Eric D. Snider

My Sister's Keeper

Movie Review

"My Sister's Keeper"

Review by Eric D. Snider

Grade: C

Rating: PG-13

Released: Friday, June 26, 2009

Directed by:

Cast:

The premise of the two-hankie dying-daughter melodrama "My Sister's Keeper" is so preposterous that taking it seriously proves a difficult task. The gist: 11-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was conceived for the sole purpose of being a genetic match for her older sister, Kate, who has leukemia. All her life, Anna has been a donor of blood, marrow, and other necessities, and now Kate needs a kidney. But Anna has had enough of this and wants to sue her parents for "medical emancipation" -- the right to decide for herself whether she keeps donating things to her dying sister.

Clearly, this would have worked better as a dark comedy. As a drama, it's unspeakably ghoulish. The Fitzgeralds had another child not for any of the normal reasons, but to serve as spare parts for their cancer-stricken daughter? That's how Anna describes it when she approaches a lawyer about her rights: "I was made in a dish to be spare parts for Kate." And her lawyer says, "You're kidding, right?" Yeah, that was my reaction, too.

Insane though it may be, that is the movie's premise (it's based on a novel by Jodi Picoult, a regular pusher of hot buttons), and the frustrating thing is that it's not entirely implausible. Nothing about it blatantly contradicts science or the law. Theoretically, this could happen. I can't decide whether that makes me like it more or less.

This much I know: The film, directed by Nick Cassavetes ("The Notebook") and adapted by him and "Notebook" collaborator Jeremy Leven, is the unremarkable, broadly drawn weeper it sounds like it would be. Once the bizarre premise is established, all the movie can do is spin its wheels and wait for the story to play out -- it has a beginning and end, but no middle. In the meantime, we're saddled with characters who won't communicate with each other and whom the screenplay tries, ineffectually, to flesh out with backstories.

Feisty young Oscar nominee Abigail Breslin plays Anna, with Sofia Vassilieva (from TV's "Medium") as 15-year-old Kate, whose cancer has come out of remission when the film begins. Having seen super-lawyer Campbell Alexander (Alec Baldwin) in his TV commercials, Anna goes to him for help suing her parents for rights to her own body. Her parents, Sara (Cameron Diaz) and Brian (Jason Patric), are devastated, particularly Sara, who cannot fathom why Anna wouldn't want to donate a kidney to save her sister's life. In fact, Anna can't see anything past her dying daughter, believing Kate's needs come before everyone else's.

The issues here are indisputably thorny. Do parents have the right to force one child to donate life-saving organs to another? Was it unethical for them to conceive Anna in the first place, knowing they were doing it only to save Kate's life? (They have another child, Jesse, played by Evan Ellingson, but he's not a close enough match to be a donor.) If, as Sara insists, Anna isn't old enough to decide not to donate a kidney, isn't she too young to decide the other way, too?

But the movie (and presumably the book) sidesteps any real examination of these moral and legal quandaries, focusing instead on the shopworn family-in-crisis scenarios. In narration, Kate says, "I don't mind my disease killing me. But it's killing my family, too!" There's the obligatory scene where Sara shaves her head in solidarity with her chemo-sickened daughter, who is self-conscious about her baldness but has evidently never heard of the exciting new technology known as "wigs." Sara and Brian fight because he's never home and she has to take care of the kids herself, yada yada. Everyone is issued a problem: The judge in the case (Joan Cusack) lost a daughter to a drunk driver, and the lawyer has a "helper dog" for a medical reason he won't disclose.

All of this is unnecessary, though, since all the movie actually cares about is Kate the dying girl. We're told that her brother, Jesse, eventually "turned his life around," but evidence that his life was ever messed up is in short supply. At the trial, Sara says Anna has been acting quiet and evasive all week; did you want to show any of that to us, movie? Every character gets a turn narrating the film, ostensibly to help us know them better but really just a lazy screenwriting technique. (When you don't know how to show us, you give up and just tell us.) In one scene, the only line of narration is Jesse saying, "When I got home I wondered how much trouble I'd be in," and it's accompanied by a shot of him sneaking into the house late at night, making the narration redundant.

Jason Patric is given very little to do as the girls' father, while Cameron Diaz, even at 36 years old, comes off as remarkably immature as their mother. She strikes one note at the beginning -- shrill, strident, desperate -- and stays there the entire time. But Baldwin and Cusack, in their smaller roles, are characteristically understated, while Breslin and Vassilieva, in the leads, also do fine work. It would be hard not to be moved by a story of two young sisters dealing with death, no matter how maudlin or grotesque the story that surrounds them.

Grade: C

Rated PG-13, a little profanity, one F-word, some very mild sexuality

1 hr., 49 min.

Digg! Stumble It!

This item has 10 comments

  1. cleo says:

    Read the book; the movie doesn't do justice to the complexities of this family's life. The book has a different ending too. Far more powerful. The son's issues are revealed in the book -- another layer of depth for this family that is nowhere explored in the movie.

    I saw the movie this afternoon and I too would give it a C; the book, however, I would give an A-.

  2. Art G says:

    I saw on the news the other night that several years back that a child was born for the sole purpose of saving her sister. I believe she donated bone marrow.

    I take you experts in film with a grain of salt, do some research.

  3. Kitty says:

    The Ayala family of Walnut, CA had a child specifically to serve as a bone marrow donor for her older sister, Anissa. Doctors quoted in one of the many articles about this family say that many families have had children just so that their ill children could have access to bone marrow transplants, etc.

    So not such a preposterous premise, as you could have found out if you'd done thirty seconds of Googling.

  4. Eric D. Snider says:

    "Preposterous" (which the premise is) does not mean "impossible" (which the premise is not). Maybe I should have indicated in the review that while the premise is crazy, it's not entirely implausible, and that nothing in it contradicts science or the law. I'm thinking the third paragraph of the review would have been a good place to say that. If only....

  5. Ampersand says:

    This movie was emotionally manipulative from the very first frame. That destroyed any good will I might have felt towards it. It does raise some interesting issues about how far medical intervention should go in a terminal situation, but the movie was so poorly written and constructed that it couldn't effectively explore those themes.

  6. Jamio says:

    Is it that "spare parts" were the reason they had the second child which makes the premise preposterous? What if a set of parents were merely adding that reason to the long list of pros and cons most parents have about adding another child to their family? I ask because I recently spent a good deal of time in the hem/onc wing of our local children's hospital, and almost of parent we talked to said they had 1)done it, 2)considered it, 3)not had to because of already existing siblings. No one said they considered the idea preposterous.

  7. Rachel says:

    I saw the trailers for this movie and had the same reaction as you did. Then I was listening to NPR on my way to work and the local public radio station (Colorado) did an interview with the family from my area who were the basis for the book, which led to the movie. It is LOOSELY based on their story and the are mad at how the facts were changed. They gave birth to a daughter with a degenerative disease that would eventually lead to bone marrow collapse and leukemia. The parents both carried a rare recessive gene. They wanted a large family, but were unwilling to "risk it" by conceiving naturally again, so they decided to conceive through science to ensure their new embryo would not develop into a child with the same disease. And hey, since they were in there, why not make sure that embryo would be a tissue match for the dying daughter? They conceived the second child this way, carried him to term, and then donated the cord blood to use his stem cells to help the daughter. That was the extent of his donation. No kidneys, no blood, no bone marrow. Just cord blood from the placenta and umbilical cord he was done with using in the first place.

    It was an interesting story.

  8. May says:

    I agree with this review. However, when u said, "But the movie (and presumably the book) sidesteps any real examination of these moral and legal quandaries, focusing instead on the shopworn family-in-crisis scenarios." You're assuming that the book was the same as the movie, which it DEFINETELY wasn't. The ending was different, a whole other character is in it, and the book develops the characters much better. Each character in that book has a story and that story is told. DOn't assume the book was the same was the movie. I suggest you read it- it's amazing.

  9. Jayne says:

    The book is way better. I completely agree with your statement that all the movie cares about is Kate dying, but the book actually deals a lot more with the issue of in-vitro fertilization and the psychology that drives the family. Jesse is actually a full character in the book, whereas they might as well have cut him from the movie for all the effect he had.

    I was completely unmoved by the moving. I got bored and started curling my hair. The book is better, I promise.

  10. Jomar says:

    This is a touching movie, if you watch it you feel the pain of being a mother, a father, a sister,and a brother.I hope you will watch it as soon as possible.

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.


Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
This site created and maintained by Jeff J. Snider