MovieChat Forums > I Am Sam (2002) Discussion > Do you think Sam should get Lucy? SPOIL...

Do you think Sam should get Lucy? SPOILERS

posted 15 years ago by onandonandon92
16 replies | jump to latest

This is a watchable and good film. However, I thought the plot was crazy. I don't think a mentally challenged person should be able to raise a kid. It makes sense she was placed in state custody. Sam was a good guy and loved his daughter but her living with him would have been dangerous to her. At least that's my view. Wht about the rest of you?

Bruno on negativity from gays-"you don't hear ze astronaut community bitching about Buzz Lightyear"

[–] zucchiniesinbikinies 15 years ago

I agree also. There should at least be someone else living with them.

There is a Simpson's quote for every situation in life.

[–] InAworld 15 years ago

teenagers have children all the time. their probably just as unfit to have children. parents in the lowest of the low poverty are having trillions of children and are raising them in disgusting, dangerous ghettos. fathers leave their children and women smoke cigarettes and blow it in their infants faces and the state doesn't care one damn bit. all you need is love.

I love Brian J.

[–] karana_geldar 15 years ago

I think the compomise at the end of the film was perhaps the best ending, Sam loved Lucy but even he knew he would need help raising her.

Obi-Wan is my hero!

[–] BeckyLadakh 15 years ago

Viewers seem to disagree on the conclusion of this movie. It seems to me, reading the comments and user reviews on imdb, that some viewers see Sam getting custody at the end of the movie, and others see a compromise being reached, perhaps along the lines of the arrangement mentioned by Sam's lawyer.

Sam's final comments about the foster mother being a good mother, and Lucy needing a mother, meant to me that he was willing to give her custody. I thought the friendly "see you in court tomorrow" goodbye between Sam and the foster mother indicated they were both willing to compromise. I thought they were going to come to some kind of joint custody or an arrangement where the foster parents would have custody but Sam would have extensive visiting rights. To me it looks clear, but many imdb commenters see a different conclusion to this movie, so I guess it must be ambiguous.

[–] sun78 15 years ago

How was Lucy living with Sam a danger to her?? Lucy was very well adjusted, did well in school, was clean and well dressed, was not malnourished and happy.
I dont understand how Lucy was in any type of danger.

[–] fidelio1980 15 years ago

A lot of Lucy's well-being was due to luck. It was lucky that years earlier Sam's neighbor happened to show up to tell him that babies need to be fed every couple of hours - he had no idea about that before the neighbor showed up.

It was also lucky that a bunch of strangers were willing to donate money for Lucy's shoes. Sam's functionality was so low that he thought he could just show up at a store with far less than the cost of a pair of shoes, and they'd give them to him, just because he had a good excuse why he couldn't come up with the money. What would have happened if other, less generous people had been at the store that day, or if there were no other customers around?

It's true, Lucy was fine on the surface, but it's hard to say how much of her health and normal appearance was based on her taking care of her own needs, in a way that no small child should ever have to.

Sam was a good guy, he loved his daughter, and it would have been horribly cruel to deny him the chance to see her very, very regularly. But no expert on raising children is going to agree that "all you need is love" in order to be a capable parent. And certainly no expert is going to agree that as long as there are immature teenage parents out there, it's okay to leave a baby in the sole custody of a severely retarded man who won't figure out he has to feed her regularly unless someone happens to come along who knows better.

[–] let_your_tongue_out 14 years ago

Those people at the shoe store were Sam's friends not strangers.

Just sayin'

[–] cheluzal 13 years ago

Heck, if he can get her to age 7 with no problems, he should be able to keep her.
She is smart and sufficient.

Define "opinion" then get back to me.

[–] bite_me_loser_86 14 years ago

I see some people didn't learn much from this movie.

Of course there are many mentally handicapped people that cannot and should not raise children. It all depends on the type and/or level of handicap. But trust me, many mentally handicapped people are responsible enough to raise kids and can do so lovingly!

I found this movie realistic in some ways, because in real life a grown up with the mental capacity of a 7-year-old couldn't be a legal guardian to begin with. In fact, Sam would probably in real life have his own legal guardian and someone to handle his bank account, and at least checking up on him.

HOWEVER this is a movie. And movies aren't always realistic. And in this movie we clearly see that Sam was able to raise her very well up to the age of 7. She wasn't in danger, she wasn't neglected and they had a wonderful relationship. The only problem was OTHER people getting involved or other kids teasing and laughing at her. Up until that started to happen, everything seemed fine.
So in the context of this movie, Sam looked to me like a very good parent. Sure, he would not be able to teach her geometry, or proof-read her term papers, but she would be having a tutor.

[–] nottoman 14 years ago

I noticed this also - viewers disagree with the conclusion of the movie.
I personally thought that Sam got custody and would use the many resources available to him to raise Lucy, especially as she got older: The neighbor lady, Rita, the foster mother, the YWCA, etc.
The foster mother's comment - see you in court, save me a seat on your side - meant to me she supported Sam having his daughter back, because she was convinced through recent events that there was an amazing bond of love between them and she felt she had no right severing that.
I just finished watching it the second time and was shocked when my daughter and son in law, who watched it with me, thought they got joint custody. I strongly think that the "seat on your side" referred to Sam having custody. The foster mother said that, before Sam said anything about needing help or that he always wanted Lucy "to have a mother", I feel it was said with no strings attached.

[–] JaysonT 14 years ago

That wasn't the ending though. "See you in court tomorrow" was NOT THE ENDING!

It ended with Sam watching Lucy play a soccer game. He had full custody.

[–] ender342 14 years ago

" I thought they were going to come to some kind of joint custody or an arrangement where the foster parents would have custody"

You didn't notice that the 'foster parents' could hardly take custody after the 'foster mother' kicked her unfaithful husband out of the house?

[–] hipster01cg 14 years ago

What I don't understand is why he wouldn't get some sort of state help in the first place. Surely Social Services can provide people with help to take care of their children. Like if anyone had a disability and they might find certain things hard to do would they not be entitled to some sort of home help. Its as if they're saying its his fault, he's doing it on purpose.

[–] LiveTogetherDialAPhone 14 years ago

The foster mother (Laura Dern) didn't separate from her husband, that was the lawyer (Michelle Pfeiffer).

[–] cribera-1 13 years ago

It was somehow implied at the end, IMO. Having an extra emotional help in Sam for raising Lucy, how could it harm foster parents?

I'd love to have such extra help for raising my kid. I don't really understand what the problem would be.

[–] grantss 13 years ago

Hell yes he should. He has managed to take care of her for seven years, learning how to be a parent pretty much on the fly, so why not in the future?

Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free