Caught this on late night TV -- can it be almost 25 years ago? wow. Most of the folks here have gone to amazing careers, and need no introduction -- Baldwin, Kidman, Pullman, scriptwriter Sorkin.
But this is a terribly written movie -- handsomely produced -- finest actors -- but ultimately feels like a manipulative rip-off. I am not sure I processed that back in '93, because I knew less about both fertility treatments and the legal system.
For starters: "Jeb Hill" (Baldwin) is an absolutely top surgeon at an MA hospital, but is willing to operate on his GIRLFRIEND, rendering her both sterile and MENOPAUSAL (!!!) by removing both of her ovaries -- for a lousy $20 million? Hello? the actor was 34 here, so presumably his character is roughly this age -- a surgeon at the BEGINNING of a brilliant, 35 plus year career -- and who would throw it AWAY for a lousy $20 million?
Wait a sec. But it isn't $20 million. $20 mil is the SETTLEMENT, meaning Kidman's lawyers skim a minimum of 30% off the top, and more likely 40%. Let's go with 30% though. Now it is only $14 million. And the two con artists would presumably be splitting it -- they are not even married -- so that's a lousy $7 million each. (In reality, this would have gone to trial -- Dr. Hill's remarks were off the record, and he would have retracted them -- and that would have probably meant way less even than this.)
$7 million? to give up your CAREER, which presumably Hill loves and is brilliant at-- to retire in his early 30s? A thoracic surgeon probably earned close to half a million a YEAR back then -- over just 20 years that is $10 million by itself.
And Kidman was willing to go through SURGICAL MENOPAUSE to get her $7 million? with all of the risks, discomforts, etc. of early menopause? The script keeps saying "children" but she never wanted kids (*because we all know that mean bee-yotches in movies are not maternal and hate kids). But did she want the OTHER risks and miseries of menopause? or the side effects of taking estrogen pills for the next 20 years? HOT FLASHES? hair loss, weight gain, dry skin, sexual side effects?
Are you kidding me? If a woman HAD $7 million, she'd probably gladly pay every penny to be able to NOT go through early menopause!
It is as if the scriptwriters had no idea what really happens to women to lose their ovaries. They did not do even the most minimal research.
Today, this would be even greater hooey, since it would be easy to have tested the aborted fetus to determine if it was Bill Pullman's biological child, which would have blown the whole lawsuit apart. The plot line with him accused of rape feels manipulative.
Also the end with the whole "blind child they think has seen everything" -- unbelievably hokey and "convenient". The whole script is just stupid & manipulative.
Only bright spot is a small role by the legendary Anne Bancroft -- giving everyone here a master's class in art of real acting (as Kidman's drunk, hostile mother). Though whoever thought that dark, ethnic looking Bancroft could be the mom of pale, lanky redhead Kidman doesn't know much about genetics as well. And what abusive DRUNK cares if they drink single malt scotch? Do the writers here know that a single malt costs about 10 times what a bottle of cheap whiskey costs? No drunk would make that cost/benefit analysis and decide to drink the hoity-toity stuff.
A film that was never very good and has aged badly. Only interesting to see Kidman (a tremendous natural beauty here at 25) and Alec Baldwin (a super-hottie in his day) when young. Baldwin especially has matured into an hilarious comedian, once he aged past his hottie stage.
Only worth viewing again for Bancroft's terrific scene, which is only about 4 minutes out of the whole film.
But this is a terribly written movie -- handsomely produced -- finest actors -- but ultimately feels like a manipulative rip-off. I am not sure I processed that back in '93, because I knew less about both fertility treatments and the legal system.
For starters: "Jeb Hill" (Baldwin) is an absolutely top surgeon at an MA hospital, but is willing to operate on his GIRLFRIEND, rendering her both sterile and MENOPAUSAL (!!!) by removing both of her ovaries -- for a lousy $20 million? Hello? the actor was 34 here, so presumably his character is roughly this age -- a surgeon at the BEGINNING of a brilliant, 35 plus year career -- and who would throw it AWAY for a lousy $20 million?
Wait a sec. But it isn't $20 million. $20 mil is the SETTLEMENT, meaning Kidman's lawyers skim a minimum of 30% off the top, and more likely 40%. Let's go with 30% though. Now it is only $14 million. And the two con artists would presumably be splitting it -- they are not even married -- so that's a lousy $7 million each. (In reality, this would have gone to trial -- Dr. Hill's remarks were off the record, and he would have retracted them -- and that would have probably meant way less even than this.)
$7 million? to give up your CAREER, which presumably Hill loves and is brilliant at-- to retire in his early 30s? A thoracic surgeon probably earned close to half a million a YEAR back then -- over just 20 years that is $10 million by itself.
And Kidman was willing to go through SURGICAL MENOPAUSE to get her $7 million? with all of the risks, discomforts, etc. of early menopause? The script keeps saying "children" but she never wanted kids (*because we all know that mean bee-yotches in movies are not maternal and hate kids). But did she want the OTHER risks and miseries of menopause? or the side effects of taking estrogen pills for the next 20 years? HOT FLASHES? hair loss, weight gain, dry skin, sexual side effects?
Are you kidding me? If a woman HAD $7 million, she'd probably gladly pay every penny to be able to NOT go through early menopause!
It is as if the scriptwriters had no idea what really happens to women to lose their ovaries. They did not do even the most minimal research.
Today, this would be even greater hooey, since it would be easy to have tested the aborted fetus to determine if it was Bill Pullman's biological child, which would have blown the whole lawsuit apart. The plot line with him accused of rape feels manipulative.
Also the end with the whole "blind child they think has seen everything" -- unbelievably hokey and "convenient". The whole script is just stupid & manipulative.
Only bright spot is a small role by the legendary Anne Bancroft -- giving everyone here a master's class in art of real acting (as Kidman's drunk, hostile mother). Though whoever thought that dark, ethnic looking Bancroft could be the mom of pale, lanky redhead Kidman doesn't know much about genetics as well. And what abusive DRUNK cares if they drink single malt scotch? Do the writers here know that a single malt costs about 10 times what a bottle of cheap whiskey costs? No drunk would make that cost/benefit analysis and decide to drink the hoity-toity stuff.
A film that was never very good and has aged badly. Only interesting to see Kidman (a tremendous natural beauty here at 25) and Alec Baldwin (a super-hottie in his day) when young. Baldwin especially has matured into an hilarious comedian, once he aged past his hottie stage.
Only worth viewing again for Bancroft's terrific scene, which is only about 4 minutes out of the whole film.