Little Children

[dman476]

A cut and paste from my 'Last Movie watched' thread:

Little Children - 10/10

This film is tremendous, and definitely not because it's great.
It's severely manipulating. When the film ended, I thought I was going to give it a 5/10. With that in mind, this film is absolutely mind-blowing. An hour has passed, and I can't stop thinking about Ronnie, Kathy, Brad, and Sarah.
The future that awaits them, I don't know, and more importantlyI don't know the characters.This film is sad, beautiful, odd, contrived, cliche, and mesmerizing. The wolrd Perrotta and Field paint is stimulating, immerseful, and colorful. The manneurisms presented are anything but irregular, but the film is devoid of human goodness, and rather invokes unbearble darkness. The strive for happiness is never resolved, and it is a Hitchockian type of deprived sanity. The film never lands a flat note, and the wickedly weird narrative is blatantly out of place.
The acting is just plain churning at some places, with the reactions making me laugh: but the thing is, it gets a perfect score because of its sincere relation to the nature of the film. The film isn't a satiric and fun ride like American Beauty, fates hang in the balance all the time. The characters are always evil and good...acting as little children, and yet ironic in that it is the children of the film that balance life out in this distant and dark New England town.
This film isn't a masterpiece, and there are many things wrong with it. Most evidently missing is the sparkling and refined score by Thomas Newman, but Field uses music elaborately to convey the stunning silence and train-wreck that lies ahead.
Many of you will absolutely hate this film with every fiber of your being. I don't like this film. I don't like Hard Candy either, but they're the two best of the year for me (and coincidentally both star Patrick Wilson). It's a despicable, surreal, and emotional ride, made more stunning because of its simplicity.
This film, no matter how you feel about it, needs to be seen, and I know I won't stop thinking about it for a long time. Sometimes, films just need to be lauded for their originality (and difficult non-complacency to the norm). This is one of those films...

Write your thoughts people...

[chinton]

damn it why is it that the one weekend where three great films come out I'm really busy.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
damn it why is it that the one weekend where three great films come out I'm really busy.
Well, it could be two great films ;)
Sorry though that you can't see them.

Little Children is amazing, for me. Many of the shots are Kubrick-esque (stealing that from AICN :p), but it's real interesting.
The cinematography is gorgeous...

[chinton]

well I'll get back to you Sunday. I'm watching Departed tommorow and then Little Children Sunday. The Queen will have to be some other time.

[chinton]

scratch that I''ll see Little Children a t the 10:30 show at Arclight tonight. I'll get home late and I have to get up early but I've never seen you give a 10/10 before. I think this is worth the late night.

[dman476]

Wow Chinton, thanks for having so much faith in me :)
It's true, I don't give 10/10s at all. Maybe 8 in the past 7 years.
This film is just oddball...I can't describe it.
It's definitely a love it/hate it affair, but either way, it is incredibly refreshing and unique.
...
I don't see how you won't like it. :)
It is so worth the late night (I'd make one for the Departed, but I've got a fucking test tomorrow...online school class).

Report back, I'm very eager to see what you think (and hopefully we agree).

But seriously, I'm pyched that you're watching it.

[dman476]

Oh, and a friend of mine is going to the 10:35 thing.
He bought his tickets like an hour ago...and he says a lot of the seats (well, maybe an exaggeration) are sold.
I'd reccomend online buying.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by dman476

It's true, I don't give 10/10s at all. Maybe 8 in the past 7 years.



I don't give out too many 10's either. In the past 7 years I've given 7 movies a 10.

I don't see myself giving this movie a 10/10 though. Infact the only movies I think I may give a 10/10 to is possibly The Departed and/or The Fountain. I've actually already given a 10/10 to a movie this year (it was to World Trade Center). And it's EXTREMELY rare for there to be more than 1 10/10 per year. Then again in 2000 and 2003 I gave two movies a 10/10 those years.

Oh, possibly Babel too.

[dman476]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
I don't give out too many 10's either. In the past 7 years I've given 7 movies a 10.

I don't see myself giving this movie a 10/10 though. Infact the only movies I think I may give a 10/10 to is possibly The Departed and/or The Departed. I've actually already given a 10/10 to a movie this year (it was to World Trade Center). And it's EXTREMELY rare for there to be more than 1 10/10 per year. Then again in 2000 and 2003 I gave two movies a 10/10 those years.

Oh, possibly Babel too.
Yeah, 10/10s are pretty hard to come by.
Originally, I wasn't even going to give Little Children a grade (hence the contradictions in the reviews).
But I must say, shouldn't any powerful film evoke contradictions ilovemovies?

Oh, and I don't see you giving this film a 10 as well.
Hell, I don't think anyone will give this film a 10 here.
And they're probably right. I gave it a 10 mainly because I've never experienced anything like it with a film...it's really really gripping.

[ilovemovies]

Hey does Kate Winslet or Jennifer Connelly show any skin in this movie? :D

[dman476]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Hey does Kate Winslet or Jennifer Connelly show any skin in this movie? :D
I don't know a self-respecting man who wouldn't be curious (unless they don't like the two).
So, I'll write up a summary.

Jennifer Connelly:
ass shot in tight briefs (underwear) in bed.
That's it (but plenty enough).

Kate Winslet:
Let me say, A LOT.
many sex scenes, which include boobage (both), brief butt, and lots of moaning. You get to see Wilson's butt too, but that is more of a turn-off.

See? I'm a regular Mr. Skin :D

[chinton]

After dman's strang review I really really really wanted to like this. And during the first hour I had high hopes. It was interesting different unique. One thing I have to give this movie credict for is that until the final frame I really had no idea where it was going. The acting was great, which was not surprising considering the talent involved. I also thought it was visually gorgeous with some nice camerawork.

But then there was the script. Aside from the beautiful voice-over narration the script was contrived and completely over-the-top. There were several scenes where I think they were going for something serious, but it just ended up being really silly. I mean the scene with ostrasized sex offender in the pool was so on the nose and over-the-top. To me this problem only got worse where the last 30 minutes was so silly that I actually got really angry and considered walking out, but I didn't. I just really didn't understand how we were suppose to take the climax seriously. It was all just so stupid and silly (the father seriously injuring himself cause he wants to be a skateboarder!!!?).

On top of that despite two fine lead performances I just thought the lead two characters were so dull. We surprisngly learn very little about them despite the long running time. My eyes really started wandering towards the end.

I wish I could love this movie but to be honest I really hated it.

4/10

[dman476]

Oh my, that made me wince.
I knew that most of you were going to hate it.
I think the film deserves (lawfully) maybe a 6, but I still would give it a 10 for it's differentness (not a word I guess).
I'm really sorry Chinton.

ANd you make some excellent points by the way...I totally agree on everything you said. I wanted to give it that same score after I walked out, but I couldn't stop thinking about it, and I don't know whether that makes the film better, but it did for me.

But, I'll say it again, sorry. At least you liked the first hour (I liked it a lot too).
The film isn't great at all, but it was rather the feeling it gave me combined with the atmosphere. I think the silliness works in confines to the scope of reality presented, but it could have been much better.

I'm just an odd person.

Oh, and I guess it's going to be the same Lazy Boy/Science of Sleep scenario. :(

[dman476]

Chinton, after considering your review,
I now believe I am certifiably insane. ;)

If you are wondering who's review to believe, look to Chinton.

Wow, I am just weirded out now.
I'm thinking I may have given the film a 10 because subconsciously I didn't want to be let down (because it was my no.1 most anticipated of the year). I feel like an idiot.
And I think to regain my sanity I'm going to have to watch it again sometime soon without bias and make sure I'm back to my normal self.
:( :( :(

[Hannibal21]

Originally posted by dman476
Wow, I am just weirded out now.
I'm thinking I may have given the film a 10 because subconsciously I didn't want to be let down (because it was my no.1 most anticipated of the year). I feel like an idiot.
And I think to regain my sanity I'm going to have to watch it again sometime soon without bias and make sure I'm back to my normal self.
:( :( :(

Lol, that's actually sort of the impression I got from reading your review. :D

Everything in your review was well stated, but at the end of the day it sounded like you appreciated and admired the movie more (for the emotions it evoked out of you) than actually loved it, hence why the the 10/10 grade is a somewhat questionable. :)

I'm still looking forward though. It certainly sounds like a love-it-or-hate-it movie, and I just can't wait to see which side I fall on and how it'll divide audiences (memories from Dogville, Blair Witch, and Moulin Rouge! are brought back).

[dman476]

Originally posted by Hannibal21
Lol, that's actually sort of the impression I got from reading your review. :D

Everything in your review was well stated, but at the end of the day it sounded like you appreciated and admired the movie more (for the emotions it evoked out of you) than actually loved it, hence why the the 10/10 grade is a somewhat questionable. :)

I'm still looking forward though. It certainly sounds like a love-it-or-hate-it movie, and I just can't wait to see which side I fall on and how it'll divide audiences (memories from Dogville, Blair Witch, and Moulin Rouge! are brought back).
Heh, I know it does seem that way.
And you make a great point, I think I did appreciate and admire it more than anything. The 10/10 is very questionable, but I'm not going to change it just yet. I still keep thinking about the film, and with good thoughts, not aggravating ones.
But yeah, I hope you see it...and like it.
Very much so, it is a love it/hate it type film where there is no middle ground.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
scratch that I''ll see Little Children a t the 10:30 show at Arclight tonight. I'll get home late and I have to get up early but I've never seen you give a 10/10 before. I think this is worth the late night.
I said that my friend bought a ticket for 10:35 as well.
Just so you might want to know, he hated it as well. :D
Precisely for the reasons you listed. He said it was "surreal, in a bad way." Oh well...

[chinton]

lol its fine dman. I'm always interested to hear your opinions.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
lol its fine dman. I'm always interested to hear your opinions.
Cool. :)
Are you going to watch the Departed tonight?
I have a feeling you'll like it more. :p (I give it an 8-9/10).

[Fisting Ackbar]

If this is anywhere near as strong as director Todd Field's debut movie IN THE BEDROOM, it should be worth seeing.

Originally posted by dman476
Kate Winslet:
Let me say, A LOT.
many sex scenes, which include boobage (both), brief butt, and lots of moaning.

This is, what, the 6th film where she's taken off her clothes? My god, where does that woman get the energy?

[dman476]

Originally posted by Fisting Ackbar
This is, what, the 6th film where she's taken off her clothes? My god, where does that woman get the energy?
I don't know...but all I can say is: be my guest.
And as a P.S., she looks better in this than about any other film I've seen her in (the nude scenes at least :p).

[ilovemovies]

Bless Kate Winslet. Bless her. :p

I thought In the Bedroom was good but a bit overpraised. But I am still really looking forward to this.

James Berardilleni gave this movie 3 1/2 stars. USA Today gave it 3 stars. Entertainment Weekly gave it an A-. So reviews have been really strong.

[dman476]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Bless Kate Winslet. Bless her. :p

I thought In the Bedroom was good but a bit overpraised. But I am still really looking forward to this.

James Berardilleni gave this movie 3 1/2 stars. USA Today gave it 3 stars. Entertainment Weekly gave it an A-. So reviews have been really strong.
Yes yes, let's bless the stunning good actress Kate Winslet. :)

I have not seen ITB so I can't exactly compare...
It's a good film though. Odd, and that may be off putting to some people, but it's strictly perfect to the confines of its bizarre genre.
Imperfections in the story matter not because they make sense.
I say watch it ilovemovies.

For Chinton (Blake):
I've gotten an argument for (y)our faults.
The skateboard scene is vital to the film.
I thought it was stupid, cliche, blatant, pointless, and really fucking stupid. I couldn't believe it, but it makes sense.
Much like the affair is crazy but makes sense.
Brad had been dreaming (if you can remember) about skateboarding for a while, and at this lustrious invitation to stroke impulse, he goes for it no matter the reprecussions.
It's crazy, obscene, and pointless...but isn't that what temptatious love is (in respect to the film's moral conjecture)?

[Lazy Boy]

Plus, with his late night excursions involving the football team and his oft-mentioned moniker "The Prom King," I think it also makes the point that he's living vicariously through his youth, which gives him a sense of satisfaction not seen in his marriage, hence being one of the "little children" of the title.

Of course, that's the book, and the movie might be different and/or not really make it clear. I don't know. I'm going to try and see it today, but it may not happen.

Now, here's where I make a cheap plug for you to see The Queen. It's excellent, I highly recommend it. I don't think you'll have as much a schizoid reaction to it as you did to LC. :D

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Plus, with his late night excursions involving the football team and his oft-mentioned moniker "The Prom King," I think it also makes the point that he's living vicariously through his youth, which gives him a sense of satisfaction not seen in his marriage, hence being one of the "little children" of the title.

Of course, that's the book, and the movie might be different and/or not really make it clear. I don't know. I'm going to try and see it today, but it may not happen.

Now, here's where I make a cheap plug for you to see The Queen. It's excellent, I highly recommend it. I don't think you'll have as much a schizoid reaction to it as you did to LC. :D
Beautiful interpretation. It's exactly that, film or book.
And I always sensed that the adults were the little children because of their senseless and instinctual nature (more or less), acting like children. Or, then again, it could be taken directly to see that the children actually save everything. I don't remember how it is in the book, exactly, but in the film the children are what save Todd and Sarah from ruining their marriages.
The movie does make it clear, and at that scene, Wilson does some awesome acting. Gleeing like a small kid at Disneyland.
It's awesome though...I still can't stop thinking about it.

And your plug for the Queen worked. I was going to watch it anyway, and I really want to now. I won't be able to catch it today though because I'm busy with useless stuff today. :(
Wish I could though. Next week is definitely freer though, so I'll watch it then. :) Looking forward to the non-schizoid reaction, and sorry you can't see LC today. :(

[chinton]

Oh I get why they had the skatyeboard scene. I understand the message behind it, but it just felt all so silly. The football I went with, but the idea he would stop skateboard when he's trying to mett Sarah just was really silly to me.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
Oh I get why they had the skatyeboard scene. I understand the message behind it, but it just felt all so silly. The football I went with, but the idea he would stop skateboard when he's trying to mett Sarah just was really silly to me.
Cool. And I know, it does feel silly, but it kind of made sense to me, and after thinking about it, I thought it felt right.
I think part of him was fed up with Sarah (which doesn't seem right, but it was kind of a fling, and a stupid thing he said trying to committ to her), and he finally got to skateboard.
The Football thing was pretty cool...such a neat and surreal sequence.
The music was really odd too.
Did you like that scene Chinton?

[Lazy Boy]

Rating: 6/10

Ok, my thoughts are stewing in the oven of my mind right about now, so I can't post a fully cognant review...

Todd Field no doubt learned a good thing or two from the master Stanley Kubrick during his performance as Nick Nightingale in Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut. A seeming transference of style and talent has been enacted, but I say "seeming," because as much as I loved Field's work on In the Bedroom, this one apes similar Kubrickian control used in films like Birth for stiff, formal aesthetic. Another director I feel is apropos for comparison would have to be Todd Solondz.

Tom Perrotta's novel was rich and captivating, but ended with a thud (or, basically, just ended. Period. What the fuck are you doing looking for another chapter, go get some sunshine). Avid readers of the text will be pleased, as its pretty well translated, but a few minor changes and emphases put me off.

Why did I mention Solondz? Field lets the camera leer over Winslet's bosom in one camera transition, and her husband's fetish with online porn is given a brief, unfortunate detour, and never mentioned again, a difference from the book. Plus, Jane Adams in a small role brings to mind her put upon sister in Solondz's Happiness -- her character is privy to a secret tete-a-tete between a convicted child molester and his molesting instrument.

Ronnie McGarvey's subplot, and the way it ends, made me frustrated, because there was so much potential for something good, but watching the film, he feels less like a real person with demons than a screenwriter's construct for the redemption of another character, Larry, played poorly by Noah Emmerich. And, as much as the tension builds and the stars align and bring our main characters together, it also feels rushed and quickly concluded, with a trite narration (which feels like the one provided for Barry Lyndon) to cap off what we (little children) learned, a condescending finale that's almost as irritating as the one for American Beauty.

Once Leon Vitali's name popped up in the credits (he assisted Kubrick on many of his later films), I was taken out of the film, and reflected quietly what I had just witnessed -- as an adaptation of another medium, it's fine, but it has a snide "look at how ugly the suburban underbelly is, ooh ooh!" tone to it that weighs down the efforts of Field and his talented cast and crew.

[dman476]

Um...yay? You finally saw it? :D

Anyway, glad you kind of liked it, but disappointed at the same time too. More and more of these reviews are coming in, and I'm feeling like an idiot. I can't exactly explain why I like the film so, as I pretty much agree with what both you and Chinton stated, yet I really liked the film.
Is that crazy?

I see what you mention about Solondz, and it looks to me as if you're disappointed in some of the transitional book-to-film changes.
I tried to look at it as its own entity, and thus I didn't care much about the brief intro to the porn, under-wearing sniffing, obsessed husband.
Ronnie's ending story is a bit weird, and logical. Isn't it how the book ended (don't exaclty remembe)?
What didn't you like about the finale in particular?
(I liked the narration a little bit, it's odd, but I thought it was a nice touch).

And your last paragraph makes sense, but I kind of appreciated this animal outlook on suburbia. It's odd and un-pleasing, but the atmosphere is immersive and I just fell pulled into the film.
Did you not feel that at all?

Well, sorry that you and Chinton didn't like it. Guess I got your hopes up for nothing. :(

[Lazy Boy]

*SPOILERS*

Originally posted by dman476
I see what you mention about Solondz, and it looks to me as if you're disappointed in some of the transitional book-to-film changes.
I tried to look at it as its own entity, and thus I didn't care much about the brief intro to the porn, under-wearing sniffing, obsessed husband.
Ronnie's ending story is a bit weird, and logical. Isn't it how the book ended (don't exaclty remembe)?
What didn't you like about the finale in particular?
(I liked the narration a little bit, it's odd, but I thought it was a nice touch).

And your last paragraph makes sense, but I kind of appreciated this animal outlook on suburbia. It's odd and un-pleasing, but the atmosphere is immersive and I just fell pulled into the film.
Did you not feel that at all?

Well, sorry that you and Chinton didn't like it. Guess I got your hopes up for nothing. :(

I would've been fine with Sarah's husband being a panty-sniffing Slutty Kay lover...if Field decided to keep his plot in the film. Just introducing and the next shot having him huffing with the panties over his face is a big cosmic joke, and it's like "ooo-kay" for those who haven't read the book, so I guess I have more of an issue with, well, if they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, either chop that bit out or show the rest of Richard's dissatisfaction with the marriage.

Ronnie's story ends with him on the swing, saying "Mommy's dead" to Sarah as she comforts him. The movie captures that awkward tension, but when they decide to bring Larry in and show Ronnie's cut up privates (he didn't castrate himself in the book), I was annoyed and felt like Field was saying "Okay, remember what the chatty friends of Sarah said earlier, about cutting it off?" He took this literally and put it on the screen, where Ronnie's quiet suffering over the loss of the only person who really cared for him after his conviction should suffice in terms of our pity (and not in a bad way) towards the character. They should've just left the scene where Larry finds the writing on the floor saying "I can't" in response to Mrs. McGarvey's plea of "Be a good boy." Instead, it's as if the character needs to be dragged out in the open and violently punished for his actions. It just bugged me.

Don't worry about the recommendation -- I was actually excited for the film long ago simply based on the great trailer and David Poland's enthusiastic rave, which I should've been wary of due to his recent high marks for mediocre films recently. I guess you could say I admired it more than loved it.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
*SPOILERS*
I would've been fine with Sarah's husband being a panty-sniffing Slutty Kay lover...if Field decided to keep his plot in the film. Just introducing and the next shot having him huffing with the panties over his face is a big cosmic joke, and it's like "ooo-kay" for those who haven't read the book, so I guess I have more of an issue with, well, if they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, either chop that bit out or show the rest of Richard's dissatisfaction with the marriage.

Ronnie's story ends with him on the swing, saying "Mommy's dead" to Sarah as she comforts him. The movie captures that awkward tension, but when they decide to bring Larry in and show Ronnie's cut up privates (he didn't castrate himself in the book), I was annoyed and felt like Field was saying "Okay, remember what the chatty friends of Sarah said earlier, about cutting it off?" He took this literally and put it on the screen, where Ronnie's quiet suffering over the loss of the only person who really cared for him after his conviction should suffice in terms of our pity (and not in a bad way) towards the character. They should've just left the scene where Larry finds the writing on the floor saying "I can't" in response to Mrs. McGarvey's plea of "Be a good boy." Instead, it's as if the character needs to be dragged out in the open and violently punished for his actions. It just bugged me.

Don't worry about the recommendation -- I was actually excited for the film long ago simply based on the great trailer and David Poland's enthusiastic rave, which I should've been wary of due to his recent high marks for mediocre films recently. I guess you could say I admired it more than loved it.
You know, Richard's antics do seem a bit weird out of context, but it was rather comical and I didn't have as much a problem with the random-ness of it as you. It just does't seem that vital to the story to pay attention to, but I feel you...I hate it when un-necessary elements are brought unto the scene and then dropped.

And right, thanks for reminding me. He does say Mommie's dead, Sarah comforts him, and that's it. Exactly. That may have been a better solution for the film as well (and kind of a cheap shot as well for the "castration" talk).

I guess I admired it more than I believed in the artistic style.
Still, I am enamored by the film's different-ness.
Wouldn't you argue that it's very different?
I admire and appreciate films for their boldness, like Little Children, and although it has its flaws, it is still interesting and extremely different from most of the things I see.

Oh, and what did you think of the cinematography and music?
Just curious...

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
I guess I admired it more than I believed in the artistic style.
Still, I am enamored by the film's different-ness.
Wouldn't you argue that it's very different?
I admire and appreciate films for their boldness, like Little Children, and although it has its flaws, it is still interesting and extremely different from most of the things I see.

Oh, and what did you think of the cinematography and music?
Just curious...

Now that you mentioned it...I honestly can't remember much of the score, which is unusual since Thomas Newman is so vibrant and adds at least something to take with you from the theater. The cinematography by Antonio Calvache was good, he knows what he's doing since he worked with Field on In the Bedroom, and where he captured the blue sadness of that film, here he captures the warmth of the sunlight peeking in through the high windows.

I agree that at least the film was trying to be different, but like Birth, form over content can go only a short distance before you begin to wonder if the guy is stringing you out or really has something to say. And, I changed my mind, the narration suits this movie, and while I still think it has a condescending tone to it, nothing will match the utter contempt wrought by John Hurt's narration of Dogville and Manderlay. :D

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Now that you mentioned it...I honestly can't remember much of the score, which is unusual since Thomas Newman is so vibrant and adds at least something to take with you from the theater. The cinematography by Antonio Calvache was good, he knows what he's doing since he worked with Field on In the Bedroom, and where he captured the blue sadness of that film, here he captures the warmth of the sunlight peeking in through the high windows.

I agree that at least the film was trying to be different, but like Birth, form over content can go only a short distance before you begin to wonder if the guy is stringing you out or really has something to say. And, I changed my mind, the narration suits this movie, and while I still think it has a condescending tone to it, nothing will match the utter contempt wrought by John Hurt's narration of Dogville and Manderlay. :D
Wait, wait...any sign of you one upping the score to a 7/10 maybe? :D
(It's in my top 2 so far; which is nuts; Hard Candy and Brick are better contextually, but I love LC...The Departed is better than Brick, but I was really stunned by Hard Candy)
And YES!
Thank you for noticing.
I am, seriously, the # 1 Thomas Newman fan in the room at least (
:p). I love his work. Have almost every score, and one of the reasons I was dying to see this was because I was expecting another American Beauty type score. I was sorely disappointed.
It's the second time Field fucks this guy over (and coincidentally the second time he works with him). It's not Newman's fault...Field was looking for more background and subtle music, which really doesn't work in the film.

The cinematography I thought was on the target and beautiful. :)
Loved it.

I agree about form/content, but this was more a mixture than anything. I'm not sure if the film has anything important to say, and won't for sure until I think it over more and watch it again (although any decent film should make it painfully clear).
Glad you changed your mind on the narration.
I liked it because it seems if it is an observer watching from above...like reading a bed-time story. It's overwrought and a bit condescending, although I don't even think that was its aim.
I think its aim was to explore the surreal aspect of the film (I keep using the word surreal because I think it perfectly describes the film). I've never seen the use of this kind of narration, it's just different. Not good or bad; just different, much like the film.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
Wait, wait...any sign of you one upping the score to a 7/10 maybe?

http://videodetective.com/photos/872/036641_23.jpg

"In your dreams, little...oh wait, you're not Hayley. Wait, what movie is this? Oh, different pedophile flick, gotcha."

:D

On a somber note...no, I probably won't give it a 7, I just admire it, but I feel that a second viewing will produce the same effect, unless I'm looking for more subtext from a different angle.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
http://videodetective.com/photos/872/036641_23.jpg

"In your dreams, little...oh wait, you're not Hayley. Wait, what movie is this? Oh, different pedophile flick, gotcha."

:D

On a somber note...no, I probably won't give it a 7, I just admire it, but I feel that a second viewing will produce the same effect, unless I'm looking for more subtext from a different angle.
Hah, understood. Maybe you'll like it more from a second viewing, then again, maybe not. I want to watch it again to see how I react.
And odd huh, Wilson in two films about pedophiles.
What is up with that dude? :D

[Strider]

Little Children - 7/10 or ***1/2/***** stars

Five years later, after In the Bedroom, his critically-acclaimed directorial debut, Todd Field finally makes his return to the silver screen with Little Children, a quiet, slow-paced suburban drama about choices, their consequences, and accepting those consequences, like it or not.

Kate Winslet continues her streak of selecting interesting, challenging roles to play, and delivers a performance that is most deserving of one of the five spots in the Best Actress category. Patrick Wilson, an actor who is probably not well known by many people, is terrific as well, and it will come as no surprise if this one film puts his career on the map.

Where Little Children stumbles (and rather hard, too) is its ignoring of the relationship between Sarah (Winslet) and Richard (Gregg Edelman). While the film develops the other relationships quite well, it leaves this one hanging out in the open, and only allowing the viewer a brief, unsatisfying glimpse. A subplot, involving a convicted pedophiliac who has returned back to his suburban neighborhood, proves to be another flaw. Despite a perfectly creepy performance by Jackie Earle Haley, it seems unnecessary at times, and in the end, serves no point and has no pay-off.

Unlike In the Bedroom, Little Children fails to reach near-perfection and is not as powerful or haunting. Nevertheless, a solid, well directed, exceptionally acted piece of filmmaking this is, and come Oscar time, will likely be nominated in a couple of categories.

Strider

[dman476]

Okay then, so we have a 4, 6, 7, and a provisional 10.

The film's average rating is: 6.75

That's not looking too good. :/

[SpikeDurden]

I'm currently reading the novel and its really quite excellent so far. It's very powerful, but also surprisingly funny.

I love the cast, and In the Bedroom is one of my favorite films of the decade so far, so I have the highest hopes for this film.


The subject matter can certainly be a bit uncomfortable, though, I won't lie, however I'm hoping for the best.

[dman476]

I hope you end up liking it...nay, loving it. :D
The film is a little different, tone-wise, from the book, so be cautious.
The first half is a ltitle more humorous, but the second half leaves out the sardonic wit that was so bright in the novel.

[SheLizard]

I seirously cannot wait to see this -- I have heard so many good things about it. Of course I have no idea when it opens/if a limited release will open here in DC, but I am really drooling over it.

[Moviefan02000]

I really can't wait to see this. It's one of the few movies I know I'll definitely love. Everything is just pointing in the right direction for me to love it. I can't wait till it opens in Syracuse!

[dman476]

I hope you like it moviefan.

By the way, Ebert totally raped this film.
2 1/2 stars out of 4. Ouch. :eek: :confused:

[Lazy Boy]

The site editor, Jim Emerson, actually wrote that review.

[dman476]

Ah, okay. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's confusing :p
Didn't he write the Queen review at least?

[Lazy Boy]

Yes, Ebert wrote the review for The Queen, as well as Marie Antoinette.

[dman476]

Awesome. Thanks again.

[JCPhoenix]

I went to see this earlier today and overall I thought it was pretty good - not on par with American Beauty and it has its share of flaws, but still a great flick.

It also had a lot more subtle humor than I expected it would and I thought it was filmed really well. I don't think it's quite as complex as it thinks it is, but that didn't affect the film's watchability at least - it was a pretty involving watch.

At first I didn't know what to make of the narration, but after a few lines, I quite enjoyed it and I thought it was done well...it made it seem a bit like an anthropological study or documentary on human beings which added some wry humor, though it disappeared towards the end of the film. I was also surprised to see Connelly's role was such a small one...

I had a more detailed and better written write-up done a little while ago but I accidentally closed the window before I finished typing it up so that's all I'm gonna say on this for now...as is, I'd probably give it an 8/10

[chinton]

If only this film were subtle in either way. This film was about as subtle as getting beaten with a sledgehammer.

And I should probably say I've lowered my grade to a 3/10. The more I think about this film the more angry it makes me.

[DaMovieMan]

Ahhhhh crazy movie

I liked it a lot though, for many reasons..
but i still give it a 7/10

The thing i appreciate the most is Field's style that he's keeping up from In the Bedroom (8/10) and he's donig a really good job at it.
Also loved Winslet's preformance.

SPOILERS


It would've been higher but the ending really threw me off and I didn't like it. I understood what it was meant to represent (chinton, you have to look at the skateboard thing a little symbolically for example) but I didn't agree with it and it pissed me off that he had the letter at the end which he left for his wife?!?! Huge plot-hole, shame for Field to miss something so big.
Also, who remembers what the letter to Ronnie from his mom said?
Basically by the end I felt that the film gave up on a good message (escaping mundanity) by having Brad call that wife and Kate Winslet (Susan?) go back to that husband which they obviously need to be away from...
Field and Winslet deserve noms for sure though. The voice-over was good too, maybe made things a little too easy, but still good.

DMM

[chinton]

I get what the skateboarding meant symbolically. Nothing about this film is hard to get or even subtle. That didn't make the final skateboarding and its consequences any less silly and unintentionally funny.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by DaMovieMan
Also, who remembers what the letter to Ronnie from his mom said?


"Please be a good boy."

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
"Please be a good boy."

Cheers.

chinton: if you do get it then do you honestly think he wanted to be a skateboarder like you said in a previous post?


DMM

[SpikeDurden]

I've been hesitant about putting my thoughts on Little Children into words ever since I saw it a week or so ago, because I really just don't know what to say. In fact, more than a full week after seeing the film thoughts and ideas and images presented are still swirling in my head, affecting everything I do. I don't feel like writing a full, professional style review on the film, but suffice it to say, I haven't seen anything better this year. It's extremely kubrickian, literary, and brilliantly uses an omniscient narrator. It's satirical and subversive, it never manipulates nor do the characters resort to yelling, it's gorgeously shot, it has an air of intelligence, its subject matter is oftentimes uncomfortable, but its always fascinating and beautiful, and it has 4 astounding performances in the shape of Winslet, Wilson, Emmerich, and Haley.

I could go into more detail about every last image and idea within the film, but for now, at least, I won't.

I won't lie, though, I can see how it would be very devisive.

[DareDevil]

WOW smack me in the face and call me surprised, I don't know what I was expecting since the only thing I knew about the movie was the cast, but from the first 5 mins I was grabbed. Excellent screenplay and the actors really delivered great performances, I have to give credit to everyone, and Patrick Wilson really impressed me, much more than previously in the year when I saw him in Hard Candy. The actor who played the pedophile was very realistic; I don't think I could picture the guy in any other role again now. I really like the narration at the beginning and I wish they would have been more consistent through out with it. Little children was a pleasant surprise and definitely one of the years best. I’m going to watch this movie again hopefully on the weekend but as of right now I think I would give it an 8/10.

[chinton]

wow I wish I was as moved as everyone else seems to be. It seems to have struck a genreally positive note.

[chinton]

Originally posted by DaMovieMan
Cheers.

chinton: if you do get it then do you honestly think he wanted to be a skateboarder like you said in a previous post?


DMM


I don't know why I said that. I do get it. I just thought it was really silly. I mean I don't think it was supposed to inspire laughter (I think).

[someguy]

The narration was off putting at first but I grew to like it as the movie progressed. Winslet deserves a nomination for actress on this one, but my god is this movie a perfect example of how to screw things up. Everything was going so fine until the awful ending when it seemed like Field had no grasp on how to tie it all together so he just let it fall apart. I still loved the movie and would have given an 8.5 or 9 up to the ending. Unfortunately things didn't go too well so I'll settle on an 8/10.

[Fergus]

Very engrossing from the start, but once it got to that final half hour, the movie doesn't really go anywhere, I lost quite a bit of interest, and just ends quickly tying together the storylines to make the movie end. This has been an issue for some people I've noticed and it almost ruins the film, but I can't ignore that it was still pretty solid for 2/3 of the way through. And I appreciate the style, and the narration was refreshing at times but overall a little too sporadic in its placement. I'll think of it as a half-baked AB wannabe and give it a 7 maybe a 6 if I sit on it for awhile. Not really a love or hate for me, just a "bleh".

[Catherine]

Thought this film was good, although I wasn't expecting to enjoy it. There was some terrific acting and the story was compelling with interesting insights into human nature.

[daddiefatsacks]

just saw it, still sinking in.

A good little film, with very good performances, and some interesting stories - Its really weird that the guy who played Ronnie is from one of my favorite movies as a kid, bad news bears all grown up.

There are a lot of unanswered questions though, and i agree with most people on what was the point of showing Sarah's husband sniffing the panties and whacking it? especially if they aren't gonna follow up on it.

Kate Winslett is hot though, sweaty kate

7/10

[someguy]

The point was obviously to show how her marriage is bad but it could have been handled better.

[Scarfather]

My experience of watching this movie was just like my experience when I read the book, engroseed till the end, then annoyed and malcontent, however Thomas Newman's score over the credits was effective because I left the theatre happy with it, I didn't like the movie, but if it didn't exist, neither would Newman's new, perfect score, so I'm grateful.

[Scarfather]

-whoop double post-

[dman476]

Originally posted by Scarfather
however Thomas Newman's score over the credits was effective because I left the theatre happy with it.... if it didn't exist, neither would Newman's new, perfect score, so I'm grateful.
Props to the man!

[Monotreme]

Well, I saw the film over five days ago and things are still sinking in for me. There's really a lot to take in and decipher, and knowing Field and his previous film, In the Bedroom, every little tiny detail can be seen as a symbol for something. For now, I wrote a professional-style review that, near the end, sums up albeit briefly my first impression of the thematic elements of the film. I have bumped my rating up to 9.5/10, but I will require a few more viewings to be convinced that this is a 10/10. Here's the review:

I don’t know where this man came from. Looking at his IMDb profile, I see that he’s been in a wide variety of films since the late 80’s, both big rolls and small, and I vaguely remember his face from Eyes Wide Shut. But how Todd Field managed to get so darn good at film directing, especially considering that Little Children is only his second film and his first, In the Bedroom, is equally as brilliant and is a modern classic in my books, is completely beyond me. The man uses elements such as symbolism and nuance in his films really quite unlike any director since Kubrick and Hitchcock. Little Children is a perfect example of his fresh and yet total master hood of the filmmaking craft, and is one of the best movies of the year.

Field’s directing is truly spectacular in the film. He is manipulative without ever invading the territory of showing off or having the filmmaking take away from the performances or the story – in my cases a film will have superb technical merits but average to mediocre story and acting – such is not so with Little Children, which remains technically and directorially brilliant without pushing these elements before acting and story. Sarah and Brad’s affair, undoubtedly an improper, unfaithful and morally wrong ordeal, is filmed and the dialogue delivered in an innocent, almost childish manner. One of the most memorable scenes in the film involves the sex offender, Ronald, and his expedition to the public pool. I tell you, the way this scene is filmed makes it scarier than anything you would see in Jaws, as Ron swims around with a scuba mask amongst a pool crowded and packed to the rim with young children. Also utilizing Thomas Newman’s brilliant score, Field manipulates the audience in just the right way to produce the optimal emotional response and specifically the optimal understanding of the film’s various scenes, as in terms of tone the movie is extremely ambiguous and we the audience constantly find ourselves feeling something that would seem like a contradiction to the images on the screen. It is no accident, for example, that Ronald, the former sex offender is the most sympathetic and empathetic character in the entire film, and the two protagonists, Sarah and Brad, leave us cold, almost as if their affair derives from boredom and nothing more.

In terms of cinematography, the film takes on a wonderful, almost fantastical imagery, which again serves as a dire contrast to its somewhat dark subject matter. As a continuation of this trend, the characters talk in an almost childish manner, and the narration is somewhat playful and even cute in nature. Field lights his sets with a very minimalist and soft lighting – cinematographically the film is very reminiscent of In the Bedroom. But what Field does best in terms of style is his use of composition. From the opening static close-up shots of porcelain figures and clocks we know we’re in for an extremely interestingly set-up film – and indeed, we are treated to many very aesthetic and interestingly composed set-ups throughout the film, and in all, the film is gorgeously shot.

It can’t be denied, though, that probably the most evident and noticeable aspect of the film is its absolutely superb acting. Sure, the brilliant directing, witty writing and beautiful visual aesthetic all add to create a wonderful cinematic craft, but it is the amazing and superb cast who really raise the material just one more level upwards. Surely the most memorable and stand-out performance of the film is Kate Winslet, my personal favourite actress and one whom I see is really expanding her range and trying out new and adventurous things in recent years as opposed to the great number of costume and corset pieces (as wonderful as they all are) – these new ventures in turn bring some of the best roles of her career. And indeed, her performance as Sarah, the plainly put bored housewife who really has a lot more to offer to the world than simply staying home with her young daughter – a Master’s degree in literature, clearly a higher level of intelligence from the other housewives – and yet, trapped in this world of mediocre, middle-class suburban America. It seems that out of desperation and boredom if nothing else does she pursue her lust for Brad. In her role, Winslet shows incredible range and skill, as her character really puts on a façade, although you can see her true feelings behind her eyes. It is truly an amazing performance. Patrick Wilson doesn’t do too bad for himself either, although he certainly doesn’t have quite as “wow” a role as Winslet. Jennifer Connelly in her small but fascinating supporting role as Brad’s wife is absolutely spectacular – she really made quite an impression on me in such little screen time. Of course, this is one in a series of great roles she has under her belt, although she does tend to be a little hit-and-miss sometimes. But truly, the biggest and most incredible surprise of the film comes from a man named Jackie Earle Haley, who plays the convicted sex offender Ronald with such incredibly tragic sadness that we can’t help but identify with him more than anyone else in the film. Clearly scared by seemingly never letting go from his mother, it’s no surprise Ronald is attracted to children – he acts and talks like a child, due to a terrible and sad disconnection from anything decent or accepted. Haley, who was a child actor in the 70’s and who hadn’t done any acting since the early 90’s, delivers a truly amazing performance that really left a lasting impression on me and caught me extremely by surprise.

Naturally, a film dealing with this subject matter has some statement to say, and while it is slightly ambiguous and subtle, it is certainly there. On the surface, it is a sharp, witty and darkly humorous look at the ways in which we allow ourselves to settle and compromise – indeed, the film was certainly far funnier, cynical and just plain quirky than I expect, the narrator’s comments especially serve as extremely humorous and quirky observations of the characters and the events of the film. It is also admirable that the film manages to criticize and hold a mirror up to suburban America without traveling via The Ice Storm or American Beauty. But if one looks closer, it can be seen that the film’s underlying message has to do with judgment – particularly the way we judge others and the way we judge ourselves. It becomes apparent in the film that Sarah and Brad really have no reason to be unhappy – Brad may not be swimming in money or success, but he has a wife that is absolutely crazy about him and he about her. Sarah may not be doing to well in the spouse department, but she has a wonderful middle-high class life. Both have beautiful young children – and yet, both are apparently so incredibly bored with their routine that they find it justified to find an alternate form of happiness, as morally questionable as it is. Luckily, in the end both characters reach a sort of conclusion as to just how naïve and childish they were both acting, and in a twist of irony – both compromise their own happiness and impulse in favour of what is expect and accepted of them. As a total contrast to Sarah and Brad we have the characters of Ronald, the sex offender, and Larry (played outstandingly by Noah Emmerich), an ex-cop who has taken it as his personal mission to keep the neighbourhood safe from Ron. These are two characters who have to deal with incredible tragedies and extremely heavy burdens – Ron can’t leave his house without seeing death threats spray painted on his curb and can’t step foot in a public place without everyone getting away from him. He is so screwed up that he can’t even bring himself, force himself to act maturely and civilly around a woman, as seen in the date scene with Jane Adams – another wonderful supporting performance. I don’t want to give too much away, as it comes as somewhat of a surprise in the film, but Larry too has to deal with a series of extremely traumatic and deep personal tragedies. As we compare the dynamics between Ron and Larry, two people with actual, real problems, with the dynamics between Sarah and Brad – we practically find ourselves laughing at the childish impulsivity and entirely pointless relationship between the two – namely how they blow their “problems” (namely boredom) completely out of proportion, while in comparison to the real problems of Ron and Larry, the couple’s problems are really quite trivial.

In all, Little Children is a wonderfully well crafted, impressively directed, sharply written, beautifully shot and superbly acted look at our modern society – at once darkly humorous and at once seriously dramatic. The characters are fascinating, and in all, the whole world Field creates is one we simply enjoy being in for the slightly-over-2-hour runtime. Kudos to Kate Winslet, for really breathing amazing, incredible life into the protagonist, Sarah, and to Jackie Earle Haley, whomever he may be, who delivers an extremely, impressively brilliant supporting performance that certainly came as a surprise for me. It’s too bad that Field only has two films under his belt – he is certainly one of the most talented directors working today.

[dman476]

Gorgeous review Monotreme!

I just agree with everything, and I can't honestly see why the film isn't a 10/10 for you, but rock on friend!

I'm glad someone else loves the film as much as I do (and I, for one, think it is a much more complex and intricately faced film than In the Bedroom, a great film in it's own right).

Oh, and I couldn't write anything yet (unfortunately). My hands have been quite tied up with moving and buying stuff this week.

I'll have it up shortly after the dvd arrives. :D

[vincent2]

does anybody think this films going to be like IN THE BEDROOM; and get some major oscar buzz?

[dman476]

Originally posted by vincent2
does anybody think this films going to be like IN THE BEDROOM; and get some major oscar buzz?
I honestly don't remember if IN THE BEDROOM was appearing on many critics' lists.

If it wasn't, then it might have a chance. If it did, then it may very well have only a few minor noms (Actor/Composer/Cinematographer).

Hear's hoping it does get some major oscar buzz.

Why the interest chinton?

:)

[Lazy Boy]

Anybody else think Jackie Earle Haley is going to make it in? Or, will he be the Steve Buscemi/Peter Sarsgaard of the awards season, racking in some impressive critical wins but failing to actually make the cut in lieu of some bigger name?

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Anybody else think Jackie Earle Haley is going to make it in? Or, will he be the Steve Buscemi/Peter Sarsgaard of the awards season, racking in some impressive critical wins but failing to actually make the cut in lieu of some bigger name?
If anything, I think he will be the one who gets into the Oscars.

I don't see him winning per se, but I'd think a nom is a safe bet.

[Monotreme]

After the film's relative success with the Golden Globe nominations, I can definitely see it go on and get some Oscar noms. At least, it's certainly raised my hopes. And seeing how many critics' circles are giving their Best Supporting Actor prize to Haley, I'm crossing my fingers for that in particular. Screw Helen Mirren and her absolutely flawless channelling of Queen Elizabeth II - if it weren't for her, Kate, would finally get her Oscar!

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by dman476
Gorgeous review Monotreme!

I just agree with everything, and I can't honestly see why the film isn't a 10/10 for you, but rock on friend!
Thanks. Remember that I don't give 10/10's lightly. The only film that got 10/10 this year from me so far was Children of Men, and that's only because of the intense and total way it affected me upon my first viewing. Usually I like letting movies sink in before giving them the perfect rating.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Thanks. Remember that I don't give 10/10's lightly. The only film that got 10/10 this year from me so far was Children of Men, and that's only because of the intense and total way it affected me upon my first viewing. Usually I like letting movies sink in before giving them the perfect rating.
I see. I think it has a chance of going up for you. :)
I, for one, can't wait to see it again...if just to see what I catch this time that I didn't catch the first. It's primitively layered, but it's all so majestic.

Believe it or not, Little Children is the only film of '06 to get a 10/10 from me. '05 had zero 10/10s.

Still, '06 sucks in comparison.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by dman476
I see. I think it has a chance of going up for you. :)
I, for one, can't wait to see it again...if just to see what I catch this time that I didn't catch the first. It's primitively layered, but it's all so majestic.

Believe it or not, Little Children is the only film of '06 to get a 10/10 from me. '05 had zero 10/10s.

Still, '06 sucks in comparison.
Agree with these comments completely. I also have one film from 06 that got 10/10 - Children of Men - and one from 2004 - Eternal Sunshine - but none from 2005, although Brokeback Mountain was close. And yet, I get the impression that there were more good films in 2005, or at least films that I liked, than were this year. Then again, I haven't seen all those that I wanted to see, so we have yet to see if this statement will remain true. So far, more movies from 2005 got 8/10 or 9/10 from me than this year.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Agree with these comments completely. I also have one film from 06 that got 10/10 - Children of Men - and one from 2004 - Eternal Sunshine - but none from 2005, although Brokeback Mountain was close. And yet, I get the impression that there were more good films in 2005, or at least films that I liked, than were this year. Then again, I haven't seen all those that I wanted to see, so we have yet to see if this statement will remain true. So far, more movies from 2005 got 8/10 or 9/10 from me than this year.
Yep, agreed as well. Theren have been more 8/10-9/10 films last year.
Eternal Sunshine got a 10/10 from me in '04, and Big Fish got a 10/10 from me in '03. 25th Hour got a 10/10 from me in '02, while The Pianist was really close.

It seems like most years are better than '06. :(
Even last year, like you said, didn't have 10/10s, but Brokeback Mountain was really close. So were a few other films, while only 1 or 2 films this year came close (or actually hit) the mark.

[TylerDurden182]

Little Children- 9/10

Everything about this film is superb.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
Little Children- 9/10

Everything about this film is superb.


Pretty much how I feel.



I love the way Todd Field shows suburban life. He has this unique chaos that he brings to everyday life. I love it.

[queendiablo]

I have to say, though I enjoyed the film, it fell below my expectations :/

The trailer reflected somewhat a better movie :/

I am not going to spoil the movie for anyone who has not watched yet,so I should stop XD

2,5/5

[JCPhoenix]

I just gotta say that my initial reaction to this film when I first saw it (a couple months back) was an 8/10 and that it was yet another solid 2006 film...

But it's really grown on me since then. I've thought about it a lot more and of my 8/10s from 2006, it stands out by far the most to me so this could very well be a 9/10 for me. But I need to see it again. At this point it's my #4 movie of the year (and my third favorite movie of the year - United 93 is right above it and I don't consider that a "favorite" but I do consider it a great movie so)...