User reviews

Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a great performance as a mother who loses her 3-year old son when she leaves him alone for a minute with his older brother. The movie is not only about how a missing child can affect one's life, but it gets stranger after the family moves to a different city and one day a child who looks exactly like the msising boy is spotted.

I personally had a little difficulty about the happenstance this would have to take in order to happen, but it did lead to interesting questions on how a (possible) reunion after such a long time would play out. Pfeiffer acts with a lot of feeling without it becoming over the top, so she steals the show in my opinion. The other actors do a fine job, but not as excellent as her. There are a lot of themes from different perspectives, so it is shown e.g. How the child feels, how the "other" kids are affected as well, even how it is for a police officer working the case.

However, I do feel the movie was lacking, though I have a hard time putting my finger on why that is: seeing what I've written above makes me feel like this movie is good, at least on paper. But the experience itself wasn't so great. I just felt bored a lot of the time and the movie seemed longer than it's runtime of about 1 hour and 45 minutes. I wasn't really in it, even though usually this type of movie is very heartfelt and captivating. Nothing - apart from Pfeiffer's performance - stood out. Perhaps it can also be attributed to the long time spent on filming what happens in the 9 year period the boy is missing. In any case, it felt like it wasn't going anywhere and my attention was often lost.

If you don't have anything better to watch, I recommend you view this movie yourself and judge if it's good or not. For me, it left me unsatisfied, but because of Pfeiffer and because of how much work obviously went into making this movie, I felt a 5 was too low a score.

Beth Cappadora (Michelle Pfeiffer) is at her high school reunion when her 3-year-old son disappears from his brother's care. The little boy never turns up, and the family has to deal with the devastating guilt and grief that goes along with it. Nine years later, the family has relocated to Chicago. By a sheer fluke, the kid turns up, living no more than two blocks away. The authorities swoop down and return the kid to his biological parents, but things are far from being that simple. The boy grew up around what he has called his father, while his new family are strangers to him; the older son, now a teenager, has brushes with the law and behavioral problems. His adjustment to his lost brother is complicated by normal teenage churlishness, and the dad (Treat Williams) seems to expect everything to fall into place as though the family had been intact all along. It's a tightrope routine for actors in a story like this, being careful not to chew the scenery while at the same time not being too flaccid or understated. For the most part, the members of the cast deal well with the emotional complexity of their roles. Though the story stretches credulity, weirder things do happen in the real world. The family's pain for the first half of the film is certainly credible, though the second half almost seems like a different movie. Whoopi Goldberg plays the detective assigned to the case; casting her is a bit of a stretch, but she makes it work. All in all, a decent three-honky movie in the vein of Ordinary People.

Here we have a story that starts slowly but develops into a tense emotional drama. Michelle Pfeiffer is not only nice to look at but she plays the role of a frantic mother in search of her abducted 3-year old with great passion and at times hysteria. Whoopi Goldberg who plays the part of top policewoman in charge of investigation gives a moving sympathetic performance. What I greatly admire in this actor is the clear enunciation of her speech. I missed not a word delivered with clarity and depth of meaning. The film explores the feelings of children and parents caught up in the problems associated with child adoptions. Where does this baby belong: with his biological mother or his adopted father? It's an interesting film because the problem is real and with us to-day. The ending may surprise you.

I think that I would have liked this movie a LOT more if I'd never read the book! If anyone of you have the chance, READ the book! Oh, it's AWESOME!!! In my opinion, the movie left out some stuff that would have made it a LOT more interesting!!! Some people seem to think that parts of the movie are unrealistic, but when you read the book and get all the detail and everything, it starts to become a lot more believable than it is in the movie. Plus, the older brother has a MUCH larger role in the book, which makes more sense than how they protrayed him in the movie. Anyway, I guess you can tell, what I'm trying to say is, READ THE BOOK!!!! :-)

Actually the last ten minutes was the only one that deserve to be watch, bit I couldn't or in other word it's just was touching moments, nice easy going movie you can watch it without being stress because honestly it didn't touch me that much. I don't know. Maybe I can but I don't have this type of feeling for this type of movies. Anyway, enjoy it but guys.

I kept noticing a copy of this 1999 release in a drama section during my frequent visits to a local video store, and if it hadn't been for that, I would still be totally unaware of its existence, just like the book of the same name which this film is based on. This adaptation of Jacquelyn Mitchard's "The Deep End of the Ocean" only caught my attention because I could see that the lead role was played by Michelle Pfeiffer. I haven't read the book, and didn't even know the film was based on a book by the time I rented it this week. The film's premise seemed interesting to me, but I knew that this adaptation was polarizing, which gave me mixed expectations. I obviously don't know how good the book is, but the movie is what one can refer to as a mixed blessing.

Beth Cappadora and her husband, Pat are the parents of seven year old Vincent, three year old Ben, and baby Kerry. Beth leaves town to attend her high school reunion in Chicago and brings her kids along. While there, she leaves Vincent and Ben together in a crowded lobby only briefly, but when she comes back, she sees that only Vincent is still there! A search for Ben quickly ensues, but sadly, the little boy is not found, which sends Beth into depression, causing her to oversleep and neglect her two remaining offspring. Nine years later, the Cappadora family moves to Chicago. At this point, it obviously seems like they will never see Ben again, but not long after they move into their new house, Beth meets a boy who lives in the neighbourhood and introduces himself as Sam. He looks very familiar, and it turns out that this boy, now twelve years old, really is her long-lost son, but sadly, the family reunion leads to more complications.

This is clearly a film that's meant to be emotional, but I didn't feel it much until towards the end, and even then, it certainly didn't touch me the way certain other dramas have. For a while, I even wondered if I should have been watching the movie or not. I think I found myself struggling a bit to try and feel the emotion at times. A major reason why it didn't completely work for me might have been that I didn't know enough about the characters. I found that the film didn't tell enough about them before it got to the part where Ben goes missing. It also felt a little tedious at times. On the other hand, the family trouble did keep me interested, with no desire to stop the film before it was over, and the acting is decent enough I guess, though there is some weak dialogue, and the script of a movie can always affect the performances. Fortunately, at least the dialogue never got bad enough to make me laugh, and I found the film to be moderately gripping towards the end, still not enough to put a lump in my throat or tears in my eyes, but I certainly can't describe it as boring and/or laughable.

If you read my reviews on IMDb, you will probably find that a lot of them are for movies based on novels, and in most cases, I haven't read the novel which the film I am reviewing is based on. There are some exceptions, but this is not one of them. I read novels, but unlike movies, I can't get through an entire novel in one sitting, which is obviously the main reason why I've seen so many movies based on novels I haven't read. Maybe the book entitled "The Deep End of the Ocean" is better than this adaptation (it wouldn't surprise me), and maybe I will read it someday, but right now, I'm reading a different novel. Anyway, this film is severely flawed and reminded me somewhat of "Stepmom", though it definitely is at least a BIT better than that film, as this one doesn't have the despicable characters. "The Deep End of the Ocean" doesn't work with its emotional content as well as it should, but I thought it was alright for at least one viewing.

The deep end of the ocean (1999) is a very touching portrayal of a family of 5 who lose their 3 year old son Ben at a reunion. Fast forward nine years later, when they are miraculously reunited with him. Michelle Pfeiffer gives a wonderful performance here as the lead. I also really enjoyed Whoopi Goldberg as detective candy bliss. The acting is strong all around, even by the child actors. The writing is pretty good, the deep conversations between Beth and pat are well written and near perfectly acted. The movie is slightly slow in the middle, but not to the point to wanting to give up on it. The movie really is all about relationships, dealing with tragic loss as a parent, and then learning how to rebuild once what is lost is found. And in my opinion, this film does a pretty good job of showing all of those things in raw detail. Bottom line: If you are looking for a film that shows these things I have mentioned above, and is strongly acted and very dramatic, then I would suggest this to you. But if you are looking for simple escapist entertainment, then steer clear of this movie. 7/10.

I dislike tearjerkers for it makes you feel down,sad and whatever. the cable channel was on, had nothin else to do..and there was Michelle Pfieffer so I just jumped on it. I mean what the heck?

At first..yeah,losing child and screaming,sobbing..there were enough scenes looking very shallow & so predictable. I'll just pass here. But usually,this kinda movies end up finding the kid and that's it. Happily ever after, home sweet home. But this wasn't like that. As last it's happy ending but there were several emotional highs & lows; adjusting each other, starting all over again.

What am I saying here?-it's not a perfect movie. Not even remotely. (heck, is there one?) But for some reason, I liked this movie and every one of the casts here. All actors are pretty good to watch. There are films that aren't good enough-your head tells you so-however,your heart tells 'well,anyway I like this one'. This one is kinda like that. This cannot be explained logically or reasonably. I don't care about the director or writer for this movie. It was all about actors and they made it. And I've seen one young good-looking fella coming here called Jonathan Jackson. Hope to see more of his THIS kind of acting in the future.

This movie is so famous, and has so many great actors in it, that I had expected more from it. As it was, it had some heart-warming moments, handsome people and beautiful exteriors and interiors - but all in all it was not very exciting. The story was the kind of sentimental family drama one would expect on Hallmark television in the afternoon - not a big cinema movie with famous stars.

By the way, I think it is not possible to place a lost-and-found kid drama in present times, because DNA technique, finger prints etc. can prove the identity with almost hundred per cent's certainty. The interesting thing in the lost-and-found stories, is to guess if the person found is who he/she claims to be, or an impostor. As in "Anastasia".

And YES I understand that this kind of mystery was not the major issue here, but the reactions of all the family members afterwards. But it is that kind of story that one expects, when one reads about this movie or watches the trailer. So - it was a bit of a disappointment.

All praise goes to Jonathan Jackson who saves this sticky sentimental crap movie. The screen lights up whenever Jackson enters as Beth and Pat Cappadora's oldest son Vincent. You can feel the torment in that adolescent body. Why the heck is it so hard for his parent to understand him?

If you like the Vincent character I can recommend you to read the book by Jacquelyn Mitchard. It's about as sentimental as the movie (if not more) but interesting in the way that it is told through a shared view, with both Beth and Vincent narrating the story. In the book we learn a lot more about Vincent and his life, why he became who he is and what he thinks and feel about the whole situation. Most of the time seen from Vincent's view is spent at his psychiatrist Tom, a character they completely cut out of the movie. That's too bad, because that's where all the action really takes place. Vincent is a really messed up kid, and the scenes between him and Tom are both funny and thoughtful.

In the book Vincent also suffers from panic attacks, something experienced by many teens and that could have been used in the movie as a good identification issue. Sadly, that was cut out too. Basically, what they have done is taken what is in the book a multilayered and very interesting character, and turned him one-dimensional and less inspiring. What we can be thankful for is Jonathan Jackson who I think does a great job with the little he is given. Ryan Merriman, who plays the lost son Ben/Sam is also very good.

But otherwise this movie seems like a made-for-TV-sleeze-thing and I can't stand the bad acting put up by the adults. Michelle Pfeiffer can be really good in roles that are more toned down than this one and her overacting everything is annoying. Treat Williams is mostly just vacant. Whoopi Goldberg on the other side does a fine job as a minority within the majority: a black, lesbian cop that befriends the family. Basically: you can get a lot out of reading the book if you just skip the parts about Beth.

Noble, decent film about a crises in suburbia: a boy, kidnapped nine years ago from a nice, normal family, is returned to them--a virtual stranger. This premise was done great justice in the grittier TV-film, "I Know My First Name Is Steven". This theatrical drama has fabulous, full-throttle performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Treat Williams as the parents, some interesting plot turns, but nowhere to go after the boy comes home. We've seen it all before--even Whoopi Goldberg as a detective seems shoehorned in from somewhere else (it's virtually the same character she portrayed in "The Player"). I would forgive the film for its assembly-line construction were it not for a downright drippy finale. Sure, it wouldn't have been as uplifting had the film ended a different way (turning on the kid's decision), but why do we always need to be uplifted at the movies? Is there some Hollywood legend that says all downbeat endings result in flop films? Well, this one did flop, so there's a double excuse not to end the thing with everyone leaking happy tears in the driveway. **1/2 from ****

I saw this movie on a plane in the middle of the night--not ideal viewing conditions--and found it acceptable airplane fare to while away long hours, but nothing remarkable. I'd read the book earlier, so was curious to see how it might be handled as a film. Well...

They followed the book pretty closely, but it's a 400+ page novel. Rather than redevelop the ideas in the story for the tighter format required by the screen, they tried to keep in all the various plot elements and cut out the detail needed to preserve the story's integrity. What a pity.

The question of what happens to a family who loses a child to some unknown person/event is an interesting one worthy of exploration. The twist of having that child found again nine years later opens another can of worms. The book manages to develop the characters of the whole family better than the film, which concentrates on Beth and Sam, but both result in a "too perfect" ending that doesn't really satisfy.

I suspect that the film has a fairly strong appeal for the mature (50+) female audience...but they don't seem to be such keen movie goers. It might do well on TV...

Based on a book by Jacquelyn Mitchard, "The Deep End of the Ocean" is one of those melodramas that creates empathy with everyone for one simple detail: missing children always move. We get involved with the family drama, put ourselves in their place and hope that everything works out, even when fate plays a trick. This is a film about loss. After the overwhelming disappearance of one of the children, the protagonist couple enters a process of degradation of marriage and family, in a constant cycle of guilt that occupies a good part of the 106 minutes of duration of the film. How to deal with the loss? Is it possible to recover from the absence of a child? And Ulu Grosbard's film still has a plus that is fundamental, the sensitive interpretation of Michelle Pfeiffer.

Beth Cappadora (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a photographer who sees her life fall apart when Ben, one of her three children and who is only three years old, is kidnapped. She is supported by her husband, Pat Cappadora (Treat Williams) and Candy Bliss (Whoopi Goldberg), a police officer who does everything to find the child, in addition to the help of relatives and friends, but does not get any leads from Ben. Almost ten years later, Beth and her family have moved to Chicago and a boy (Ryan Merriman) comes to her house offering to mow the lawn. Beth instantly recognizes her lost son, who now goes by the name Sam Karras. It is soon confirmed that Sam and Ben are the same person, but if losing a child is a traumatic experience, it is also not easy to make him belong to the Cappadora family overnight, as Sam or Ben have all their ties and memories linked to the family. Karras family.

The questions raised by the script for "The Deep End of the Ocean" are quite interesting, allowing Michelle Pfeiffer to show her dramatic skills in the right measure, but the script does not go beyond the superficial, never offering the audience more than expected from a telefilm, for example. The bureaucratic direction of Ulu Grosbard - who has already commanded Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro with the same coldness in "Love at First Sight" - does not go beyond the limits of the conventional, giving the film a tone that flirts with the European way of treating similar subjects., but without the same neutrality. Whenever Pfeiffer is on the scene, the film grows with her grit and skin-deep emotionality - which are echoed in the character of Whoopi Goldberg - but in most of her time the audience does not have much to be moved by, leaving her only the chance to question the attitudes of the characters, complex enough not to let the plot slide into the void. And it is precisely these questions that sustain the plot from its first minutes.

The script can practically be divided in two: the first half, which shows the search for little Ben and the despair of his family, is intriguing and distressing, suffocating the public with a situation that is the nightmare of any parent - mainly because it ends in a not optimistic way. The second part, which throws Beth's family into the hurricane of doubts about Sam's identity (and subsequently his adequacy to his new destiny) has a less engaging pace, although it never loses its ability to intrigue viewers. The protagonist's drama in keeping the family together despite all the transformations that force them to face a new reality is the core of the film in this final half, and luckily for everyone, Michelle Pfeiffer takes the challenge of holding back the emotion of the film. It is she, from the top of her ethereal beauty, who gives support and class to a barely regular production, which, despite the regrets, deserves a peek without major pretensions.

The initial construction of the family's pain for the loss of little Ben is quite sensitive. Michelle Pfeiffer interprets Beth's depression with delicacy, alternating the state of prostration with aggressiveness and despair. It is interesting to see the contrasting images between her and her son Vincent, a seven-year-old child, who finds himself waking up in the middle of the night to give his little sister a bottle because his mother is unable to get out of bed, or make her scream. In a desperate attempt to end an aggressive argument between the parents. Pat and Beth lose Ben and don't realize that together they also lose Vincent, who has always been neglected by the family due to the drama he has experienced. The scene in which he waits alone outside the school for a mother who doesn't come to pick him up symbolizes this well.

The second part oscillates a little between the banal and the sensitive, but brings a really bigger emotional dilemma. How to build happiness on top of the pain of the one we should love unconditionally? Ben doesn't exist anymore; he was a three-year-old who doesn't remember his original family. He is now San, a boy who loves his adoptive father who was not to blame for anything that happened. It is a delicate situation, even confusing. The scene of San and Beth in the city's cemetery is one of the most sensitive and symbolic of that situation. "There are worse things than death," says the boy in enviable wisdom. In fact, dying doesn't even seem like the worst of punishments for someone who sees his life fall apart irreparably.

But, while having a sensitive and interesting story, director Ulu Grosbard and screenwriter Stephen Schiff oscillate in building it. They go quickly through some events, not delving into the characters and throwing situations on the screen in careless succession. Whoopi Goldberg's character, for example, is completely loose in the story. She who should be Beth's safe haven, a support, ends up being played in poorly developed scenes, becoming almost an intruder. Not to mention the go-from-nowhere phrases like her revelation at the police station about her minority status. On the other hand, the construction of the relationship between the two brothers is well developed. The small actors manage to convey well the complicity and rivalry that exists between them, from the initial scene with Vincent looking for Ben around the house and finding him inside the trunk - a scene that will be fundamental later in the story. Another standout scene is Sam's first night at the Cappadora family home, when Vincent sleeps at the foot of his brother's bed, with the little bunny beside him. Grosbard shows well how the boy has always been a shadow of his brother in small images, gestures, glances.

This drama does not deny its tearful vein and bets on a schematic script with ingredients tested and approved to exhaustion. Films that deal with family themes tend to satisfy great demands, even more so when children are in the spotlight, but there is certainly no shortage of people to condemn the work for its exaggerated sentimentality and who automatically close their eyes to touching and blunt scenes that make all the difference in the final result. For example, introduce Vincent, then a seven-year-old child, waking up in the middle of the night to feed her baby sister, or desperate to interrupt a parent's heated argument are not gratuitous scenes to move easily, they are embedded perfectly within a context.

The intention is to show that Beth and Pat, without realizing it, are about to lose another child in a way, as their firstborn feels disowned by his own parents and overloaded with tasks. Third and last film by filmmaker Ulu Grosbard, who died in 2012, the film does not strictly follow the text of the book. Despite being well done, sensitive and with great scenes of Pfeiffer alternating moments of melancholy and despair, the initial part is well summarized as it corresponds to the trivial that a production of this type asks for. As already mentioned, the leap of the cat arrives with the passage of time inserted that makes us see the theme with different eyes.

In the end, the feature respects the intellectual and emotional intelligence of the viewer, avoiding clichés, showing that not everything is flowers. The Cappadora have dreamed for years and years of reuniting with the missing member, but when the wish is fulfilled, they realize that things are not so easy. Each of them has a feeling about the boy's return, including the boy himself in relation to such a situation. The Ben idealized by his parents no longer exists. Who is living with them is Sam who does not carry with him any memory of his previous and brief passage with his real family. Would it be right to do everything possible so that the boy becomes the son of the couple's dreams, but deep down he feels unhappy? The option of showing the negative side of this reunion, seeing the other side of the coin, is what makes "Nas Depths of the Endless Sea" a work that is a little above average for its standards, but even so, it is undeniable that it has problems concentrated in the narrative that at times seems rushed or superficial, but such defects diminish reasonably when we are faced with a scene as beautiful as the one in which Ben teaches his parents the Greek dance he learned from his adoptive father. And the ending should surprise with its truthfulness and naturalness.

"The Deep End of the Ocean" is one of those thesis-antithesis-synthesis films. The film unfolds from the new relationship that this fact develops with the preceding situation (antithesis) until the film concludes with the adaptation of the first thesis to the general set, duly pruned of all its possible subversive content (synthesis). This reformist formula, notably reactionary, is followed without major brilliance in this family film (in content) and industrial (in objectives). The Deep End of the Ocean is a constant litany, urgently in need of something to give it rhythm.

This is a movie taken from the beautifully written book of the same name that is directed with panache and sensitivity,scripted to perfection, and acted with an honesty and integrity that is so oft missed in many films. The honesty of Ben/Sam is both heart-wrenching and inspiring. And a lesson to parents and adults alike as to the true path of love.

I was thinking about whether to see the movie or not, because of the theme that I have already seen before, I don't regret having seen it, and I love movies from the 90s. First you will have to get past the dramatic part, swallow a very bitter pill, but then the story takes a totally different turn and becomes a very different drama, a psychological journey from which we can all learn.

I loved all the actors, although the absolute star is Michelle Pheiffer, very real and authentic in her role.

The simple coincidence of these neighbors living next door makes the movie somewhat unrealistic, although I think it is the way it should be, the course of life, and a very painful discovery after so much time. I loved the Zorba dance scene, at least some joy to break the sadness.

I recommend it because of how psychological it is, good actors and also because of the magnificent 90s atmosphere.

The Deep end of the Ocean takes a parent's worst nightmare and puts it on screen. Michelle Pfeiffer (One Fine Day, A Thousand Acres) and Treat Williams (Deep Rising, The Phantom) are a happily married couple with three children. When Pfeiffer bring the three children to her class reunion she momentarily leaves them in a crowded room. When she comes back her middle child (her second son) is missing. At first everyone just assumed he got lost, but soon everyone realizes he is missing seriously. The film passes on nine years later, the family has moved and their child is still missing. The one day (completly unbelievable) their son just knocks on their door. It turns out he has been living only 2 blocks away from them. They get their child back from a loving father who had no idea what happened. Soon their are many conflicts and problems with this change. All this makes for an interesting, but slow and somewhat boring film. Michelle Pfeiffer is very good as the grieving mother. Jonathan Jackson (Camp Nowhere, TV's General Hospital) as the oldest child, John Kapelos (Guilty as Sin, The Relic) as the missing child's 'adoptive' father, and Ryan Merriman (Lansky, TV's The Pretender) as the found child are all good in their roles. The film's best performance comes from the underrated Treat Williams as the grieving father who remains strong to hold the family together.

The trailers for this looked really good. As it happens they turned out to be the only engaging parts of an otherwise forgettable film as a whole.

The premise behind the movie is an extremely tense and emotional one, but the script and directing let things lag to the point where you realize that this is TV fodder. I half expect to see (better) versions of the same thing on Lifetime TV on some derary Sunday afternoon. What's so confusing is how Pfeiffer and some other apparently great actors wound up in it.