Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

eddie_baggins Shining a light on both suburban life and the trial's of one being faithful to their spouses in a world were temptation lay in wait behind every corner, Todd Field's confronting and brilliantly realised Blue Velvet like look at the lives of some very flawed human beings is a strong and powerful today as it was upon release in 2006.Nominated for 3 Academy Awards including nominations for two if its stars Kate Winslet and the unforgettable Jackie Earle Haley as the films vilified and mentally unstable Ronnie, Field's film is one of those rare drama's where every single actor is on the top of their game with Winslet, Haley and in particular the often disappointing Patrick Wilson delivering what all could well be career best turns in their respective roles.A large portion of Little Children's screentime is dedicated to the budding friendship/affair that starts up between Winslet's frustrated and angry housewife Sarah and Wilson's meandering stay at home dad Brad, as the two find solace in one another as their stalled lives come to a head and their community is overtaken with concern and outrage over the recent arrival of Haley's convicted criminal to their normally quiet and unassuming suburb.Adapted for the screen alongside Little Children's novelist Tom Perrotta, Field's wastes no line of dialogue or no scene in his 130 minute expose of the ever present battle to be content and the desire to be loved and to love and it's not often film character's feel so alive and real as they do here in this film.Winslet's Sarah is an intellectually smart and dedicated mother battling with a husband whose far from loyal in his own right, Wilson's lost soul like Brad has the trophy wife and beloved son but is seemingly lost with where he wants to get to in his life while Haley's Ronnie is an initially repulsive figure that somehow becomes something more as we grow to understand his true nature and the affliction he is battling with day to day while being surrounded by hatred of a world that lacks understanding for his condition.Little Children is very far from an uplifting experience but with these true to life and often against the odds understandable creations at the forefront, Field's film becomes an experience that will become a poignant one for many and a reassurance that everyone, no matter their circumstances, is battling in the wars of life.Final Say - If you've never seen Little Children, this is well and truly a film worth tracking down and while its often confronting and unashamedly raw in its uncompromising views of everyday human life and the ups and downs of relationship's, Field's film is a movie of real power and quiet beauty that can comfortable sit alongside other similar classics like American Beauty, Blue Velvet and Magnolia.4 ½ hastily evacuated pools out of 5

Lee Eisenberg Todd Field had been an actor for many years. He appeared as a crooner in Woody Allen's "Radio Days" and as a college buddy of Tom Cruise's character in Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut". He made his feature debut as a director with 2001's "In the Bedroom", in which a tragedy exposes the flaws in a couple's marriage. His next movie was 2006's "Little Children", about some unpleasant things going on behind the veneer of a perfect suburban life.The movie has a couple of stories going on, each loosely connected: an extramarital affair between a bored housewife (Kate Winslet) and a man (Patrick Wilson) known as a prom king, the arrival of a sex offender (Jackie Earle Haley), and a former cop (Noah Emmerich) who keeps trying to hide an ugly past. All described by an omniscient narrator.There aren't really any good guys or bad guys. There are simply people who do morally questionable things in a amoral setting. Lawrence Ferlinghetti once called suburbs something like "America's tragedy", and that's perfectly apparent here. Winslet's character's friends - if you can call them friends - are the most empty-headed people of all, while Wilson's character's wife (Jennifer Connelly) is hard-working but barely has any relationship with anyone, including her husband.One could make the argument that suburban Gothic is an overused genre. That might be the truth. Even so I recommend "Little Children". The movie makes clear why the characters do what they do. Basically, they're sick people who nonetheless have some good in them. In a way, Haley's character is the most sympathetic in the movie (even though he did one of the most unethical things).I recommend it.

schalla-32352 I just saw the movie: "Little Children" and I must say I was very disappointed too how Brad never got caught cheating on his wife! He had an affair with Sarah for goodness sakes!!!! He has been sneaking out and going behind his wife's back and it just wasn't appropriate whatsoever for a married man with kids and a married woman having sex. Why couldn't he just be honest? Why did he have to lie and go behind his wife's back? I wish there was a scene in the movie where Brad's wife beat the hell out of him and where he got caught cheating and lying!! This was very frustrating and why this movie was garbage. This can never really happen in real life! Especially when Brad's wife started to get a little suspicious and even sense that Brad was cheating but didn't confront him or say anything about it? Made no sense!

jimbo-53-186511 Little Children is one of those films that essentially looks at various people's lives and tries to weave stories together in order to come to some kind of profound conclusion. Narratives of this nature are risky as when they're done wrong you can sometimes find yourself alienating your audience. Unfortunately, due to the fact that every storyline is either badly developed, ridiculous or uninteresting it did make this film a rather long and painful two hours....The idea of a 'reformed' paedophile moving into an area where lots of children are living and stirring up fear and anxiety amongst the families of those children could potentially have made for a very interesting social commentary. This was actually where I hoped that the film would have focused its attention. Sadly, for most of its running time it focused on bored suburban housewife Sarah Pierce (Kate Winslet) in a loveless marriage (yawn!!!) having an affair with another married man called Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) who has no real direction in life and to me seemed to be living in the past. It's a trite and clichéd storyline which might have been bearable if Brad and Sarah had any character to them - the problem is that they are two of the dullest characters I've seen in a film and it made me feel mildly depressed watching them for over two hours. Whilst Sarah's reasons for wanting an affair are reasonable I struggled understanding what motivated Brad to have an affair? The only thing I remember was him being annoyed about their kid sharing a bed with them... That to me would not make most men stray (particularly as they seemed happy at other times).Another thing that really wound me up when watching this film was the voice-over; it wasn't the content of the voice-over (some of it was quite insightful), but it was more the way that the voice-over was delivered. To me it was really cheesy and sounded like something you'd hear on some lame 'self-help' video. It was just ridiculous and laughable. Sarah's life mirroring that of a fictional character called Madame Bovary was also rather cheesy. We learn during the course of the film that Sarah's husband becomes addicted to porn and Sarah makes a big deal about it (understandably) and tells her husband that 'we need to talk', but then that storyline is dropped and the next time we see her husband he's sat round a dinner table at Brad's and they're all playing happy families. To me it seemed rather pointless creating that storyline and then not taking it anywhere. The acting performances were terrible whereby nearly everyone seemed to be sleepwalking through the picture - the likes of Connelly, Wilson & Winslet are all capable of much better than this, but maybe they were all sleepwalking through the film because they were so bored by everything - hey if that's the case then I know how they feel!!!.The more 'interesting' aspect of the film involving the 'reformed' paedophile Ronnie (superbly portrayed by Jackie Haley) is virtually ignored for almost the entire running time. There's one incident in the pool and one incident when Ronnie goes on a date. The only mildly interesting storyline I found here was the storyline between Ronnie and Larry. When it's revealed that Larry killed a teenager in the mistaken belief that he was about to shoot another kid (both were carrying toy guns) I got the impression that Larry terrorised Ronnie more as a way of making himself feel less guilty for what he did to that teenager. Whilst Ronnie is an interesting character I never felt sure what the writers were trying to say about his character? He seems to be painted in a sympathetic light and doesn't show any signs that he's going to harm anyone, but then at the end of his date he goes all psycho on his date for no reason?? Then later his mum dies and we're presumably supposed to feel sorry for him again???Maybe the point of the film was to show that all humans are flawed and that in life maybe people should be given a second chance (there also seemed to be themes about letting go of the past and moving on). It's too bad that as a whole the bulk of the story is dull, boring and uninteresting (like a lot of the characters).