SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

James Hitchcock Teenager Astrid Magnussen is having a bad hair day. Make that a bad hair life. Her father abandoned the family when she was a baby. Her mother Ingrid is serving 35 years to life in jail for murdering her boyfriend after discovering he was cheating on her. Her first foster mother, Starr, shot and wounded her when she began to suspect that Astrid had lustful designs on her live-in lover. Her second foster mother, Claire, committed suicide after the breakdown of her marriage. Her third, a Russian immigrant, exploits her foster children as cheap labour in her business. In between fosterings Astrid lives in a grim orphanage which seems rather less comfortable and welcoming than the prison in which her mother is incarcerated.If there were a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Fictitious Characters the makers of this film would be in big trouble indeed, although they would not be the only ones. I have never read the original novel by Janet Fitch, but I understand that in it Astrid is subjected to even greater sufferings which a merciful scriptwriter decided to spare her here.Any synopsis of its plot would make "White Oleander" seem like the cinematic of all those "tragic life stories" (aka "misery porn") which were filling our bookshops during the early 2000s, with the difference that the story told in this film is purely fictional, whereas misery porn generally is (or purports to be) based upon real-life events. Yet there is more to it than that; the film is skilfully directed by Peter Kosminsky and features some fine performances from a number of actresses. (The male members of the cast are generally less prominent).Michelle Pfeiffer's Ingrid is clearly intelligent, but also arrogant and totally lacking in moral insight, showing no remorse for her crime. Like Belloc's Godolphin Horne she "holds the human race in scorn"; she dismisses the working class as "trailer trash", and has a fixed prejudice against religion, especially Christianity, a prejudice which she tries to justify in the name of reason but which owes more to intellectual pride. She is horrified to see Astrid wearing a cross given to her by Starr, a former stripper turned born-again Christian, although in this case she might have some justification for her suspicion of Christianity. Starr (played in another fine performance by Robin Wright Penn) is the sort of born-again hypocrite whose faith does not prevent her from carrying on an adulterous relationship with a man still legally married to someone else and for whom accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour is not necessarily incompatible with trying to shoot your foster daughter.This is one of the finest performances I have seen Pfeiffer give. (She also looks stunning, far younger than her age of 44). Ingrid is a repellent individual, and yet Pfeiffer makes us realise that she is nevertheless a human being, particularly towards the end when her more vulnerable side becomes apparent. Pfeiffer's Ingrid is complemented by Alison Lohman's Astrid. Ingrid's main aim is to turn her into a younger version of herself, and Astrid's is to resist this process and to establish herself as her own person.The story is set in Southern California, and this is reflected in the brilliant light and bright primary colours which predominate in the film. Kosminsky makes particular use of the colour blue, and most scenes, especially those featuring Ingrid, have at least one prominent bright blue object.The film's main weakness is a lack of plausibility as far as the storyline is concerned, which is why I am unable to give it a higher mark. Any one of the mishaps which befall Astrid might be plausible in itself. That so many mishaps could have happened to a 15-year-old girl, at least without destroying her psychologically, starts to strain credibility. Some of the characters did not seem very credible either, especially Claire, although I felt this was less the fault of Renée Zellweger than of the script, which never told us much about Claire's background or enabled us to understand her frailties. I also wondered just how realistic was the portrayal of California's social services system. If Astrid's experiences are anything to go by, it would appear that the chief requirement for foster parents in the Golden State is to be totally unsuited to be a foster parent. The acting and the direction of the film are good, but the plot could have been better. 6/10

tabattr There is a big difference between the book and the movie, but I think the movie covers most of the important parts in the time frame that they have. The actresses chosen for this movie were perfect, even though the character of Claire is different in the book in terms of looks. I think the writers chose the right parts of the book to tell. I do wish that the movie portrayed the mindset of each character better, especially Astrid. For instance, Uncle Ray is much younger and attractive in the movie than he is in the book. What the movie doesn't show enough is how Astrid is interested in much older men who are actually in their 40's. Nevertheless, this is a must watch movie. It shows a lot about women and their emotions.

rumblinglove I'm not so attracted to the drama genre but this movie was actually very good. It tells the story of a woman with one daughter who goes to jails due to murdering her boyfriend; now she goes from foster to foster experiencing both positive and negative things. I just saw this movie and discovered what a masterpiece this is; it was entertaining at first but afterwards got depressing which caused me sadness. Then again I felt weirdly sadly happy at the end and didn't know really why. This isn't a light-hearting movie but yet it's good and just succeeds at almost every level. I found the acting to be good and the writing to be well down and as will as the direction and effects and all that stuff, but I wished their wasn't so much sadness in the movie and mostly I found sadness coming from that background music. Anyway, for all those who hadn't seen the film, I encourage you to see this one and I can assure you won't regreet but please don't be a negative viewer, and what I mean about that, the events of this movie runs somewhat slow; their's not that much of action but even though the movie itself is good; I'm usually not fond of movies with slow events but this movie seriously attracted me cause it opened my heart to make me realise how excellent it is. I can't express how I'm in love with this movie I just feel so passionate about it so I would like to thank the whole cast and crew and especially the writer not forgetting the author of the novel which without it, this movie never would've existed.

Angelina Perez-Derossi I was so extremely disappointed by this movie. I read Janet Fitch's book last year before I even saw the movie, and so much of the book was left out of the movie it was unreal. Then to make the matter worse most of the parts they included in the movie were not accurate with the book. Such as when Astrid went to live with Star. They left out so much of this, and Star's daughter looked the complete opposite of the way she was described in the book. Much of Astrid's relationship with Ray was left, and Ray didn't even look the part. The acting was weak even for a movie constantly portrayed on lifetime, all of the acting was unrealistic and looked amazingly scripted. I'm not even sure they indclued the part of the book when Astrid went to live with the religious woman and all of the other girls that starved, or when Astrid went to live with the couple in the trailer when she got all of her scars. I love Janet Fitch's book, but when I tryed to watch the movie I fell asleep both times.