User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not very long into "The Deep End of the Ocean", I got the sinking feeling that the only thing that stopped this film from going straight to television was the fact that Michelle Pfeiffer starred in it. Think "the crisis movie of the week" with a big-name actress in it, and you've got "The Deep End of the Ocean".

This film has perhaps one of the worst screenplays I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Luckily, I was watching with someone who had read the book, so I was able to have a few gaping holes filled in. Unfortunately, those who haven't read the book will be left clueless in a few crucial moments.

I guess it was fitting to cast Treat Williams--someone who should stick to TV movies--in what is essentially a TV movie released in theatres and on video. I personally would have chosen someone more animated than Williams, who is one of the most wooden actors around.

The corny attempts at sentiment are forced and predictable, and they ultimately fall flat. The characters are inconsistent, hating one another one moment and seeming perfectly content the next. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about "The Deep End of the Ocean" is the fact that it ends. This is one movie to avoid.

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.

Beth Cappadora is at a reunion in a hotel when her middle child of three goes missing. At first the search is informal but it grows increasingly frantic and official as they realise that Ben has been taken by somebody. The family never fully recovers and carry the scars for years. Nine years later the family have moved to Chicago to start a new life. When Beth has a local boy come to the block to cut the grass, she believes that he must be Ben because her looks just like him despite the age. The police recover Ben but is it fair to take him away from the people Ben now considers his family?

The plot summary gives the impression that this is just a standard weepy that would easily screen on a weekday afternoon. However the presence of a couple of well known names in the cast list suggests that this film will give the subject a more serious approach that acts more as drama than weepy. Partly the latter is true but not 100%, and the film is still essentially a sort of weepy that has a control of it's emotions and is actually quite stable but not to the point where it is an engaging debate.

The material should be thought provoking but it isn't really. What I thought would be the main thrust of the film was really just mentioned in the final 20 minutes and it was not only obvious that it was coming but it was quite logically dealt with without real emotion - this is not a `Sophie's Choice' situation but something quite lacking. The start of the film is OK but it deals with the loss too easily and I never got overwhelmed with the emotions the family must feel. Towards the end the film does a good job looking at the effects the whole thing has had on the other son's character but even this lacks an emotional punch.

The cast are good on paper but they seem strangely stilted. Pfeiffer is a good actress who sadly doesn't seem to get as much good work as she gets older. Here she tries hard but can't get across what her character must be feeling inside. Williams is an OK support for her and does OK. Jackson is quite good and his character became more interesting to me than the return of Ben itself. Goldberg hangs around but attempts to give her a character through one line of dialogue about her sexuality and security in her job are so out of the blue that I was left wondering where it came from.

Overall this is not a weepy because it aims higher than that and doesn't wrench all the emotion out of every scene to get the audience. However it doesn't aim high enough or reach the level where it is emotional or thought provoking, the end result being an interesting film that is a notch above the level of daytime TV weepy but not as worthy or moving as it wants to be.

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.

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 ****

Standard story, missing child... family anguish.. etc.. Definitely a "no brainer" if there's nothing else on the tv. Michelle Pfeiffer deserves a better role than this, maybe she needed the money?

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...

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.

No pun intended - the movie is about what to do when you lose a kid. Literally - other movies have dealt with it in more of thriller kind of a fashion, this delves more into the whole tragedy and drama part of it all. What does it do to the family, especially the mother in this case? And you will get answers - but also a few questions. What does it do to the rest of the relatives? What can one do and how to deal with other people about it? So not an easy movie to watch - also one filled with certain cliches as is to be expected.

Still performances are really good. And the twists keep the story going forward. There are certain things this could have delved more into - gotten more out of certain themes so to speak. But as it is it is a decent drama - and one that feels close to life. Of course I have not read the source material so I can't compare it to that ... but books generally have more to it than adaptations anyway. So there is that ...

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.