TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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!

nhr_215 This movie was very well done but also quite disturbing. I don't know who wrote that this is a look "typical suburban life" but nothing could be further from the truth. This is the story of an alienated young boy who becomes the prey of the local pedophile. It realistically portrays both characters well, including the self-hate inherent in the pedophile's role as well as some of the emotional needs he fills for the alienated mother-less and essentially father-less boy. It is obviously disturbing by its very nature (unless watching a 15 year old boy getting blackmailed into having sex with a 60 year old man isn't disturbing to you) but very well done. The child actors are superb as is the actor playing the pedophile Big John. Its a thought-provoking but jarring look at an under-represented subject.

legspinner Quite a conventional film, this. It'll probably date quite quickly as screenplays move towards more culturally-mature discussions of sexual matters. I agree with the commentator who said "We need more films like this," - in places the characterisation is very comic-book; the father, especially. Nevertheless, Brian Cox is superb, and is quite the most complex portrayal of that type of character.At several points, though, I have issues. The counsellor gets far too irritated far too easily. If you've a problem kid, you don't stop them doing what they need to do to distract themselves, you read their unspoken thoughts and give them time while you work out the right question. She should have known that scolding wouldn't work with this kid. If this was the point, they should have developed the character of the counsellor, and shown that she was a product of a system that couldn't do anything but fail Howie. Having said that, we don't condemn 'Dambusters' simply because the dog is called 'Nigger.' These are notes for a future film.The kid himself is still too passive, too unable to think for himself at relevant places. I have tutored kids in this age range, and they have the intelligence to put two and two together vis-a-vis their father being arrested. Not to mention the weak way in which Howie's father's assault is dealt with. It gives the idea that all homosexual teenagers are pacifists whose only response to parental violence is to feel victimised, curl up in a ball and cry. If the kid is breaking and entering, and his father assaults him, he's unlikely simply to dissolve into tears and then give his father a rather strange hug. Which might be a good point, but unless it's developed more than it is in this film, we'll never be able to tell it from directorial sloppiness. This is a shame, because here was a chance to really call time on casually-violent fathers. The characterisation of Howie's dad smacks of committee thinking, "Well, is this kid's father gonna be an abuser or isn't he?" and the scene where his dinner partner has a heart attack just... missed the boat completely.Furthermore, the film doesn't seem to know how it wants to end. The shock of Howie being about to kill himself is utterly dulled by over-repetition of the bridge scene, and that Big John is going to get killed by his partner is telegraphed and spun out way too long. And, not to sound too Kermodish about it, but Howie's poetry *isn't that good,* and his commentary right at the end seems ponderous and unsatisfactory.Having said that, this film is worth watching for Brian Cox alone. Plus the fact that it is experimental, and, as Dr Frankenstein found out, experiments are never perfect. I'd love to give this a 9, but it's like the first University essay - you haven't quite developed the knack, the style; you're tentative in places, irrelevant in others. On the other hand, I was going to give it an 8, but Brian Cox is simply not to be missed. So 9 it is.

Mister_Kick There are some things I like about this movie, but I dislike more things.The cinematography, score, and style is beautiful. It was shot using some sort of high-saturation film, that really produces a unique and stylish effect. I also would agree with most people on here that the acting in this movie is spot-on, mostly on Cox's part.But, then again, I could go on forever with all of the things about this movie that are unpleasant. It seems like this movie was made simply to push the limits. The story is pretty weak, and at some parts repulsive, even to me, and I consider myself very open-minded. The message is completely lost in the subject matter, and in the end, you don't really know what you should feel. Most of the characters, other than the leads, are paper-thin, seemingly there just to add comedic relief - that isn't funny.Overall, this movie starts off with some great potential, a good foundation, but it just kind of falls apart. I certainly wasn't touched by it, as I found the lead characters rather hard to connect with. In the end, this movie just disappoints.