The Deep End of the Ocean (1999)

Clearly so much has changed even in the 20 years since this movie was made. It was as if it was an either/or choice as to whether the child is forced into a family situation that the parents, as well as the social services, could only bring trauma all over again to the child after he is found. And that it did.Why would he need to choose between the man, 2 blocks away, who considers him dad and the biological parents, no matter how the situation occurred? The simple answer is he should not have had to make such a choice. Even the ending does not resolve that issue. Could he not have spent half his time with his bio family and half with his adoptive dad, at least until he was ready to decide who he was most ready to live with? Or perhaps just keep it open and let him consider both families his?The parents act as though the adoptive father was an enemy and do not even invite him into the house. Downright cruel and creepy. I am glad that social services now realize more often that both adoptive and biological relationships are forever important to the child in question. Period. Apparently they didn't know it back then, and yet I think even at that time open adoptions and other such arrangements were possible.All in all I thought it was a poor movie, yet well acted. Some of the reviews see it exactly the opposite--great movie but not well acted, but I think as stated that the rigid either/or choice given to Ben/Sam was utterly traumatic and not something that helps anyone concerned. To me that was the real false dilemma created by the unwillingness or inability to think outside the box here.

I actually found this movie by accident. I purchased a bag full of VHS tapes at a church rummage sale and this was one of the selections. I understand that this movie is based on a book. I have not read the book and will not speak of the movies ability to convey the original material from the book. To me, a movie should stand on its own merits. This is NOT the usual "kid goes missing" drama which is quite common. Its not based on any particular "true" story that I know of. It presents a somewhat unique situation of "what if a missing child is found, living a very well adjusted lifestyle where nobody is aware of the missing boys past;" except for the biological parents of course. What I found amazing was the total strength of character that was given to the boy who had been kidnapped when he was only 3. It is hard to find a more loving and caring child than the one we have in 12 year old "SAM" who's birth name was Ben. You would have to believe that such a child could only be a product of a very loving and caring family. However, One of these "family" members had a deep dark secret that she struggled with until her untimely death. Nevertheless Sam, was left with a wisdom love and understanding that most adults don't have. He never knew of the deep dark secret of his abduction or had long forgotten it at least. In contrast, his biological family struggled with their own "secrets" and feelings of guilt and blame. Each had their moments of seeming to get their lives together, but never really coming to terms with the "loss" of a young child. Each seemed dysfunctional in a different way, and the dysfunctional aspects clashed with each other much of the time. Suddenly the nearly "unimaginable" event happens. Their son is found and right in their own neighborhood. The question here is how do you integrate an amazingly well adjusted child, into a family who is still torn up with feelings of blame and guilt and loss etc. What happens to this miraculous child AND what happens to the person who he loves and regards as his father. Ryan Merriman plays Sam, the lost boy who is truly not "lost" as far as having his life together. He is nearly a picture perfect child. a parents "dream come true". I marveled at the strength of character he has and the maturity well beyond his years. "Sam" is like the glue that binds everyone else together. Merriman's performance is amazing. I became very emotionally involved in the characters and the plot. I especially felt involved with Sam and his "father", George, who raised him. The movie was well acted and in my opinion it was well presented as to the storyline. I guess it may be a bit different from the book, but without reading the book, I had no preconceived ideas or expectations. In that respect, the storyline seemed fine as it was presented. I would like to have seen "George" incorporated a bit more into the ending. All in all, it was a very great movie and I plan to buy a DVD copy for my movie library.

A kid of three years old is kidnapped; he will be retrieved after nine years. All of them will face difficult challenges, the parents, the boy, the adoptive father (who was rising the kid in good faith, without being aware of what had happened long time ago). The movie is based on the best-seller of Jacquelyn Mitchard. I didn't have the chance to read the book; some say it is superior to the movie (which would not come as a surprise). What impressed me was the outcome of the story, treated with great sensibility and poignancy.It called in my mind another movie, 'An American Rhapsody', as both of them offer somehow the same solution. The best decision can be taken only by the kid, if they let him find the answers in his own terms. And his decision will be of unexpected maturity: he will realize his importance and his responsibilities for the well being of the whole family.

In 1988, a woman attends a school reunion with her three young children. Even as she arrives at the hotel, a moment's distraction leaves her middle child missing. 9 years later, she still hasn't quite adjusted to the loss... Rather than examine the impact of an abducted child on the entire family, this unwisely focuses almost exclusively on the mother, and as the mother is played by Pfeiffer, all other characters become mere backdrops for her performance. With the odd exception, Pfeiffer tends to try too hard, especially in dramas, and here is a case in point. Practically every scene makes her the subject, her emotional state, her actions, her reactions. This quickly becomes tiresome, especially as we are asked to accept that her husband has adjusted much more healthily to the boy's disappearance without really being allowed to know how or why. Thus, Williams is given little to do. Jackson fares better, but again he mostly serves to allow Pfeiffer to 'act' and/or 'react'. Other characters are cardboard cut-out (wise-cracking, tough but tender cop, insensitive mother-in-law, two dimensional best friend etc.). This could have been a fascinating and harrowing study in loss and hope, but as a vehicle for Pfeiffer, it never really moves beyond TV movie territory.