A few things that really bothered me...

I saw this over the weekend and once my tears dried, had to comment. (sniffle)

First off, let me just say that this is one of the saddest films I've ever seen (more on this in a moment). But on the good side, overall, It was a lovely, well-made movie, and everyone in it did a good job. I loved Gere's palpable warmth with Hachi (both puppy and grown-up versions), and especially loved Hallstrom's directing so much of it from the point of view of Hachi himself. I now realize that the Akita may be the cutest dog on the planet. Such a beautiful dog!

However, I had real problems with some of the writing choices in the movie, and just wanted to see if some of my issues were present for anyone else. Here goes:

1. The family's unrealistic almost immediate abandonment
Once Gere dies (in a very affecting and realistic moment), the way the family handles Hachi's life is really weirdly written and not entirely believable to me. It felt like a movie to me from that point on, if that makes sense.

The Mom instantly gives him to the daughter, who seems loving, but Hachi runs away once and she basically decides he "needs to be free." I'm sorry, but anyone who has ever had a pet knows that you don't just "lovingly" set them free (especially not the much-loved pet of the father she loved, abandoned to pursue their grief).

I get why the movie does this -- it's to make it seem okay that Hachi is choosing his own destiny, but it's such a waste, and incredibly sad. Wouldn't it have been better for the daughter to try to keep Hachi inside until he bonded with the family and had a chance for a good life with them? How is setting a beautiful much-loved dog free the responsible thing to do?

I just felt like this probably played better in the script, where the writers needed someone to nicely abandon Hachi so we could get to the famous train-station wait for his master. But to me there are other options since this is all a fictionalized version of the real Japanese tale. So why not be more humane and have the family struggle to keep Hachi? And to then stay in his life even after he moves to the train station to wait forever?

2. Hachi's tragic ultimate life and situation
Once Hachi has made his choice, there are still ways the scriptwriters could have involved the family in the story so they didn't look like such dog-abandoning jerks.

Why couldn't we have seen them visit Hachi at his station since it was evidently somewhat accessible? Why do the local shopkeepers seem kinder to Hachi than his former family? Why didn't the daughter at least bring the kid to visit Hachi, with toys and treats for him once in awhile? Why couldn't we have seen that they are at least monitoring the dog's living situation from afar?

It's all set aside though, so that we can see Joan Allen realize Hachi is still there... TEN YEARS LATER... in the big sad scene. I mean, yes, I was crying, but also, I wanted to throw things at her. She should have known where the damn dog was. There were articles about it in the paper, right? So for her to be so touched in that moment -- and then to evidently walk away and leave him there (alone again)... aghgh. I hated her for it.

My Mom died this past year. After her passing, we took care of her adored and much-loved kitty until she, too died unexpectedly this Fall -- both for the cat we loved, and because my Mom had adored her so much. Why doesn't anyone in this film look at Hachi the same way?

3. The "Hachi, my hero" crap
At first, I thought the opening with the boy saying, "Hachi was my hero," was a bit saccharine as a way to begin the movie.

Then the family abandons Hachi the moment Gere dies, and the dog lives for ten monotonous years (devastatingly brought to life from the dog's point of view by Hallstrom as director) waiting endlessly for a master who never comes. Sitting there. Alone. In the rain, cold and snow. Right. Let's hear it for how this kid treats a 'hero.'

While I appreciate the scene with the professor's Japanese friend which at least lets us know that the local shopkeepers will pitch in if Hachi gets sick, from a scriptwriting standpoint, it felt like telling versus showing, as nobody otherwise ever seems to take notice of the patiently waiting dog or for his comfort (except for one scene where he's given water). People basically ignore the dog. But wouldn't it have become a kind of local celebrity? Wouldn't people have sought it out to be kind to it, knowing its story?

And MOST OF ALL: Nobody thinks to maybe put a blanket down where he waits? A doggie bed, a doghouse nearby? etc.? Make sure each night he sleeps in a warm room instead of under a dirty train in the SNOW? (Aaghghgh!)

Meanwhile we get cuts from the poor old limping dog sleeping in the snow waiting for his dead master to the joyful kid who is weirdly looking at photo albums of Hachi and what a special dog I guess he used to be. This didn't strike anyone as pretty cold-hearted? The family abandoned this dog. Now this very kid -- who is overacting like crazy with his delight of the sweet Gere-Hachi pictures -- doesn't for instance ask, "Hey, can we go visit him? Can we make sure he's okay?" Nope. Nothing.

So then we get the poor old dog dying alone in the freaking snow FINALLY experiencing some happiness at reconciliation with his master after death, then this jerky kid finishes his big presentation about "his hero," the dog he never even bothered to visit while it was ALIVE? It didn't feel real to me, it felt movie-manufactured and clumsy.

Sorry. It's just a movie, and I liked the movie, and was really touched by Hachi and Gere. But I do not think this was anywhere near "Top 250" IMDb material. And the family's treatment of the dog really made me sad -- by the end, I was crying for the dog, but also crying because the family's treatment of him was pretty shameful. My family is Scottish, and I grew up on tales of Greyfriars Bobby (learn more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars_Bobby), who in real life also waited patiently for 14 years after the death of his master. But in Greyfriars Bobby's case, he was adopted and cared for by the whole town. He did not die old and alone in the elements. The movie could have given him a more humane yet believable support system.

Plenty of people romanticize the dog's actions in waiting for his master, but that didn't mean that abandoning him to his grief was the only right choice. For instance -- would Gere's character in the film, the Professor, have been happy at the way the next ten years of his dog's life progressed after he died? I don't think so.

Thanks for the chance to share my 2 cents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.