking away at his computer, there's never a moment where he appears to be struggling with money. Jeff himself opens things up in narration by telling us he's constantly meeting and bedding these gorgeous "angels". Jeff even has regular phone calls with his family and a dopey best friend in LA (Dash Mihok) to shoot hoops with, so it's not like he's isolated and alone. And the two first things the viewer sees Jeff do is pay for an abortion for a cute girl he got pregnant, then quickly fall into bed with another hot chick.
Why, in the name of Cecil B. DeMille, should I or anyone give a hot damn about this shallow construct named Jeff Romano? Unless you're an aspiring screenwriter in LA and are so beaten down with professional and personal rejection that you need to see a little wish fulfillment on screen, you shouldn't. Jeff Romano is an uninteresting guy living an unchallenging existence where his greatest burden is how all these beautiful women sex him up and then break his heart. Boo frickin' hoo. And just in case you're wondering, Jeff doesn't do anything the rest of the film to change that well earned indifference.
It's too bad because unlike most flicks where the non-entity main character is only the start of what's wrong, writer/director Joel Silverman didn't do a bad job filling things in around Jeff. The plot is about how he knocks up this fragile, New Age chick named Kelly (Rachel Blanchard) and decides to try and make a life with her and their kid, something that enrages Jeff's overly invested father Tony (Harvey Keitel) and creates this emotional tug of war with Jeff in the middle. And unlike Jeff, Kelly and Tony are legitimately engaging personas. Kelly had a bad childhood that's left her unable to have a normal relationship with a guy, even though he tries very hard. Tony is tortured by seeing the boy he loves more than life itself throwing his own life away on a foolish impulse. And it's not like Rachel Blanchard and Harvey Keitel are simply that much better than their roles. Both parts are relatively well written.
None of that matters, unfortunately, because they're two planets orbiting a dead sun. It also doesn't help matters than Silverman has this annoying habit of using these abrupt, 5 or 6 second long scenes as completely unnecessary segues. If I had cared one iota for Jeff Romano, Nailed might have been a nifty little family drama. Since Jeff could have been staked down in the desert, smeared with honey and eaten alive by ants without it bothering me a bit, I've got to tell you not to bother watching this film.
One thing
cheitman2319 February 2003
One thing alone makes this almost work, and that's the performance of Rachel Blanchard. With minimal lines or character development, she does an
amazing job of making her character almost three dimensional. Without her
ability, this film could have across as a character assassination of "loose"
women and new age dingbats. As it is, this is not a terrible film but it needed more work in my opinion. The back of the disc says Renfo is "stalked" by a
"psychotic" young woman so Keitel (like in his "cleaner" roles in "Pulp Fiction" or that Bridget Fonda thing?) has to intervene to save his son. Apparently the
publicist or media people either never watched it or had no idea how to market it! The box makes it seem like "Swimfan" or something! Instead it's Lifetime V for men too close to their dads, but Blanchard, who should get better work, holds this together enough to make it watchable. 6/10
amazing job of making her character almost three dimensional. Without her
ability, this film could have across as a character assassination of "loose"
women and new age dingbats. As it is, this is not a terrible film but it needed more work in my opinion. The back of the disc says Renfo is "stalked" by a
"psychotic" young woman so Keitel (like in his "cleaner" roles in "Pulp Fiction" or that Bridget Fonda thing?) has to intervene to save his son. Apparently the
publicist or media people either never watched it or had no idea how to market it! The box makes it seem like "Swimfan" or something! Instead it's Lifetime V for men too close to their dads, but Blanchard, who should get better work, holds this together enough to make it watchable. 6/10
Better than expected
bkwunder22 March 2005
This movie starts slowly but becomes quite engaging. It tackles the difficult question facing many expecting, but unwed couples -- abortion or not. Brad Rowe is excellent as the somewhat free-spirited son of a "traditional" family. Rachel Blanchard is outstanding as the "new age hippie chick" from a very broken home. Harvey Keitel is good as the frustrated father who sees his son in trouble, but can't do anything to help him -- because the son doesn't want his help. As the movie goes on the character development is quite good and I found myself genuinely interested in all of them. The movie is well-written and well-acted. I recommend it.
Don't let the low rating throw you.
shawnyc10 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I was surprised when I saw how low of a rating this movie received here. It starts out kind of slow and bazaar. I loved how the writer portrayed Jeffs family. For once, a realistic view of family dynamics in Hollywood. The main character (Jeff) is utterly naive about raising a family. Jeffs "angel" fiancé turns out to be pretty unstable. Everyone can see the looming disaster, except for Jeff. As a viewer, I felt sympathy for Jeff. He's only trying to do what he feels is right. Buts whats so refreshing in this movie is Jeffs family. They are trying to help Jeff as much as humanly possible, but feel like they have exhausted all their options, yet they never completely give up on him.
I feel its a realistic movie that deals with a situation that happens more often than one might think.
I feel its a realistic movie that deals with a situation that happens more often than one might think.
kind of depressing
fine-nachtsheim4 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie last year, right before i came to the us to live here for a year as a foreign exchange student, so maybe my mood wasn't the best in the first place. anyways, i was packing my suitcase and i didn't have anything else to do, so I decided i might just as well watch this movie. it's not a bad movie. it's about this guy from a really loving and caring family who moves to LA to be a screen writer. he kind of likes the "fallen angel" types of girls, so he falls in love with this girl. she acts really weird. they have sex but she doesn't want to kiss him. he doesn't understand her and wants to break up with her, but then she tells him she's pregnant, so he decides to try to have a family with her. of course it doesn't work out. he introduces her to his family and it's all a big mess. later she tells him that her stepdad abused her. in the end, she leaves to "find herself" and he takes care of the kid.
it really isn't a bad movie. i found the theme kind of interesting and it really isn't one of those typical thrillers like the poster makes you believe. i thought the family was kind of the stereotype of a happy family, but it wasn't too bad. I didn't really like the girl, although I did feel bad for her. the guy was alright, but i thought he was like a little kid and listened too much to his daddy instead of making his own decisions. i don't know why but i thought this movie was really depressing... I felt so sad after watching it. i knew there wouldn't be a chance for the 2 characters to be happy together, but I really wasn't satisfied with the ending 6/10
it really isn't a bad movie. i found the theme kind of interesting and it really isn't one of those typical thrillers like the poster makes you believe. i thought the family was kind of the stereotype of a happy family, but it wasn't too bad. I didn't really like the girl, although I did feel bad for her. the guy was alright, but i thought he was like a little kid and listened too much to his daddy instead of making his own decisions. i don't know why but i thought this movie was really depressing... I felt so sad after watching it. i knew there wouldn't be a chance for the 2 characters to be happy together, but I really wasn't satisfied with the ending 6/10
Not too bad
vchimpanzee13 January 2005
Brad didn't want to join the family clothing business. He ended up struggling as a movie writer in California. So desperate he had to sell his blood, he found an angel named Kelly at the blood bank.
After numerous failed relationships which included sex (and one pregnancy which ended in an abortion), Brad fell for Kelly, and Kelly too found herself pregnant. Brad's father Tony insisted Kelly have an abortion ... or else! I won't say what happens after that. I will just say Brad and Kelly agonize over the decision they have to make, and they go through the ups and downs of a typical relationship. Things are not always good, just like in real life. And maybe things aren't as bad for Brad and his family as it appears at first.
I am pro-choice on the abortion issue, but a movie like this makes me think about what that really means. I don't like to see the act taking place without some serious health threat or at least rape, or maybe a seriously deformed fetus. None of these applied to Kelly's situation. It was disturbing to see Tony take such a casual attitude toward this act--especially since he crossed himself later in the movie. Apaarently he was Catholic. He must have married a Jewish woman, since the family was shown celebrating Easter and Passover. I would say Tony wasn't that good a Catholic.
Rahcel Blanchard would be my main reason for watching this, since I liked her so much in the TV series 'Clueless'. Kelly was so sweet despite her hard life, and while she did lose her temper from time to time, she handled herself well. Harvey Keitel did well as Tony also.
I've seen better movies, but this wasn't too bad.
After numerous failed relationships which included sex (and one pregnancy which ended in an abortion), Brad fell for Kelly, and Kelly too found herself pregnant. Brad's father Tony insisted Kelly have an abortion ... or else! I won't say what happens after that. I will just say Brad and Kelly agonize over the decision they have to make, and they go through the ups and downs of a typical relationship. Things are not always good, just like in real life. And maybe things aren't as bad for Brad and his family as it appears at first.
I am pro-choice on the abortion issue, but a movie like this makes me think about what that really means. I don't like to see the act taking place without some serious health threat or at least rape, or maybe a seriously deformed fetus. None of these applied to Kelly's situation. It was disturbing to see Tony take such a casual attitude toward this act--especially since he crossed himself later in the movie. Apaarently he was Catholic. He must have married a Jewish woman, since the family was shown celebrating Easter and Passover. I would say Tony wasn't that good a Catholic.
Rahcel Blanchard would be my main reason for watching this, since I liked her so much in the TV series 'Clueless'. Kelly was so sweet despite her hard life, and while she did lose her temper from time to time, she handled herself well. Harvey Keitel did well as Tony also.
I've seen better movies, but this wasn't too bad.
An awesome film
rlmme-809-6326725 October 2013
I just watched this movie (12 years after its release) because I am focusing on Harvey Keitel and his performances throughout his career. I believe it is his best.
I agree that Brad Rowe's character was underdeveloped; I couldn't understand his motivation (or lack of) for any of his life-choices. Regardless... the movie was about dysfunction, and I can't believe none of the other reviewers commented on that. I hit me square in the face.
Yes, the main character assigned the title "dysfunction" in this movie has emotional issues. That is clear. But, what kind of father rants and raves when his grown son doesn't act according to his own plans for that son? What kind of father promises love and devotion, then takes it away, then gives it back again, then takes it away again, then gives it back again?
What kind of father yells and calls his grown son names, flies across the country and shows up unannounced to visit his son and "inspect" his future daughter-in-law under the pretension of wanting to "get to know her"... without letting his wife know he has gone until he returns at the end of the day? What kind of father (or family) belittles a potential new addition to their family before meeting her, then makes judgments and issues condemnations of that person because she doesn't behave according to their own expectations?
A dysfunctional, tyrannical, paranoid, self-absorbed father (and family)... that is who!
There is no better way to make a person feel like an outsider than to whisper negative and snide comments about them behind their back. I don't blame Rachael Blanchard's character for flinching when her potential mother-in-law reaches out to touch her; she's not sure she's in "safe" territory.
And, her adult fiancé is unable defend his position against his family's pressures and emotional manipulation. He's absolutely ineffective. I was sad about her poor decision to leave her child with such a family.
This movie is not about "how to be a father"... it is about how NOT to be father! That no one else picks up on this is what's wrong with society today.
Again... Harvey Keitels performance was his best. He made me hate his character, and glad I am not part of a family like his!
I agree that Brad Rowe's character was underdeveloped; I couldn't understand his motivation (or lack of) for any of his life-choices. Regardless... the movie was about dysfunction, and I can't believe none of the other reviewers commented on that. I hit me square in the face.
Yes, the main character assigned the title "dysfunction" in this movie has emotional issues. That is clear. But, what kind of father rants and raves when his grown son doesn't act according to his own plans for that son? What kind of father promises love and devotion, then takes it away, then gives it back again, then takes it away again, then gives it back again?
What kind of father yells and calls his grown son names, flies across the country and shows up unannounced to visit his son and "inspect" his future daughter-in-law under the pretension of wanting to "get to know her"... without letting his wife know he has gone until he returns at the end of the day? What kind of father (or family) belittles a potential new addition to their family before meeting her, then makes judgments and issues condemnations of that person because she doesn't behave according to their own expectations?
A dysfunctional, tyrannical, paranoid, self-absorbed father (and family)... that is who!
There is no better way to make a person feel like an outsider than to whisper negative and snide comments about them behind their back. I don't blame Rachael Blanchard's character for flinching when her potential mother-in-law reaches out to touch her; she's not sure she's in "safe" territory.
And, her adult fiancé is unable defend his position against his family's pressures and emotional manipulation. He's absolutely ineffective. I was sad about her poor decision to leave her child with such a family.
This movie is not about "how to be a father"... it is about how NOT to be father! That no one else picks up on this is what's wrong with society today.
Again... Harvey Keitels performance was his best. He made me hate his character, and glad I am not part of a family like his!
Very moving story line.
Lsparks25 April 2001
I was able to see this movie at the L.A. Film festival on 4-22-01. This was a very moving story that left many in the audience with tears. I heard this young writer say that this was the first movie that he directed. He did a great job and I look forward to seeoing many more works by this fine young writer. The producers of this movie really did a great job, in choosing the director and keeping the flow of the film. the actor that played the young father was fantastic. I also liked the young black girl that was on the beach, she made a sad few lines seem so real.
This was a fine film.
clmct1 November 2002
Okay . . it is about this . . stable home . . raises boy who wishes to do the "right thing" by the flake he hooks up with . .and gets pregnant. Parents of boy adore their offspring and only wish to see their values passed on . .AND, they are . .only not, exactly, as they wish they had been. Does Harvey Keitel do a bad film? No. Mary Kay Place???? No. So, if you are under 30 you will say, "you go boy" and if you are over 40, you will say, "values, values values . .always find someone with YOUR values" WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!
I liked it
thomasjane30 April 2004
I have no idea whatsoever why but I actually liked the film- not at all how it's described on the box. Brad Rowe plays the son of Harvey Keitel, an Italian-American success story and mom Mary Kay Place, a typical Jewish mother. The lead girl in the film I had seen on recent episodes of "Seventh Heaven". But this movie explores areas of life that just aren't explored in too many films, if any. That is the need for a man to become a father. All the time in films it is explored the need for women to become mothers, but the men are treated as if fatherhood is not for them. Myself, I personally have no wish to ever become a dad, but that's not to say there aren't women who have no desire to ever become a mother. But this was certainly an interesting film with an interesting concept. Well done.
An excellent, heart-warming, and humorous film!
jrm90616 May 2001
Nailed is an interesting deviation from most films in that it takes the perspective of a young, single father trying to deal with an unstable significant other. Director Silverman has done a fine job (especially considering that he is a first-time director) of relaying the feelings of love and anguish that a young single father goes through. I would recommend this film for all.
Great father
ispca22 October 2011
Tony Romano is a great father. Harvey Keitel is a great actor. The movie is about being a father. A real father. I would change the name the movie to : ""How to be a father".
Mary Kay Place does a great job as a Jewish mother. Italians and Jews make a great family.Rachel Blanchard plays very well her role. Romano (Keitel)teaches us how to love. When we had the "Clintons" at the First Family.. Something is wrong us.
Do you want to be a great father?
Watch this movie.
Romano's Laws :
Look at your children and call out their best.
There is nothing so powerful as a father's kiss.
Laugh with your son.
Mary Kay Place does a great job as a Jewish mother. Italians and Jews make a great family.Rachel Blanchard plays very well her role. Romano (Keitel)teaches us how to love. When we had the "Clintons" at the First Family.. Something is wrong us.
Do you want to be a great father?
Watch this movie.
Romano's Laws :
Look at your children and call out their best.
There is nothing so powerful as a father's kiss.
Laugh with your son.
Educational and moving
l_o_cus17 August 2006
I think this movie is ingenious. OK, some parts are a bit stupid and pretentious but nevertheless it is still a great movie with strong message. I grew up in a very dysfunctional family and I can really relate to this guy because he reminds me of my father who also made a bad decision when he married my mother. This movie is a real life story, maybe a bit too romantically told but worth watching and learning. I especially love the end when Kelly gives her child. This isn't too realistic but women that are similar to Kelly might find it educational.
What else to say? Great job, Joel Silverman!
What else to say? Great job, Joel Silverman!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
