ThiefHott Too much of everything

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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)

swillsqueal Rose Troche wrote the screenplay and directed "The Safety of Objects (2001)". I've got to hand it to her. She certainly did a fine job of linking social alienation and the commodification of human relations.Rose poses these questions : Can one feel emotionally alone amongst people living in the heart of "upper middle class" suburbia? With real, sensuous subjects largely gone missing (i.e. human beings with genuine feelings of solidarity and love for each other) does one seek solace in the company of objects? The answer I give is, "Yes". My impression is that Ms. Troche thinks so too, but she has another take on the possibility of transcending this misery.Granted, some of the objects, which/who are NOT subjects (well, only in our 'Barbie-est' of imaginations) are purchased. And some, (in a brief flash of subjectivity) have sold themselves into particularly alienating forms of wage-slavery. I say "particularly alienating" because these forms of wage-slavery appear to leave the human being in a state of having parts of their humanity hacked off. Granted, wage-slavery is a numbing experience for all of us. Such a cost we pay for selling ourselves in to it.What's the choice though? Nothing or organizing to rid ourselves of the wages system. 99% of us choose the former and thereby suffer and continue to chafe under this system. But! What a playground it makes for artists like Troche. She romps around our collective misery and tell us what phonies we are and still, she gets paid for it! Wow! You go, Rose!Enough with the hyperbole. The film is well acted, though the acting isn't perfect. So much the better in some ways. At least, one doesn't recognize say a, Bruce Willis or a Nicole Kidman AGAIN! More power to Bruce and Nicole, but for my money, I prefer an unknown who can do the part. And why not? There is good to fine acting in this film.Do we ALL have to grovel and to worship the STARS? Hell no."The Safety of Objects" is NOT about how everyone discovers that they should have paid more attention to things which matter. No. What you've got here is a depiction of situations in our everyday lives which actually MIGHT occur. Okay, so you haven't heard of EXACTLY these situations developing. Hah! Dig this: the son of Gold goes from being a subject to an object. Talk about symbolism! Remember that. It'll be essential for understanding the story weave. Another thing to remember is Naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophical drive behind explaining how God is (I can't resist) essentially capricious with HIS power.See this movie. Beware, there are pieces which you will see earlier on, which will only become apparent to you later, as the film rolls or digitizes through your viewing mechanism. No worries. With "Safety of Objects" you'll see something about your post-modern, industrialized, computer age selves. In other words, the film conveys a bit of, "the condition, your own condition is in."Plastic people? Well, maybe so. If the shoe fits...

Dolly76 There has been much talk of how the film represents (or apparently misrepresents) the American psyche but you don't have to be an American to empathise, or indeed sympathise, with these characters. Like it or not, all families are dysfunctional; we are all damaged in some way and that is the beauty of this film. I may not be a manic depressive, masturbate comatosed boys or have had a questionable relationship with my Barbies but life can be 'distasteful', 'brooding', 'pervy', 'joyless' and 'selfish' just as much as it can be wonderful, uplifting and compassionate. No, not every American suburban family are as impaired as these, nor as a Brit do I see a mirror of myself watching Eastenders or Coronation Street. It's just one point of view and I think Rose Troche has handled such social nuances sensitively and with care. I'm not saying the film is perfect. However, complaining because it makes disturbing or uncomfortable viewing smacks of it hitting a nerve.... If you're seeking a no-brainer, go and see the latest Seann William Scott flick. But if you want an alternative slice of American pie - and a more realistic and universal one at that - feast on this.

Shannon I think I really wanted to like this film. Unfortunately, there were many elements that I found very cumbersome to the overall story/plot, or lack thereof.The cast was really good, Dermot Mulroney, Glenn Close, Joshua Jackson. The idea of studying individual lives that share connecting threads is one that I usually find enticing. There were some deep seated demons within the group of characters. Among these demons, there seemed to be no consequences for their actions. I think the movie is incorrectly titled. There were no tangible objects within the film. At one point, you see Mulroney clinging to a stupid baseball mitt that he steals, what the heck was that all about? There there is his son that has a sexual relationship with a Barbie doll knock off. Hello, strange waters I choose not to swim in there.Then there is Close attempting to win an automobile for her daughter, who makes it 71 hours into the competition, then suddenly gives up the fight because it's an automobile accident that caused her son to be in this paralyzed coma he's in through the whole movie. Incidentally, I'm not sure why the boy wasn't in the hospital here? A very weak plot is stating the fact kindly.In the end, this whole mess of interwoven threads not unlike the silly friendship bracelet woven by a little girl who you think is a boy through most of the movie, is never completely tied off. The movie ends with this strange idea that it's okay to steal, murder, masturbate, have relationships with dolls, invite another young child to touch your private parts, cheat on your spouses, drink and drive, be irresponsible and promiscuous, and then wonder why you are depressed over God having a "wicked sense of humor" here?I'm sorry that it kept me up in the wee hours of the night and I was crippled by my inability to look away from a car crash.....pun intended.