Steineded How sad is this?

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

mrwhitekeitel I started watching this movie with no pre-conceived notions. (I only decided to see it based on the presence of Michael Pitt, who has proved himself to be a very capable young actor, and that it was produced by the same producer as L.I.E. I had heard nothing about it.)I wish I had read a review before hand and saved myself some time and money. (Though the review I read here for it wouldn't have stopped me from seeing the film. They seemed to think simplicity means "art".) The acting was surprisingly good. That I am willing to say. If you want an acting class on how to react silently on film, Pitt's performance is sublime. Sadly, those moments do not save this clunker of a movie.Some times you see a movie that was based on a play and you can feel the story not fitting the medium of film. This was a very similar experience to that. It was like watching a badly lit stage play with close ups. You are robbed of the joy of going to see a play while also being robbed of the pleasures of film. They are two completely different mediums and this movie fit neither one.If it was play at a local theater, I would recommend it solely based on the mental exercise that would accompany the play on the ride home. But as a film, I must say this movie left me feeling flat. The camera felt intrusive. The pace felt forced. The violence seemed tame and unreal. Even the dialouge seemed as if it were written by someone who had never seen the inside of a prison. (Or if they had, it was in 1957.)The actors clearly did the best they could. They had to take this job for the chance to do good work and not for money, but sadly the direction and script didn't allow them to make a movie you don't forget about ten minutes before the credits even start.

Spookymindz I did not care for this movie at all, very uneventful and very little script, not a good one so i'd suggest you save your time and pass on watching this one as you may be disappointed by this movie. The ending was very abrupt and the story (script) had very little to offer the viewer.Pass on this movie and watch something good. This movie "Jailbait" was one of the worst movies i have seen, did not live up to it's billing. Basically a one character script due to the fact that Randy (Michael Pitt) had very little dialog and most of the movies dialog was by Stephen Adly Guirgis (Jake) who gave a good performance but still was not enough to save this movie from being awful, all and all i didn't enjoy this movie to recommend to you, so the best i can say is in this one sided movie was lackluster and didn't have much to offer it's audience in the way it was written it had no surprises or Suspense and little if any drama, the only thing that made this movie anything was Stephen Adly Guirgis (Jake) who's acting ability kind of saved this movie from being a total disaster which is what it came close to being, he did give it some uplifting moments at times but other then that it wasn't worth seeing, so take your chances if you do decide to watch this movie as it really failed in the script and the ending. That's the reason i had to rate it a 1 out of 10.

crescent-1 I just recently saw this fil at the Woodstock Film Festival and found it .... amazing.Michael Pitt and Stephen Adly-Guirgis were incredibly perfect for these roles. It was the first time that I had seen either actor and the cinematography made you feel claustrophobic and trapped as a prison cell. I think it really hit home about the prison system and how young men are raped and mentally abused by cellmates. It should send a message to the judicial system to monitor prisoners more and keep "chickens" from the hawks. Extremely provoking and sad. One of the best films of 2004.

Havan_IronOak `When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes' from one of Shakespeare's sonnets was used in 1967 (before Stonewall) as the title of a play about men in prison and the sexual games that were played there.Jailbait covers much the same territory and it would appear (if this movie is taken at face value) that some parts of society haven't moved ahead at all.In this prison drama, essentially a two-man play, we see the interaction between the hardened lifer Jake and the much younger, much more frail Randy (played by Michael Pitt)The first scene with the two men is deceptively mild but towards the end of that scene we see that there is menace just below the surface of Jake's behavior. From the `wounded doe' look in Randy's eyes at the beginning of the second scene we can begin to see that something is wrong and while what it is seems pretty obvious (given that it's a prison movie) we are not really certain for some timeUnfortunately the movie doesn't progress much from there. Like the men, we seemed sentenced to remain in the same place for much longer than we'd choose to.This movie is worth seeing as a character study and there are some memorable bits but it seemed to cover no new ground nor present any new perspectives over the 30 year old Fortune and Men's Eyes (albeit this one showed that it had a much better budget and was by far more polished)I was ultimately left unfulfilled and wondering why this movie had been made.