Vivre malgré tout

Keaton is absolutely not believable. Her over the top acting style doesn't not work in a drama like this. It feels like she is mocking. She looks more like she just left a book reading for wives of professors than a world weary, poor mom so broke she's forced to turn to drug dealing. And frankly she is just to old for this role, at time of filming she was 56, an old looking 56.

There's just nothing that feels authentic, from the characters,the vocabulary, to the wardrobe. This movie feels like what rich Hollywood people think poor people look and act like. It's just one cliché after another. Laughable.

It was very well done, all around. Keaton gives a stirring performance. And yes, a risky performance that ultimately pays off. It was very well directed. I would highly recommend this film to anyone interested in the serious subject of drug addiction. There's alot of lessons here to be had. As well as a lot of truth.

I don't understand how true stories get such low ratings! Makes me wonder what's so fascinating about the people who gave it a low rating! If their lives were made into a true story, what would it rate??? What do these people expect?? I'd love to see them do something so brave!!! I didn't have a problem with the acting or the storyline, it was believable and convincing. Watch this with your kids, it would be convincing enough to sway them away from the drug scene. I know exactly how she feels about getting justice for your family. There's a couple of people I know, that need her kind of justice for their life, but they're never gonna get it, until the next one!

On Thin Ice (2003)

1/2 (out of 4)

Made for TV flick about the true story of Patsy McCartle (Diane Keaton), a single mother who can't pay her bills so she starts selling Meth for a ruthless drug dealer (Michael Rooker). This is without question one of the worst films I've ever seen that deals with drugs, revenge or redemption. The only reason I watched this film was because I'm a big fan of Keaton and Rooker but neither are given much to do. Keaton puts out an effort but she's at least twenty years too old for this role. The screenplay just puts her in one stupid situation after another and each of these situations are so over-dramatic that I often found myself either laughing or wishing she would have an overdose. If it weren't for the talent of the two stars then I'd call this a worst film than Reefer Madness. In fact, the final ten minutes here are worst than anything in that film.

Diane Keaton has played a few "heavy" parts in her many years on the big screen but she's mostly known for the "light and fluffy" stuff with Woody Allen, such as Annie Hall. She deserves an Oscar for best actress in a drama for this effort and it doesn't really matter what the competition was the year it was first shown. Try and find a scene in which she doesn't appear. And it was all heavy drama, exhausting in its pace and retakes, action, all at full speed. The make-up made her as young as possible and she fit the 30s age category even in close-ups, but she was playing half her age and at a very fast pace. The movie, overall was fairly well done, staged and shot well with a strong supporting cast but Keaton carried the load.