Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

jotix100 An important look at the world of deafness that is seldom seen on television is the work of Stephen Sachs, whose play he adapted for the small screen, and directed by Joseph Sargent. The creators take us to a situation not often seen on television.This is a small project by all accounts, yet it takes the viewers behind the reality of people that face a hardship most of us don't know anything about, and even discrimination from ignorance. In the case of the Millers, what seems to be a happily adjusted family, the wife, Laura and the young son, Adam, live in a world where sound, as one knows it, is absent.When young Adam is taken to a hospital to be treated from a nasty fall, the intern that takes care of the wound, suggests a cochlear procedure so the boy can hear. Dan, the father, begins to ponder on the benefits Adam would receive, but the mere thought of it triggers a confrontation with Laura, who is reluctant to have her young son submitted to an operation with what she thinks is a risk she wouldn't like to take.That episode is what triggers a war between Dan and Laura, who decide to separate and get involved in a custody battle. At stake is what Laura perceives the loss of a culture for Adam. After all, she has lived a somewhat happy life in an loving environment with Dan. Her parents, who are deaf as well, never reveal a family secret that involves her.This movie is a bit different from what is shown in some family oriented channels. The casting of Jeff Daniels as Dan Miller, was a stroke of luck for the people involved in the film. Mr. Daniels is a natural who is good in anything he plays. Marlee Matlin, a deaf-mute actress is appealing as Laura. The supporting cast adds another dimension to the story.This is a film that goes where others don't dare to go.

nmx We get nice close-ups of people's faces for minutes at a time. Every once in a while you can see a finger or hand flit by. For a film in which the standard mode of communication is American Sign Language, shouldn't you keep the signed conversation on-screen? Also, were the actors specifically directed to act deadpan? I have seen Marlee Matlin act very expressively before, so some other force must have been at work. During scenes of intense argument and emotion, even depicting a turning point for some of the characters, we have minutes of camera switches between characters' faces. No signing visible on screen. No facial expression to tell you who's angry, who's hurt, who's sympathetic, who cares.

Lisa Rodrigues Marlee Maitlen is a beautiful and talented actress. I hate that the deaf community gets mad when she speaks in movies. I personally think she is sexy beyond words and especially love her in "The L Word." I understand that she didn't speak in this one because of the controversy of cochlear implants, BUT... having a cheesy voice-over every time she or any other deaf person spoke was INSULTING! If they had been speaking a foreign language it would have been subtitled, not voiced-over.Hallmark missed the opportunity to realistically present this story. Instead of keeping it real, they "dummied it down" for the hearing world.

dallas_viewer **SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW**Did I just watch "Children of a Lesser God - Part Deux"? Because I could have sworn I saw a very similar theme when I saw CoaLG 20 years ago. Only then (mid-1980s) it was about the idea of "talking", rather than cochlear implants, which were still being developed and tested at that time. But it was still kind of the same movie, only 20 years later. And guess who the deaf woman was in CoaLG? Yep--Marlee Matlin.Anyway, regarding tonight's offering...Nothing we haven't seen before. A number of movies and TV series episodes in recent years have been devoted to the issue of cochlear implants, and they covered pretty much the same ground shown tonight.I watched the movie anyway, knowing early on that Hallmark would never be so politically incorrect as to choose a side. I knew that we would never find out if Adam got the implant, or how well it did or didn't work out for him. Unfortunately, in not picking a side--in an effort to give us as "happy" an ending as possible while not offending any viewers in the pro- or anti-cochlear implant camps--Hallmark drained the movie of whatever impact it might have had on viewers like me.In fact, I find it highly unsatisfying to lay this enormous issue (of a family divided over the idea of a cochlear implant) on the table and then to cop out at the end by suggesting that "love will find a way". Come on--does anyone really think that the husband won't end up resentful in some way if the son does not have a cochlear implant? Are we supposed to believe that all will be well because apparently the mother and father are "BFFs" (Best Friends Forever)? I found it interesting that at no time did we get to hear Adam's feelings on getting a CI or on "hearing again". I wonder if, in real life, they don't ask this question of a child who heard previously. Isn't there supposed to be a psychological evaluation of the *child* and his needs as part of the CI candidate selection process? I'm not suggesting that an 8-year-old knows what's best for himself or should be the decision maker here. It's just that we know that Adam no longer speaks, and usually refuses to when asked. Is it because he can't hear himself talk any more,there's no longer that auditory feedback, and it's all strange, confusing, and somewhat stressful, so he doesn't try? Or is it that when he tried to talk after losing his hearing, his speech deteriorated, and folks looked at him funny, or asked him to repeat, or teased him, or didn't understand him, so that it no longer seemed worthwhile to try talking? If any of these things are true, are they not worthy of consideration in choosing whether or not to go with a cochlear implant? (I also wondered if another thing contributing to Adam's reluctance to speak was that his school was primarily a signing school. Why bother to try speaking when it's safer and easier to sign? Where's the motivation to really try to develop the desire to talk and to really improve one's speech skills, if everyone's signing? And what does this attitude portend about Adam's future opportunities in a predominantly hearing/speaking world?)Also - Marlee Matlin's character was too confusing for me at times. For example, she learns that her own parents had chosen not to give her hearing aids as a child. They had taken away from her the option of developing any sort of residual hearing. When she finds this out, she is highly upset. Yet the next thing we know, she doing the same thing to her child--remove a choice that might allow the child to have an easier time of negotiating the hearing world. Why? Whatever she was selling, I wasn't buying it, so to speak.The interesting thing is that, while Hallmark seemed to be attempting to be "fair and balanced"--and make no final judgment--I found that as the pros and cons of the situation unfolded, the case seemed to favor cochlear implantation. I thought there was relatively little negative said about the CI. (Of course, I come from a hearing perspective.)On the other hand, we learned that the deaf father had gone through life bullied, struggling, etc., for being deaf. We also learned that a significant number of deaf adults are likely to do poorly in school (not because they themselves are innately poor learners, BTW, but for other reasons) or require government assistance. Adam's mother has to rely on the father to interpret for her everywhere, because she has limited ability to speak or understand spoken English.So the final message to me seemed to be that the chief benefit of *not* having a cochlear implant is that it reinforces for the deaf child that it's okay to be deaf--there's nothing that needs fixing. And that's a worthy message, certainly. But it seems to me to be a pretty weak argument, when pitted against the "pro CI" benefits, which include more social and job opportunity, and less likelihood of isolation, struggle, etc. And I suspect that there are ways to introduce a child to a CI without implying that the child is "broken" or unworthy and needs "fixing" in order to be acceptable.I can see situations where one might reject the idea of a CI - both parents are deaf and the family all signs and is functioning fine, or maybe there are medical or other reasons that make the child a poor candidate for a CI. But that was not the case in this movie.