jlthornb51
Any review of this film must begin with pointing out the most outstanding performance and real reason for seeing it. Ms. Emily Watson gives a performance of overwhelming power, of such beauty, subtlety, and artistic perfection that it defies description. Watson has a talent, humanity, and artistry that goes beyond all words. In Fireflies in the Garden it is one of compassion, love, and a uniquely smoldering sexuality that belongs to Emily Watson alone. There are many superb actresses working in film today but only one continues to burn her being into the very soul of audiences with one performance after another.
SnoopyStyle
Charles Taylor (Willem Dafoe) is a domineering abusive father to Michael and constantly fighting with his wife Lisa (Julia Roberts). As an adult, Michael (Ryan Reynolds) is a successful romance novel writer. He's coming home to see his mother graduate with his sister Ryne (Shannon Lucio). He's still bitter at his ex-wife Kelly Hanson (Carrie-Anne Moss). Lisa has a younger sister Jane (Hayden Panettiere/Emily Watson). As Charles and Lisa drive to her graduation from college, they get into an accident killing Lisa. This movie flashes back a lot to Michael as a young boy when Jane comes to live with them.The flashbacks are handled poorly. There are too many of them and it's a confusing mess to get a handle on who's who in all of this. It doesn't help that Emily Watson is nothing like Hayden Panettiere. I don't mean their looks. They don't have the same personality. It needs to settle down on all the main characters before they do extensive flashbacks. It all ends up in a ball of chaos.The good part is Willem Dafoe. He has the power of presence. He sells his domineering personality. Ryan Reynolds holds his own. There are some good actors in this movie. There is a compelling dysfunctional family drama, but writer/director Dennis Lee can't quite put it all together. With the caliber of actors, this should have made a much better movie.
slsmoot123
I'm not a literary genius or anything but this movie left me totally confused. Why did it seem like everyone was beating up on Michael, the one who had been abused? Even the aunt Jane whom I thought would have been the most understanding had zero empathy for Michael and defended the father to the death. She said that the book would kill the father (William Dafoe). Well, so effing what if it does? At least the writer could have let the audience know why she cared so much, after all her relation is to Lisa not the father so it makes absolutely no sense to me. She said to Michael "everything you touch turns to sh**", where did that come from? In my eyes it was totally unwarranted and if it had been me she would have gotten punched in the teeth for saying it. Then she never apologized even after Michael found her son. So it just seems like continued abuse on the abused. Then to throw the Manuscript in the fire is supposed to be a sign of forgiveness? So Michael's supposed to feel guilty for his father's sins? What!? Come on....It would have been a better movie if Jane didn't grow up to be such a turncoat b**ch.
flitz35
Great story, keeps your interest and a wonderful cast! A bit of a dark and sad movie but a good plot. It did not deserve the reviews it received from professional critics. I always wondering if giving a movie review was political or even money motivated. Now reading what happened to the unfortunate distribution of the this movie I guess there was no one left to please to grease a palm. The "critics" made themselves look silly and obviously crooked. Have you ever wondered why good movies get bad reviews and horrible movies get good reviews? Well here's a lesson and a prefect example of a good movie getting verbally trashed. Read what happened to the distribution of this movie and you will never read another 'critic' review again. Thanks for reading!!
AD
