Pretty good movie, and Moore did a great job (as usual).
But... I wish they'd showed her being moved into a dementia facility (as is pretty much inevitable), then showed her as an old woman finally succumbing to pneumonia after spending the next 16 years as a crying, baby-food-eating nappy-poo-generator.
This movie only covered the first few years of what would have been likely to have been a 15-25 year tragedy.
The title says it all. It's the struggle of her trying to remain herself, and at the end, there is still a tiny spark of her left in there.
Also, we all already know what the future holds, so what is really the point of carrying the story any further? The title isn't "Still Alice, Then No Longer Alice."
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
Good point.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
Eh, that title may confuse a few Ellen Burstyn fans. LOL.
Doing nothing is hard. You never know when you're done.
[deleted]
The author wanted to end it where it ended.
Beans are evil. Bad, bad beans.
[deleted]
You may have missed the point. As the movie ends, she is "still Alice." My interpretation was that after that day, she probably ceased being Alice.
And FYI: the rapid-onset Alzheimer's depicted here would not have allowed her to linger on another "16 years." 5 would be far more realistic.
My people skills are fine. It's my tolerance of morons that needs work.
That wasn't the point of the movie, we know that happens (and is horrible), the point was to cover early-onset which is talked about less frequently.
And I think even the scene where she saw the dementia facility put it in perspective. When they mentioned one of the men there used to be a NASA engineer...
And I don't think she would have had 15+ years plus, expectancy is lower after diagnosis.