Nell (1994) User Reviews

What a charming movie

[stamper · 8/10 · 28 June 2002]

This film really surprised me, because it was really good. But it mostly surprised me, because I read here that this would be a drama and I must say I disagree. Drama stands for sadness and melancholy, whereas this film stood for humanism. I mean Nell is basically as happy as can be and who are we (the people in the film) to tell her that her way of life is not good? I know this might sound strange, but I see this film as a metaphor for human behavior. We reject what is not like us (race, religion, gender, sexual preference, skin color and so on) and think those people ought to be like us, because they are not ‘normal'. Well you tell me who is more normal: Nell or the people who want to put her away; Nell or the journalists; Nell or the boys in the bar? I will tell you: Nell, Nell and Nell. I can recommend this film to everyone and I hereby want to thank all people involved and especially Jodie Foster for her great performance.

7,5 out of 10

A Unique, But Disturbing Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 7 April 2007]

remember this film, and subsequent VHS tape, getting a fair share of publicity when it was released. The story certainly was different and so interesting to me (on the first viewing) that Jodie Foster's constant incoherent phrases didn't bother me. They aggravated a lot of other viewers, however. However, after three looks at this film,

I had had enough, too, not because of Foster but because this is a disturbing film. It's not a lot of fun to watch. The fact I watched it three times tells you it's pretty darned good.

Liam Neeson played a no-nonsense good guy. Natasha Richardson also adds to this unique story.

I would definitely recommend this film to first-time viewers but be wary it's different and not always pleasant to see and hear. I don't want to say more in fear of spoiling the story, but kudos to Foster for an outstanding effort.

Foster at her peak.

[THX 1138 · 8/10 · 5 February 2002]

It's easy to point out the flaws in "Nell". The sub plots that are left to waste, the "Taster's Choice" ending, and above all, failing to delve deeper into the psyche of Nell instead of dwelling too much on scenery and loose shots. Too easy. But let's concentrate on the good. And there is much to love about this movie, not in the least Fosters brilliant acting. I remember when I saw this movie in the theater for the first time, I was totally convinced by her acting. During the entire movie I never doubted for a second that Foster was "Nell". This is the best compliment I could give any actress or actor.

Clearly Foster put more effort into this movie than the writers.

[roarshock · 14 April 2001]

I haven't seen or read the play 'Idioglossia' on which this movie was based, but its title indicates where the emphasis was probably placed... on the attempt to communicate and understand this woman who was raised under extraordinary conditions. Movies don't usually thrive when done in the same tight, focused manner of a stage play, so it's customary to expand adaptations with additional locations, events, and subplots. Unfortunately for 'Nell' these are utterly conventional, filled with stereotypes and a sampling of the usual cliches. This takes time and attention away from the fascinating core story and the superb performance by Jodie Foster.

The story begins with the discovery that a reclusive old woman has died and has left a grown daughter alone in their remote cabin. Originally she is thought to be a "wild child" since she doesn't understand English and only utters what sounds like gibberish. Besides that, her behaviour is very peculiar and everyone's first impression is that she is also somewhat retarded, if not mentally ill.

But the movie and Foster display an understanding of their subject matter almost unique in a Hollywood movie. A true "wild child" (that is, a child who grows up isolated from human contact without learning a language) pretty much never can learn to speak normally or function independently in society. But this isn't the case for Nell. She lived with her loving mother all her life and did indeed learn to speak as any child would. It's just that the language we hear her speak is unique to herself (the definition of 'idioglossia') which was caused by a couple of different circumstances.

Her mother had suffered a stroke (if I recall correctly) which drastically affected her own ability to speak clearly, and this was the model for Nell's own speech, never having heard any other. Nell also had a twin sister who died when they were children. Typically twins develop their own language ("twin speech") to talk to each other when they are very young. Also typically they tend to outgrow and forget this language as they grow older. The movie postulates that Nell and her sister never discarded their language, not implausible considering their circumstances, and that Nell retained into adulthood much of that language even after the death of her sister.

The final elements of Nell's seemingly odd behaviour is simply a matter of a clash of cultures. Nell and her family were essentially a people unto themselves, living in isolation and out of contact with the rest of society. Some of their customs and beliefs were generated from the traumas suffered by the mother, others spontaneously arose from simply living the life they were leading. These seem peculiar to outsiders from our own, very different, culture; though it's just ordinary life to Nell. Even more peculiar is the outside world to Nell. The shock and recoil that she often undergoes comes from being suddenly confronted by inexplicable, unimagined, and overwhelming events totally beyond a lifetime's experience and coming directly on the heels of the death of her mother.

When the movie centers on these elements it is entirely engrossing. Foster is fully convincing in her role, and clearly understands the complex nature and history of Nell. Despite everyone's first impressions, Nell is never anything but an intelligent adult woman confronting a strange and often hostile world, and attempting to adapt to it as best she can. Her interactions with Neeson's and Richardson's characters are often complex and traumatic enough to keep the film moving in the absence of the other, extraneous, elements.

Had the movie concentrated more intently on this interaction and devoted more time to it, which is really the whole point of the film, or had it done a better and more original job of expanding it's vision during it's adaptation to film (those parts involving the sheriff's wife showed unexploited potential), 'Nell' could have been a great film. Certainly the superb cinematography shows one of the great advantages of film over the stage. But there was too much time spent on weak scenes for the movie to ever fully blossom.

So overall, despite its flaws, 'Nell' is a good film with many fascinating elements and an excellent performance by Jodie Foster. And that makes it well worth watching.

Excellent but many things that bothered me.

[paulr03 · 7/10 · 5 April 2018]

The story has been presented by other reviewers but I have a little different take. The acting and story were great and Foster gives an outstanding performer. What bothers me is, as a resident the area I have many complaints. Before getting into the factual problems let's cut to the main problem which is government intervention. I know several 'mountain folk' who live in the mountains just outside Robbinsville who live 100% off the land. No electric, water in house, food, etc. They are perfectly happy and Nell was more that capable to take care of herself. The government destroyed her life! Second, the City of Robbinsville is horribly represented with the pool hall scene! There is no way she would have treated like that from anyone in that lovely town! The people of the town and the surrounding counties were horrified!

A woman is discovered in the Carolina woods..having lived in a world of her own

[goya-4 · 6/10 · 8 May 2001]

Jodie Foster stars in this popular film about a woman discovered in the woods of Carolina having not know civilization as commonly known.

Of course, the ones who found her, Neeson and Richardson, want to take care of her and show her the new world, while their colleagues and other government people as exposed as "bad guys" and want to exlpoit her. A good film but way too predictable and too "hollywood-ized". There are no suprises at all.. Jodie Foster does a great job in the title role. 6 of 10

good performance from Jodie Foster

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 9 February 2015]

Stroke victim Violet Kellty passes away in her isolated North Carolina cabin. Town doctor Jerry Lovell (Liam Neeson) and Sheriff Todd Peterson (Nick Searcy) find a young woman (Jodie Foster) living in the house speaking her own language. She is Violet's daughter Nell from a rape. Lovell asks Dr. Paula Olsen (Natasha Richardson) to help him decipher her language. Olsen is looking to commit her but Lovell opposes her asking for informed consent. The judge gives them 3 months to observe her before making any decision. However her language hides the fact that she had a twin once.

The movie navigates some interesting matters like Nell's sexuality but handles it without much depth. The movie ends with a Five Years Later scene. I think those five years hold something more interesting. It's also perplexing that Nell doesn't figure out some more English. The movie seems intent to keep her a virginal innocent to the end of the trial. The speech in court starts off well but quickly turns cheesy. There is a vein of cheesiness going on in this movie. Jodie Foster gives her all in this performance. It would be great if director Michael Apted dig deeper into the character.

Fascinating Story That Turns A Bit Too "Feel Good" In The End

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 28 July 2011]

The subject matter is fascinating. Nell (Jodie Foster) is a young woman raised by her mother in a setting completely cut off from civilization. She knows nothing of the outside world and has had little if any interaction with other people throughout her life, to the point at which she's developed her own language. Discovered by a grocery store delivery boy when her mother died, she comes under the care and tutelage of Drs. Lovell and Olson (Liam Neesom and Natasha Richardson) who have to decide whether or not she should be taken from her isolated environment and introduced to the "real" world.

The dilemma is very powerful. What right does anyone else have to decide for Nell how her life should be lived, especially when she's clearly capable of living on her own in the environment to which she's accustomed? Why should she be subject to court orders about her fate or to living in psychiatric hospitals when there's obviously nothing really wrong with her except that she's living a life that no one in the outside world can understand? Those are tough questions. The movie does a great job of developing the relationship between Nell and Lovell (and then also Olson) in a sensitive way, as both begin to care for Nell and want to be protective of her and her rights to choose. Jodie Foster was - I thought - surprisingly good in this role. She usually plays a stronger type, and - at least as the movie opens - Nell was a very vulnerable figure. I didn't know if Foster would work in such a role, but she pulled it off perfectly.

I would criticize this film only for the overly happy ending. Beginning with Nell appearing in court, this took on a too "syrupy" fell in my opinion; everything in the end was far too happy to be believable - in my opinion anyway. But aside from that I thought this was a very well done movie and a very interesting story. (7/10)

One of the finest and most powerful films of the Nineties

[JamesHitchcock · 10/10 · 25 September 2004]

In the late 1970s two young girls named Virginia and Grace Kennedy caused great interest in the academic disciplines of psychology and linguistics. The girls, identical twin sisters, had developed a private language quite incomprehensible to outsiders. Even after they had learnt English, they continued to communicate with each other in their secret language, which was partly a mixture of distorted English and the German that was their grandmother's native tongue, but which also contained some inexplicable vocabulary items.

This was an example of an uncommon, but not unprecedented, phenomenon known as 'idioglossia' or 'cryptophasia'. 'Nell' tells the story of an even more extreme example of the same phenomenon. An eccentric and reclusive old woman named Violet Kellty is found dead in her home, a wooden cabin without electricity or running water in a remote mountain are of North Carolina. The local doctor, Jerry Lovell, visits the property to certify the death and discovers that, unknown to the community, Violet had a daughter, Nell, living with her. Nell is unable to speak English and can only speak an unknown language. Although in her late twenties, she has never been outside her home and the forests which surround it, and knows nothing of the outside world.

A psychiatrist, Paula Olsen, sent to investigate the case, decides that Nell is mentally retarded, but Lovell, who is becoming increasingly fascinated by this strange young woman, contests this diagnosis. The judge responsible for deciding Nell's future, decides that she should be kept under observation for three months so that more information can be obtained. Jerry and Paula move into the woods to observe, and gradually start to find out more about Nell's past. They learn that she had a twin sister, May, who died as a child, and that her seemingly-strange speech is actually a mixture of distorted English learnt from her mother (who had a speech defect as the result of a series of strokes) and words remembered from a private language spoken with her twin. The question they have to resolve is whether Nell should be committed to a mental institution or allowed to continue her life in the woods. In order to do so, they find that they need to learn how to communicate with her.

The most outstanding feature of the film is Jodie Foster's performance in the title role- a remarkable one even by the standards of this talented actress. Throughout the film Foster speaks only in Nell's unearthly-sounding private language, but is able to use this, together with gestures and facial expressions, to convey a full range of emotions. The nearest parallel is probably Marlee Matlin's equally remarkable performance in 'Children of a Lesser God', another film about difficulties in communication. What emerges most powerfully here is the traumatic nature of Nell's position- hitherto happy in her limited world, she is suddenly confronted with a range of people and situations she never knew existed. Foster certainly deserved her Oscar nomination; whether she deserved to win I cannot say, as I have never seen 'Blue Sky', the film for which Jessica Lange won the award.

At the heart of the film is a triangular relationship between Nell, Jerry and Paula. Paula initially leans towards the view that Nell belongs in an institution, and clashes with Jerry who takes the opposite view, but as the film progresses she comes to share his opinion and his concern for Nell. The two first become friends and then fall in love, brought together by Nell, who forms the third side of the triangle. One can say that there are also love-relationships between Nell and Jerry and Nell and Paula, but because these relationships are platonic rather than sexual in nature they serve to bring Jerry and Paula together rather than divide them. This means that Jerry and Paula play key roles in the film; fortunately, Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson both play their parts very well, although in a more understated manner than Foster.

Many of the criticisms which have been made of the film are, I believe, due to misconceptions. The film critic of The Guardian, for example, criticised it for being overly politically correct in its treatment of the 'mentally challenged'. Apart from the fact that that is an odd criticism to find in a newspaper which is one of the strongest bastions of political correctness in Britain, it is made quite clear in the film that Nell is neither mentally ill nor mentally handicapped. She merely speaks a different language (both literally and metaphorically) from the rest of the world. Some have taken exception to the brief scenes of nudity, but the purpose of these is not eroticism, but rather to demonstrate Nell's innocence.

Another criticism which I have seen made of this film, both on this board and elsewhere, is that it is pushing a trite or simplistic 'message', normally along the lines of 'nature is better than civilization' or 'ignorance is bliss'. In my opinion, this criticism is misconceived; 'Nell' is not a didactic film of that sort. Certainly, Nell herself has many admirable characteristics- gentleness, the ability to love and to be loved, a capacity for joy and a love of nature- but nowhere in the film is there any argument that one has to be ignorant or a feral child of nature in order to share these characteristics. If there are villains in the film they are not abstractions such as 'civilisation' or 'modern society', but rather those individuals who want to exploit Nell for their own ends- the journalist hungry for a scoop, the rowdy town youths who want to use her either for mockery or for sexual pleasure, and the academic Alexander Paley. Paley is keen to have Nell committed; he tries to justify this as objective concern for her welfare, but his motives are really self-seeking. He sees Nell as a first-class subject for research which will bring him kudos in the world of academia.

What gives the film its power is not any obvious 'message' but its deeply poetic and spiritual tone, deriving both from the acting of the three central characters and the exquisite photography of the North Carolina landscapes. It is a film from which different viewers will draw different conclusions- some may see it, for example, as a religious allegory about the redeeming power of love, while others may view it in a more literal way. It may be too quiet and poetic for some tastes, but in my view this is an unjustly neglected work, one of the finest and most powerful films of the nineties. 10/10.

Who Gets to Save Her?

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 21 August 2020]

"Nell" is a good movie, but unfortunately every movie needs an antagonist. In this movie there were a few antagonists: the media (of course), a punk delivery boy, and a doctor at a big hospital. I think "Nell" created antagonists for the sake of drama. There was no need for the delivery boy to be an antagonist, or the media, or especially the doctor. "Nell" is a movie that deals in a gray area in which I don't think there is a right and wrong.

We found Nell (Jodie Foster) placing flowers on her dead mother's eyes much like some cultures did with coins over the eyes of their deceased. Soon we discovered that Nell was an extremely sheltered woman who hadn't socially or emotionally matured and her speech was so poorly developed that it was a wonder if she even was speaking English.

Being that she was now alone, ostensibly, without the skills to take care of herself, the state had to step in. One big hospital sent Dr. Paula Olsen (Natasha Richardson) to evaluate her while opposing them was the pure-hearted Dr. Jerry Lovell (Liam Neeson). The hospital was out to prove that she'd need professional care while Jerry was out to prove that she could survive on her own.

I happened to see the answer as somewhere in the middle and I was shocked that that hadn't even been explored. In other words, couldn't it have been that she would need professional help up until she could properly care for herself?

I think the movie limiting us to those binary choices was its biggest flaw. The movie made Jerry the protagonist, but told from a different perspective Jerry could've been the antagonist looking to fight the big hospital just because.

"Nell" was a nice movie--moving at times--and I don't want to go so far as to call it disingenuous, so I'll say it was narrow in its scope.

Foster works admirably hard, but film is unenlightening and not too convincing...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 23 June 2006]

Young woman named Nell, raised in total isolation in the backwoods of North Carolina by her mother (who had suffered strokes before her death and inadvertently taught her daughter an idiosyncratic form of English) is discovered by a well-meaning doctor who hopes to understand her; unfortunately, other doctors with eyes on their careers get involved and, figuring Nell to be a mentally backward wild child, bring science into the equation. Intrinsically, the film is about how civilization corrupts our innate innocence, yet the movie is really a bit condescending to the medical profession to suggest today's scientists (and journalists) are only interested in basic assimilation and not the human spirit. If this is indicative of today's society--and that the message is we'd all be better off living like Nell--it doesn't provide much enlightenment. The picture has a cold, flat look, and I grew very tired of Natasha Richardson as a doctor who initially would like to see the girl act like just like the rest of us (all she ever seems to ask is, "So what are we gonna do about Nell?"). On the other hand, Jodie Foster goes for broke in the lead, allowing her whole self to be expressive, particularly her lovely hands. It's a sensitive, memorable performance by the actress, who deserved her Oscar nomination, yet the picture itself disappoints, going around in a rather beleaguered circle. ** from ****

Brilliant!

[bsmith-28 · 10/10 · 25 April 2004]

I just watched this movie for the second time. One word: wow!

This is one of the rare gems that you can tell when actors and actresses put everything into their performances, and actually go beyond the role. How can I tell? At the very end of the movie, the emotion of the moment that Jodie's character feels towards the scene with the little girl reminding her of her lost sister is enough to make Jodie herself cry and wipe away a tear. Incredible. It's very rare to see that level of immersion into a role where the actors involved feel real emotion about a scene. I'm willing to bet that moment of grace at the very end of the movie wasn't scripted nor acted on Jodie's part. You simply cannot get more heartfelt emotion into a scene than what was shown at the end of Nell. Brilliant and well-acted movie by all. A definite 10.

Difficult subject to get right

[Luuk-2 · 6/10 · 27 November 2004]

Although Jodie Foster is as always a joy to look at the film disappoints in more ways than one. Granted, it is not an easy theme to turn into a visual narrative, but pretty pictures of the Smoky Mountains and good acting do not alone suffice to make a good film. What is sorely missing is a decent narrative that is able to keep one interested. Moreover, I can live with the cliché of the fanatic scholar who just looks upon human beings as objects and yet another notch on his academic record, but the heavily romanticised picture of Nell towards the end emerging as a "pure" woman who is able to heal the wounded souls around her is a little too much to bear.

Tedious pap

[mnpollio · 3/10 · 13 March 2007]

Normally I love Jodie Foster, but this film is a total misfire that is little more than a gender reversal on Forrest Gump. Foster plays an uneducated backwoods woman, who is "discovered" following the death of her guardian and becomes the cause celebre for dueling medicos Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson, who debate about whether she should be institutionalized or allowed to remain in isolation. It is a potentially interesting story, but it goes south once one realizes that the film is infinitely more interested in utilizing Nell as some sort of wise-beyond-her-years E.T., who will ultimately bring everyone around her together, rather than examining the world from her perspective. As with many films now, it is in desperate need of editing and the length is unreasonable. Foster is initially amazing as a woman who speaks a language all her own, but there is nothing to the role beyond the initial impression. She spends the majority of the film twirling, speaking gibberish and taking skinnydips. One certainly has to admire her fearlessness in these moments, as she truly gives an air of being uninhibited and innocent. Ironically, director Apted misses few opportunities to denude his leading lady, but when the story conspires a reason for the strapping Neeson to shed his clothes, tellingly Apted suddenly becomes coy with showing nudity. Neeson and Richardson are both fine, but they are stuck in cardboard roles with little dimension. A total waste of time.

A beautiful film

[Bon_Jovi_chick · 11 December 2002]

It was a great and simple story. Simply about a woman raised in the wild, unable to speak proper english due to her mothers stroke and she is trying to be brought into "civilisation".

Neeson and Foster are the stars of this film!! Not just because of their star status but they really showed talent in this film. Foster is brilliant as the vulnerable but independent Nell and Neeson is great as her "guardian angel".

This film has its funny bits but the ending... well if youre dead sensitive, get the tissues out. When Nell speaks in the courts, I was causing a flood!!!!

I give it a 10/10. Definetly one to keep forever.

Helen xxxxx

wild woman never got me wild

[rajin22 · 6/10 · 1 April 2000]

It starts off well, this story of a wild woman in the woods of South Carolina, but loses steam halfway not to regain it again. The ending is downright silly and melodramatic. Great performance by Jodie Foster though, beautiful scenery as well. But all in all, "Nell" never really takes off and remains a distant film with a pretentious and by sweetish violins accompanied message.

5 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 7

[jack_onthenet · 7/10 · 3 July 2004]

*** spoiler ahead, read at your own risk ***

The first half of this film is Great. Second half is a big joke which ruined everything.

The joke begins when Nell is taken into city to the hospital. The Sick-City-Syndrome-at-First-Sight is formula and shallow. The big speech at the court is sheer Hollywoodish or simply trash. And the pastoral happy ending 5 years later? Just forget it.

7 out of 10. 5 to the first hour, 0 to the second hour, 1 to Jodie Foster (including 0.5 for Ellie Arroway in CONTACT, 1997), 1 to Liam Neeson (including 0.5 for Michael Collins in MICHAEL COLLINS, 1996).

Jodie Foster's Wild Child

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 17 March 2009]

Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson play a couple of doctors who discover a wild child named Nell, a woman who's grown up completely isolated from human contact, and who as a result has developed her own language, mode of communication, etc.

I can understand what drew Jodie Foster to the role of Nell, because on paper it's a serious actress's wet dream. However, the results, while earnest, are rather embarrassing. Something about the film, and Foster's performance, never quite works, and I found myself laughing at her performance, never a good sign.

The whole thing is just a little too nauseating to be completely enjoyable.

Grade: B-

Foster a prodigy, unparallelled

[gcd70 · 7/10 · 5 February 2008]

Powerful acting from leads Liam Neeson, Natasha Richardson and Jodie Foster dominates this tale concerning a 'wild woman' from rugged mountain country who is forced into mainstream society when her elderly mother passes away and can no longer take care of her and keep her sheltered from the outside world.

Director Michael Apted has taken a theme that is not a new one, and shaped it into a strong drama about how an unpolluted human being can transform those who have suppressed their emotions in the outside world merely through their purity. "Nell" contains a definite message in this light, and it's one we could all learn from. Apted takes everything very seriously in bringing William Nicholson's screenplay to celluloid, while carefully balancing things with a gentle humour. His competence is most evident early on and continues through the middle of the narrative, yet towards the end one gets the feeling "Nell" is trying too hard to say something. The final court scene is effective, but perhaps a little unnecessary (attempting the quintessential tear jerker maybe). Everything is just too nicely wrapped up.

The cinematography is wonderful as it captures the splendid locale beautifully, and Mark Isham's score is truly soulful, but let's get back to the movie's real strength.

Jodie Foster is a true prodigy, even though she may not be at her best, she manages to deliver an unbridled performance, holding your attention with ease whenever she is on the screen. Her earthy beauty makes her look all the more natural, and she maintains complete control with seemingly no effort. Foster is an actress unparalleled among her contemporaries.

Tuesday, February 14, 1995 - Village Southland

Breath Taking

[JessTheCat · 10/10 · 30 August 2002]

Nell is one of the most captivating, moving and thought provoking films I have ever seen in my life. The acting all round is superb, including a truly fine performance by Jodie Foster. This film is nothing short of spectacular, boasting a strong script, beautiful scenery and excellent direction. Overall, Nell is nothing short of breath taking. I strongly advise to see it. You won't be disappointed.

Mixed drama, good acting but poor writing

[jem132 · 6/10 · 20 May 2009]

Mixed drama with Jodie Foster as a "wild woman", living for many years with her disabled mother deep in the woods, who is discovered by Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson. She speaks in a language they cannot understand, yet they (Neeson in particular), form a special bond with her. Eventually as publicity about ehr case grows they are induced to take her away from her natural environment, and of course trauma follows. Jodie Foster never entirely convinces as Nell, but not for lack of trying. Her character has this big courtroom speech at the end that is ridiculously written. It has some nice moments, and the three actors have genuine chemistry, but it just sorts of plods away, never really getting anywhere.

not believable, on any level

[mwright-13 · 5/10 · 15 May 2006]

Not believable. So many of these "wild person" movies have been done, from Tarzan to Crocodile Dundee, that we know what to expect of them...nothing believable, and nothing to learn from. Characters in other movies have been suckled by wolves, raised to swing from vines like apes, to fight crocodiles by the Australian Aborigines, raised by Indians and taught to dance with wolves, who knows what else? The only thing is, it could never happen. Raised by people in other societies, yes, but children raised without contact with any other people, it's impossible. Nell, if she had been living like the story has us believe, would have matted hair, filthy skin that was callused from head to toe, and she would be eating caterpillars and bark, not the groceries that were delivered to her door every week. And if the grocer knew where she was living, so would everybody else. Who pays the grocer? Why is she wearing shoes that fit? Why is her skin so soft and smooth? Why does her sister have to be an identical twin to make their own language...she could just as easily be a cousin. The thing that bothers me the most is that the average hillbilly in the mountains of North Carolina are much worse off than she is, and yet she is the one with new clean clothes and perfect teeth, while they are the ones with none. You want to make a movie about hillbillies in NC, then just go into the woods and film an average family in those hills, you don't need to drag Jodie Foster in with 25 makeup artists to hide blemishes. We have her in a cabin near a road that some local bikers have found. Are they the first people who ever stumbled on that cabin? The US government has surveyed every square inch of land in this country, and census takers know where every cabin or shack is. I have 28 acres in a part of the Adirondacks that are every bit as remote as the hills of NC, and when I tried sneaking a cabin in there, within a week I had the Town Officials up there wanting to see my permit. The movie is impossible.

Very Interesting-A sleeper that I really liked.

[Mr Skoooooter · 9/10 · 27 May 2001]

Having never seen this film before, I "stumbled" on to it this morning about 10 minutes after it started on A&E and was so mesmerized that I watched the whole movie, and really liked it! It is well acted (Jodie Foster is INCREDIBLE), as is Natasha Richardson and Liam Neeson, and it's just an all around GOOD movie. I recommend it very highly, and stopped short of giving it a "10" because it didn't have one of those neat what-happened-to-her title-over endings, though the ending IS a good one.

pretty good movie

[mustang22 · 7/10 · 30 January 2005]

I read a number of the reviews posted here before I watched this movie. Like many others I enjoyed the movie, but found the ending disappointing. At the end where it is 5 years later, Nell didn't seem to have made any progress in her speech, or basically in anything! She seemed stuck in time. I also thought Liam seemed far more interested in Nell then he did the other doctor, so I was disappointed where he winds up with her at the end. He looked like he really wanted to pack up his stuff and moved into Nell's cabin.

I like Jodie Foster for taking on these difficult acting roles, and not just out to make sequels to Silence of the Lambs. All the acting was really good in this movie. I gave it a 7.

Worst Oscar Nominated Performance Ever?

[FANatic-10 · 1/10 · 24 August 1999]

The only prize that the usually excellent Jodie Foster deserved for her performance in the God-awful "Nell" was a Booby Prize, not an Oscar nomination. The movie and her performance are both cloying, manipulative embarassments. I sat through the whole precious, fey, numbingly predictable piece of claptrap, dumbfounded that this normally intelligent and thoughtful actress could have experienced such an extended bout of temporary insanity as was needed to give this particular performance. Everyone's entitled to mistakes, I guess. The jaw-dropping thing is that some people actually like this movie, and not just as camp! By the way, it also features Liam Neeson at his most constipated, and Natasha Richardson's along for the ride too, though its hard to notice either of them while Jodie's so busy making funny faces and gurgling.