The Safety of Objects

2003 "What do you hold on to when your world turns upside down?"
The Safety of Objects
6.5| 2h1m| R| en| More Info
Released: 07 March 2003 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In a suburban landscape, the lives of several families interlace with loss, despair and personal crisis. Esther Gold has lost focus on all but caring for her comatose son, Paul, and neglects her daughter and husband. Lawyer Jim Train is devoted to his career, not his family. Helen Christianson wants to find a new spark in life, while Annette Jennings tries to rebuild hers.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

adonis98-743-186503 A series of overlapping stories about four suburban families dealing with different maladies. Esther Gold's life is consumed by caring for her comatose son; Jim Train is sent into a tailspin when he's passed over for a promotion; Annette Jennings' family is struggling in the wake of her divorce; Helen Christianson is determined to shake up her mundane life. The Safety of Objects (2001) is a tough drama not because it's going to make you cry or anything but because it's tough in order to actually enjoy it there are stuff in this film that i didn't found dramatic enough or clever enough to actually make sense to me. For example Jim Train's son is addicted with a Barbie doll like a lot and Jim himself wants Esther his neighbor to win a car for no reason. Randy keeps calling Sam (played by Kristen Stewart in her then film debut) Johnny and i get it he lost a loved one but i think 50% of the audience could tell back then that Kristen was a girl and not a boy just saying. Now on the good side of things the performances are quite well and feel pretty real, the whole scenario with Julie and why she acts so weird was a good twist for the ending and the overall movie it's quite interesting as a whole it's just that i expected more drama than just some small dozes of it. (7/10)
pntacle I don't know what it was about this movie, but it was very powerful and moving for me. The cinematography execution was just excellent. I wasn't tainted by having read the book, and it's really unusual that a movie makes me want to go read the book it was based on. This movie really just makes you want to surrender to the good in humanity. I highly recommend it. The character relationships in it are more dynamic than you would see in a cable series, and although it's very dramatic; doesn't really feel over-done or sappy to me. like Garden State and many other independent films , this is on the top of the list for movies about dysfunctional lives and the strength we find in difficult moments.
villianlasegunda This film, which is supposed to be adapted from a collection of short stories written by A. M. Homes, is extremely painful to watch. The film follows four different neighborhood families with intertwining lives, while the book is simply stories about unrelated individuals and is, in fact, much more powerful. In the film each individual from the short stories becomes a member of a troubled family, making it so that the some of stories are barely touched on, while others are elaborated. Though the elaborate ones may be fairly easy to understand, the tales that are brushed over seem to have little relevance to the film and make the viewer feel confused and empty. The book may stand alone, but if you have not read it, you will not understand the film which is so muddled and filled with material that at two hours long is easily two hours too much. I continued watching until the end, hoping that there would some conclusion to make the intertwining families' lives have a significant meaning, and felt so exasperated that I finally stopped the film with five minutes left, feeling unable to watch a second longer.
Mike Wigley Having watched the film, and then read the comments here, I wonder if I was watching the film described. Admitted I am not American, don't live in America, and have never before heard of A.M. Homes or Rose Troche, but this film was to me a total waste of time. I guess I am a cinematic dinosaur, but any film that makes me say to myself 'What is going on now', or 'What is the point of doing that', or 'I just don't understand this' is a film I have no desire to see. Glenn Close is a good actress, and no doubt the performance she gave was the one required by the director, but personally I think she did this film because she needed the money. I have no complaints about the acting in general, it is merely the arrogance of film makers who foist their meaningless efforts on an unsuspecting public which annoys me. I do enjoy films that make me think, provided they make me think about the content of the film, and don't make me think I have just wasted two hours of my life.To sum up, think seriously before watching this film, if you are a member of a dysfunctional American family, with severe emotional problems, you might find something to empathise with, otherwise avoid.