Diagonaldi Very well executed

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

CountZero313 A 15-year-old boy, Howie, still mourning the death of his mother, hangs about with the wrong crowd at high school. Dad is too wrapped up in his crumbling business to take notice of his son's drift. School are over-worked and for them Howie will be one of many who slips through the safety net. As bad goes to worse, someone has to step into the void to be a crutch for Howie. This opens the door for Big John, a local made man and a predator on young boys. Like so many other kids, a lack of supervision exposes Howie to exploitation.That storyline never quite realises its potential in this bitty, at times infuriating story. Too many contradictions and narrative dead-ends present themselves. Howie's friend Gary is a very disturbed boy from the wrong side of the tracks. He envies Howie's middle class lifestyle, and Howie is too wrapped up in himself to see it. Except when push comes to shove, Howie finds it in himself to break into Gary's place and steal some guns. It makes for some nice visual inter-cutting (by virtue of the fact that Gary is simultaneously breaking into Howie's home), but in terms of character consistency makes no sense. Big John is a very sinister, very dangerous man, who preys on the young and vulnerable. And yet something about Howie ignites a noble streak in him, so that any sense of threat by Big John is quickly marked absent, and we are asked to believe that Howie's plight has brought out BJ's good side. Except that BJ is sick, and Howie is hardly credible as the cure.Howie is supposed to be confused and vulnerable, but quotes Walt Whitman in a confident and articulate style that belies his 15 years. At this point we see Paul Dano, trained actor, rather than the character he is playing.What was this film trying to say? That we are all shades of grey? Sh*t happens? Somewhere along the line, the thread of cause and effect got lost in this film. There are some nice moments - the Dad seeing his dead wife in every room - but none of it connects and the whole thing just does not hold together. Although the action being played out is believable, the psychology behind it is not, and any connection to other events and relationships in the film is tenuous. Something, many things, just seem missing here.

pogostiks I just want to comment about the ending, which many people ( Roger Ebert among them) didn't like.SPOILERS!!! First off, we must realize that Big John is not really a "pedophile"... that is a lover of boys. He is a lover of adolescents... the proper term would be "Ephebophile". However, since common usage has taken over, I will use the term "pedophile" here although it is not correct.There are two things I thought were good about the ending. First, it reminds us of the negative possibilities to Big John's way of living his desire for young men - in that he leads young men on, but ultimately will ditch them when they become too "old" for him.It is interesting to note that the young man who kills him does so out of rage from jealousy. He LOVES Big John, and wants his attentions for himself.Now this is already a major point to drive home to the movie-going public. Generally, they have been brought up to think that these boys are VICTIMS... they forget that the boys sometimes are HAPPY to be in the relationship (as long as it is working). The fact that they might get ditched for someone else is NOT just a problem with pedophiles; it happens at some point in almost any love affair. People seem to forget that often what keeps these kids with the older man is love... plain and simple.Yes, Big John is exploiting the kid who kills him - but that's not why the kid does what he does.Second reason why I think the ending is good: Most people generally think that the Big Johns in this world deserve to die. What they forget is the effect the imprisonment, or simply the end of the relationship might have on the kids in question. Here, Howie has just learned that his Dad is in jail. His mum is dead. The only person who seems to want to help him is Big John... in fact, the only STABILITY that Howie might just find in this world (now that his best friend has left him) is, once again, Big John. When Big John gets shot dead, my first reaction was "Omigod, NOW what will happen to Howie?" I think that this is an amazing ending, because despite all the negatives we might have about pedophiles in general, in THIS case we are suddenly forced to admit that Big John's death will be BAD for the kid, rather than good.I think that this is the first film that has ever managed to portray a pedophile in a fair light. It makes for reasoned thought as opposed to knee-jerk reactions. Bravo!

jdmotorcross15 L.I.E THE BEST MOVIE EVER. Hey I'm Joel from Toronto Ontario Canada I'm 18 and i was whouldring if any one know's Howie's E-mail because i want to Congratulat him on a really good movie it really reached me he is just like me and one day hopefully i can get a hold of him i seen the movie in 2001 and now it's 2007 it's really been a long time but the movie is still in my mind so if any one can help me out and get my e-mail to Howie that would be greatly aperhated THANK U SO MUCH CAN'T WAIT TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE Movie MY E-MAIL IS jdmotorcross15@hotmail.com plz send me back a messege thank u so much thanks agine bye for now.

adrian chan This is one of those films that must be hard to fund -- films like the Woodsman, The Magdalene Sisters, War Zone (by Tim Roth) or Monster -- but which, when made, distributed, and seen, recoups any expense and undresses any doubt. The problem with films like this is that they involve inappropriate undressing, be it by pedophiles, institutions, families, or serial killers. The appeal of the genre is in some ways the unthinkable, unacceptable, the distasteful and the unwatchable. It's that last part, the unwatchable, that creates tension, serving as a kind of off-screen reference that anchors the film's story and becomes its power for not being seen. (Herzog's Grizzly Man reveled in this, for it was a film about a guy who was eaten, along with his girlfriend, by the very Grizzlies he believed himself to be protecting, and everybody knew it. That was the whole catch: to know something that is not going to be shown, to be compelled by it, and to rent and watch this film knowing that it's a long set up to a final act we will not be allowed to see. Can it be that a film such as that prepares us for something horrible? Do we become complicit with it then, as consumers of that preparation?)Complicitness. This film shows us what happens. It is simple in its presentation, and for that complicates its subject matter. Because it does not plant a stake in the ground and draw clear, distinct and straightforward lines between right and wrong. Those are the films that are hard to fund. But better to watch. For they complicate their concepts, distribute perspectives and motivations, and sometimes even put the viewer harm's way.