MovieChat Forums > Home Movie (2009) Discussion > Were the kids adopted?

Were the kids adopted?

posted 14 years ago by shesamazingnyc
2 replies | jump to latest

I apologize, but I didn't get to tape the beginning of the movie. I was wondering throughout the whole thing, though. Were they adopted?

The reason I thought they were is because there is the photo of the parents alone, and then the camera pans to a photo of the two kids fully grown, standing with the parents. Everyone I know with biological kids has photos of them with their children at various stages of childhood. Their room also seemed empty of all the kinds of things kid accumulate during a lifetime. It was very bare of toys and posters.

The mother references their birthdate and that they had no abnormalities or mental issues. It seemed like the kind of information you would get if you adopted children, not if you had given birth to them and known them for ten years.

[–] FearTheNumbers 14 years ago

It is never revealed, and we are left to speculate.

It did cross my mind that they may have been adopted though, when the father was telling the story about meeting the mother. He states that this happened on Easter ten years ago. This part of the film is set in April of 2007, and the kids were born in October of 1997. This means that the parents only met six months before the apparent birth of their children, which obviously makes no sense. Since the father is a priest, he would have wanted to marry before having kids. The timeline is messed up. It makes sense that they chose to adopt at a later date. But it is never mentioned.

[–] anglophilejen 11 years ago

I thought the same thing while watching it when they discussed when they met. The timing didn't add up for their meeting/having children. Adoption would make sense...also because the mother said she saw a jackal in the woods at the beginning. Wasn't the idea of the devil's heir that he would be born of a jackal?

Maybe they were going for an "omen" type idea.