Some movies just ought to work by any reasonable standard but for some reason they don't move you. Then there are movies where you analyze every little moment that doesn't do what it should and you find that they add up to a large part of the movie... and yet the picture still has a major emotional impact. Kind of makes you wonder a little bit about the whole validity of movie criticism in general. So of course, that having been said, I proceed with my comments on "My Sister's Keeper".

If ever there was a classic tearjerker, "The Notebook" certainly was it, and "My Sister's Keeper" comes from the same director as that film, Nick Cassavetes, but while he still goes for pushing the obvious emotional buttons in a very solid way, he does seem to have learned how to leaven the emotional heavy-handedness with some honest feeling and sentiment. Not to mention some very solid performances that redeem some of the more maudlin moments. And a story this essentially manipulative can use all the redemtpion it can get in that department. This is the story of a husband and wife who find that their daughter has leukemia and will need an intense series of treatments and donations of bone marrow, blood transfusions and more... and hit on a plan to have another child whom they will genetically ensure will have exactly the right qualities needed for all of those things. Essentially, the second child will provide spare and replacement parts for the first. But when daughter number two reaches age 11, she's had enough and begins to fear the probably much shortened life of pain she'll have to go through unless she becomes legally "medically emancipated. You can undoubtedly imagine some of the chaos that ensues following this decision.

Every movie ever made is manipulative to some degree. They're all deliberately trying to get you to feel SOMETHING. But the great (and even good) ones don't make what they're doing too obvious. "My Sister's Keeper" is a movie that practically shouts loudly from the rooftops "We're trying to make you cry buckets of tears!" Subtlety has no place here. A weepy musical score, close-ups of tear-stained faces, characters barely able to deliver their lines because of the quiver in their voice... this one has it all. Now, obviously, in real life this situation would absolutely be totally devastating, in much the way it is in the film. But these previously-mentioned elements do tend to take you out of the sense of reality the story ought to have and put you at a slight distance from the feeling that these are real people going through real, traumatic events. So far, doesn't sound like such a positive review, does it? Well, as late in the movie as about halfway through, I was still thinking that I was going to be writing a review referring to the film as a failed attempt at melodrama that nonetheless contained some very strong, powerful aspects. But by the end of the film not only did there not seem to be a dry eye in the packed house, but I'll admit to a little moisture in mine as well.

A lot of this can be credited to some excellent acting. While Cameron Diaz as the mother leaves a lot to be desired (she's SUPPOSED TO be like a fierce lioness who will stop at nothing to save the life of her "cub", but she comes across totally self-centered and selfless, not caring about the welfare of either daughter), but Jason Patrick lends an air of pained dignity to the role of the father... a man who genuinely cares about his entire family and is trying to save them from completely falling apart. Abigail Breslin ("Little Miss Sunshine") sometimes tends to be clearly "acting" in scenes by herself, but when she's together with her movie sister (Sofia Vassilieva) she seems quite genuine, acting on a whole other level... this is rare movie chemistry here, and the two seem as attached to each other as real sisters. And after a string of emotionally distant fathers in various indie movies, Alec Baldwin finally gets a real role (as the lawyer Breslin goes to with her emancipation case) and makes the most of it (by the way, he's also not the least bit like his character on "30 Rock" here. This is Baldwin actually acting again). But the real standout is Vassilieva as the older daughter. Previously unknown to me, she never strikes a single false note in the entire film. In a movie that oftens needs something real and genuine to ground it, Vassilieva provides it in spades. And the scene in which she goes through a family photo album "apologizing" to each family member for the pain and difficulty she's caused them is so real it's almost impossible to bear. A scene like that is good enough to make you forget at least a half dozen other emotionally manipulative ones. (And I can only hope that Vassilieva is one of those rare young stars lucky enough to have a substantial adult career. She could by dynamic.)

So while there are clearly false notes, the incredible impact of the less melodramatic moments basically made me forget nearly all of them until well after the movie was over. Yes, the major plot twist near the end is a bit of a cheat. (And no, I'm not going to tell you what it is. Not even if you beg. Not even if you plead. Not even if you offer me money... well, maybe we can talk about that later.) But in spite of it all, I came to the end of "My Sister's Keeper" feeling like I was watching a real family go through a tragic time in their lives, deal with it, and come out not perfectly happy and smiling, but surviving. And like I said, yes, I did tear up a little. Which, in a tear-jerker, means the move did exactly what it meant to do.

Now, mind you, Nick Cassavetes is the son of John Cassavetes, a man who never in his entire directorial career came anywhere near melodrama. And I do hope that Nick learns both from his father and from the success he's had in "My Sister's Keeper" in stearing his films further away from the land of too obvious pathos. But this movie should be judged as a movie unto itself, not as a reflection of other films (whether by the senior Cassavetes or anyone else). And on that basis, it's sort of like what you keep hearing about the bumblebee: by every known law of science, it ought to be impossible for the bumblebee to fly, but nobody seems to have told that to the bumblebee, and it flies anyway. Likewise, "My Sister's Keeper" probably shouldn't logically work, but it does. If you haven't seen it yet, you don't have any IDEA how much it does.

*******************************************************************************************************************

ADDITION: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27

As you can easily see from my response to the comment posted below, I had not yet read Jodi Picoult's original novel of "My SIster's Keeper" when I originally saw this movie, though the commentor apparently assumed I had and mentioned enough to alert me that there were some major changes in the plot line of the original story that a lot of readers were angry about. Well, I got on a reserve waiting list for the book at the library (it was a fairly long list), and I finally got it... and I have just a few short comments. The novel is some 420 or so pages long, meaning that an unedited film of the novel covering EVERYTHING would have to last between six and seven hours. Obviously, a lot had to be deleted. And obviously, 400-plus pages allows Jodi Picoult to deepen characterization on characters like the mother, who seemed so underwritten in the film (of course, Picoult also has the benefit of the mother not being "played" by Cameron Diaz). So, not surprisingly, the usual cliche about the book being better than the movie holds true. And it also holds true for the plot developments I was warned about that are radically, RADICALLY different from where the movie winds up... and I have to say that I thought the book had great emotional impact there as well. But even with all of that said, I still don't think I'd change much about the original movie review if I were writing it now. Having not read the novel at the time, I had no choice but to judge the movie strictly as a movie and not as an adaptation, and as I said... it works. The movie and the book both are designed to pull you into the lives of this family, make you feel the ordeal they're going through, and shed a tear or two at the end. In both cases, they succeed. So I'd still recommend both... though if there is anyone still left reading this who has NEITHER read the book OR seen the movie, I would suggest seeing the movie first so you can form your opinion of it independently from the novel. Just a suggestion, of course. But I'm glad it happened that way for me.