So as many reviews have stated, there was a certain amount of predictability to the film. I will call BS on people 'knowing everything that would happen' - I doubt they knew it would end how it does.
The complaints I saw in the reviews are mostly people unwilling to embrace the suspension of disbelief, and I think that is their loss. Of course there are things in here that are farfetched and inaccurate... short of BBC films, you will find that in pretty much every movie. Just because you happen to understand the medical jargon going on in this one doesn't make it less believable than the film you had no 'real world' knowledge on. I think this is a pet peeve of mine.
Common complaints again, talking about how a woman could kidnap a child and make her sick, and nobody would notice. WHHHHHHHHHHHHAT? It's like you folks have never heard of munchausen by proxy. It happens a bit more than you'd like to think. They specifically address how this goes under the radar by her use of veterinarians, the fact that she has changed her primary doctor 12 times in a short period of time, home schooling, etc. Are there holes in the plot here? Yes. But they do try to fill in most of the gaps.
Another complaint is why the daughter doesn't really do anything to stop her mother. Sharp objects around, etc. But this is, until a week ago, a mother who she believed loved and took care of her. Stockholm syndrome can kick in as a teenager, after a shorter period of time (i.e. Elizabeth Smart who might have been rescued months before had she been able to speak up). Children who are abused frequently can't retaliate. This aspect is not at all far fetched.
Like I said, there were parts of the story that were predictable. You knew from the previews that mom was making her sick. Not far in, after seeing how isolated she made them (and the fact that it was clear she wasn't going to let her daughter leave the house), you assumed something else had transpired (ie the kidnapping). The part at the end where she is slipping mom the pills - I did not see that coming.
To the acting, Sarah Paulson was great. She did a great job with the subtle creepiness. When the daughter is looking things up online that first night, they do focus in on Sarah after she gives up (sitting in the kitchen watching her try to google things)... but it would be a lot easier to miss her already sitting there when the daughter comes down the stairs.
I think the actress who plays the daughter is still coming into her own, and I definitely don't think this is the best genre for her, but she wasn't bad.
While predictable - I enjoyed the movie. It is a more subtle, creepy film. I also think they have a lot of nuanced stuff going on with accessibility that went over a lot of reviewers heads (like where mom's escape is only thwarted because the wing is not accessible).
I will say, the part where she ninjas out her window, into her mom's room, back to her room (for the inhaler), was just a little ridiculous. :)
The complaints I saw in the reviews are mostly people unwilling to embrace the suspension of disbelief, and I think that is their loss. Of course there are things in here that are farfetched and inaccurate... short of BBC films, you will find that in pretty much every movie. Just because you happen to understand the medical jargon going on in this one doesn't make it less believable than the film you had no 'real world' knowledge on. I think this is a pet peeve of mine.
Common complaints again, talking about how a woman could kidnap a child and make her sick, and nobody would notice. WHHHHHHHHHHHHAT? It's like you folks have never heard of munchausen by proxy. It happens a bit more than you'd like to think. They specifically address how this goes under the radar by her use of veterinarians, the fact that she has changed her primary doctor 12 times in a short period of time, home schooling, etc. Are there holes in the plot here? Yes. But they do try to fill in most of the gaps.
Another complaint is why the daughter doesn't really do anything to stop her mother. Sharp objects around, etc. But this is, until a week ago, a mother who she believed loved and took care of her. Stockholm syndrome can kick in as a teenager, after a shorter period of time (i.e. Elizabeth Smart who might have been rescued months before had she been able to speak up). Children who are abused frequently can't retaliate. This aspect is not at all far fetched.
Like I said, there were parts of the story that were predictable. You knew from the previews that mom was making her sick. Not far in, after seeing how isolated she made them (and the fact that it was clear she wasn't going to let her daughter leave the house), you assumed something else had transpired (ie the kidnapping). The part at the end where she is slipping mom the pills - I did not see that coming.
To the acting, Sarah Paulson was great. She did a great job with the subtle creepiness. When the daughter is looking things up online that first night, they do focus in on Sarah after she gives up (sitting in the kitchen watching her try to google things)... but it would be a lot easier to miss her already sitting there when the daughter comes down the stairs.
I think the actress who plays the daughter is still coming into her own, and I definitely don't think this is the best genre for her, but she wasn't bad.
While predictable - I enjoyed the movie. It is a more subtle, creepy film. I also think they have a lot of nuanced stuff going on with accessibility that went over a lot of reviewers heads (like where mom's escape is only thwarted because the wing is not accessible).
I will say, the part where she ninjas out her window, into her mom's room, back to her room (for the inhaler), was just a little ridiculous. :)