Surrender, Dorothy

Who eats ice cream out of a cup with spoon while driving a car, having a conversation, and feeding ice cream to the other passenger? Why not close your eyes and take your hands off the wheel like Diane Keaton chose to do after she learned her only child DIED IN A CAR WRECK? This kind of bad writing insults the audience. Then, the actors, who are supposed to be the deceased Sarah's best friends, continue on with their vacation and the deceased girl's grieving mother joins them so she can get closer to Sarah's private life while she grieves the loss of her only child. Who does that? Before the diary was ever read, I knew it contained the poor dead girl's burdens of feeling like she had to be her mother's universe. And what was the deal with that hideous growth on that poor waitress' chin? What was the point to that? Was there some symbolism there besides she must not have a best friend because if she did, her best friend would tell her to shave her beard? This, coming from a girl who clearly would rather spend all her time with a homosexual man than take a risk of developing a relationship with a man who is not the husband of her best friend. Who is the best friend that tells you she's sleeping with your husband? I had a hard time liking Sarah after that. The plot gets more annoying as it becomes obvious that the deceased girl's mother not only tried to control every minute of her only daughter's life, but also had to invade her private relationships with her friends after she was dead, as if Sarah is her possession, or as if she is still a small child and has no rights to privacy as an adult. And can Diane Keaton over-act or what? This is really a story about how suffocating a mother's love can be even with the purest of intentions, especially for an only child. I found myself watching the clock to see when this nerve wracking mess of a movie would end.

I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film.

Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.

My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.

It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.

Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.

Natalie Swerdlow (Diane Keaton) and her daughter Sara (Alexa Davalos) are exceedingly close. Sara is at her annual summer vacation place with gay best friend Adam (Tom Everett Scott), his boyfriend Shawn (Chris Pine), and their married friends; Maddy (Lauren German), Peter (Josh Hopkins), and their baby. Sara is killed while driving Adam. A heartbroken Natalie barges in on the friend group's summer house.

The death of one's child can get emotionally messy. That's why I can excuse the abundance of anger from Natalie and Adam. This is a mess of emotions. It is a messy movie. I choose not to wallow in the mess, but rather accept it for what it is.

A good, not great, Diane Keaton performance is pretty much the only reason to see this clichéd movie-of-the-week and the only reason it gets my rating. Would it be possible to have a TV film where zero gay characters dress in drag or are screaming queens? Would it be possible that no more characters hear something scandalous over a baby monitor? Can we get a movie with people most of us can relate to, instead of the usual East Coast elite (hey, I'm liberal, but c'mon - it's been done as recently as Keaton's own "Something's Gotta Give"!) Keaton is, as usual, worth sitting through this, but I just felt like I'd seen it all before.